EXCLUSIVE "What in The World Are They Spraying" Chemist talks to ATS about Geoengineering., page 6

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:39 PM

link

Originally posted by neformore
If I can arrange this for the show, I will do. I'm working on it now. Right now there are ifs and buts and maybes, and nothing else.

If we do bring this to the show we will hear both sides of the argument - not just one - in an open forum with member call ins. The questions asked will be relevant to both sides of the subject.

The credentials of the invited guests (not individual private callers) will be checked beforehand as well by the radio crew. If they can't be verified we won't run it on the show. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I think you'll all agree?

Wonderful Nef! Thank you so much for all you do!

I sent an email to Mr Murphy and Dr. Thyme with the contact info per our discussion.

I contacted these people from their official pages, so I"m sure there will be no problem verifying identities.

I look forward to hearing them talk and I might just call in

Thanks again

piano

Here is the thread on Ormus gold that Dr. Thyme asked me to open. Please ask all questions on that topic here:
ATS thread link on Ormus gold.

pianopraze

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:23 PM

link

Originally posted by defcon5
I was a professional in that field, and I know for an absolute fact that chemtrails are a hoax, so who is the one denying ignorance, and who are the ones speculating on things for which they have zero proof and no expertise?

There is nothing is this world that scares me more than a true believer. Absolute dogma leads to absolute intolerance which leads to absolutely horrific evils perpetuated in the name of belief.
(even if the belief is a NON-belief)

Originally posted by defcon5
If he cannot answer the hard questions, or questions about his background, then that is really telling IMHO. *snip*. If he wants to make fantastical claims with no proof or experience in all the fields required to make those claims, then that is bad science, and a scientists should know better.

I contacted HIM via his official websites, he is the guy in the movie and if you can be bothered to watch the movie you will see that he is only addressing what is in his field of expertise: oxidized metals on organic systems.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by beebs

I skimmed through it, and I've watched as much of it as I care to. I have better things to do then watch almost two hours about something that I know for a fact is science fiction.

If your trying to tell me to be open minded because maybe I'll change my mind, then the answer is no. Not anymore then I could convince you that your given name is not really your given name. Nothing is going to change your mind about something that you know for an absolute fact.

Scarry... very....

You will not even take the time to read or watch pertinate information to contribute to the discussion. Your stance is close to fanaticism.

True science is always open to new data and evaluating new information as it arises. What you are describing is religious fanaticism.

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by kroms33
But yet there is NO problem with a moderator from a conspiracy site (key word CONSPIRACY) using his personal views to further his agenda by derailing the thread and attacking it's users?

I am not discussing personal views, I am discussing facts, and doing otherwise would in actuality be a violation of the terms and conditions:

Chemtrails is one of the easiest to disprove conspiracies that has ever come into existence because there is too much transparency between the military and civilian sectors when it comes to aviation.

I have already shown that you ARE discussing your personal view... or rather close minded dogma.

If you believe there are not a lot of aircraft flying over this nation without "transparency" to civilian air trafic, I've got a bridge with your name on it... If you can think of a hundred valid cases proving this then your even more close minded than I thought......

Originally posted by defcon5
[1]If he has no expertise in aviation or meteorology, then as a scientist he should not be GUESSING that anything untold is coming out of aircraft beyond the same normal old exhaust that has been coming out of them for years, unless he can PROVE otherwise, then should he?

[2]But all aircraft, that have to share the same sky as civilian airliners, are subject to the same rules, except when that airspace is closed and NOTAMS issued. That is federal law, they cannot hide that now matter how they compartmentalize it.

[3]I am a member first, and I am getting a bit fed up with the constant remarks in relation to my moderation here. I am not moderating this thread, and am not speaking here in an official capacity beyond that of a normal member. Its more like you are trying to use my modship here to silence me, the same way that you constantly attack phage in an attempt to silence him. I guess that any logical arguments that do not agree with your preconceived notions one the topic of chemtrails have to be insulted or threatened because your theories do not stand up to any real scrutiny.

[4]No, you chemtrailers are trying to use what is most likely something with a rational (if not natural) explanation and extrapolate it to mean that someone is spraying you from aircraft.

Firstly I notice you sidestepped answering my questions like phage.... *shakes head*

1. He is addressing the chemistry provided by the forester. Really you should at least watch something before commenting.

2. Really, that bridge has your name on it... I'll sell it cheap

3. Your questions and arguments WERE disingenuous in that post. I would have responded to anyone with the same reply, and that your a moderator makes it worse. You should stand for the best of ATS and you know it. It in no way moved to silence you, just provoke you to thoughtful discourse. Dropping the mod angle, you have shown yourself, as pointed above to be a close minded... well I'll just leave it at close minded. Fanaticism of any breed breeds evil. It is the ultimate ignorance, which we are to deny here on ATS! I have very few pre-conceived notions on chemtrails. I thought they were a hoax before this move and am more centerist view following where the facts and better arguments align. So far Those FOR geoengineering have presented a much better argument, but I keep my mind open and actively re-evaluate any new information as it is exposed. Your close mindedness fails to stand upto any scurtany and historically such attitudes lead to the greatest horrors of history. Present your facts, argue logically. I'll read all your sources, watch all your movies, and examine any arguments you present. Let truth and logic guide us!

4. I am an open minded individual examining this subject for the first time, not a "chemtrailer". I think most contrails are contrails. However there is plans for geoengineering and weither the project is operational, future operations must be stopped as Dr. Lenny Thyme points out these chemicals would be disastrous. I am open to all data as to whether or not it has begun. Feel free to present your case. extra DIV

pianopraze

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:45 PM

link

Originally posted by network dude

Thanks very much for the direct answer. My curiosity comes from the many people who believe that they are seeing chemtrails in the sky. I know that contrails can last longer than 5 minutes, 20 minutes, or even 4 hours based on conditions, but most of the chemtrail crowd seems to have ideas that when they see lasting contrails, they are in fact chemtrails. My goal in taking air samples at altitude would either prove them wrong or prove me wrong. And I am not alone in my assertions.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/674568543d5b.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6e939114e70b.jpg[/atsimg]

A plane like this is specifically made to take air samples. One like this would need to be flown into a contrail that a group of chemtrail believers thought was a chemtrail. Perhaps they could all agree that is was one of those "heavy spraying days" and then get the real scoop. If I am wrong and there really are planes out there spraying aluminum, barium, and other chemicals into the air illegally, then the world needs to know. People who claim to care about the earth and who adamantly believe in this conspiracy owe it to themselves, their country, and their Earth to do these tests. (IMHO)

Excellent suggestion!

This is the kind of data we need to reach a conclusive answer.

The problem lies in WHO does the testing. I would not believe anything done by our government or the UN as, if they are spraying, they have a vested interest in disinformation. Most other sources would not have the resources to buy such a plane.

Anyone on ATS have a telescope with photographic capability that could film or take photography of planes believed to be engaged in geoengineering?

pianopraze

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:51 PM

link

Originally posted by kroms33
I don't believe the efforts involved here on a wide level of people running ATS (mods) that are actually deleting ON TOPIC posts to this thread.

The topic is chemtrails. Doomzilla sent me what he wrote in the deleted posts through email - and it was ON TOPIC. This is getting a bit strange.

I don't believe in chemtrails, but I see a level of denial that makes me question the motive behind ATS.

Wow.

Let the doctor speak instead of derailing the thread.

I think a lot of the long, time ATS members are tired of the subject. It is new to me, and maybe I'll end up feeling similarly later on. However, given the evidence presented so far in the threads I've read and participated in, I'm leaning towards geoengineering has begun.

Even if it has not begun, we need to be aware they have the plans, funds, and conviction to carry it out. This must be stopped regardless whether or not it is a present or future operation.

It has been proven that they do dump aluminum chaff for certain military exercises and barium (i believe) for tests of certain over the horizon systems. So the deliverance systems are operational. But this is not geoengineering it is military exercises.

network dude

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:24 PM

link

reply to post by pianopraze

first off, nobody has to buy the plane, just rent it. And secondly, if an independent lab was commissioned to do the testing, and they were a non-biased group, I think the tests and results would speak for themselves. The only hang up is the lab has to get paid and the money for the plane rental has to come form somewhere. I am not volunteering since I think chemtrails are a fantasy and I don't personally need any clarification on my thoughts, but the side that believes they are being poisoned should be happy to donate to the cause of possible saving the planet. If they don't contribute, I think that says a lot for how deep their devotion is to this conspiracy. All you need is a point man to collect the money and order the tests. You could form a coalition to save the planet from chemtrails. You could call it PANIC. People Against Nasty Intrusive Chemtrails. (sorry for the jab, I couldn't resist.) Jokes aside, you could make it work if you put the effort into it.

weedwhacker

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:46 PM

link

reply to post by network dude

Well, problem is:

.... but the side that believes they are being poisoned should be happy to donate to the cause....

Some of those that "believe", and are driving this particular crazy bus, like Cliff Carnicorn for instance, are less than trustworthy. (Well, what would you expect form a hoax promoter??).

Carnicorn once proposed, a few years ago, to do just what is suggested here. Collected several thousand dollars (figures are inexact)....but, of course no "investigation" was ever mounted. The money?? Who knows....guess it was considered a "donation" for the upkeep of his website(s)??

shagreen heart

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:07 PM

link

reading this thread makes me want to quit this site. so petty and derailed.

inthemass

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:23 PM

link

Originally posted by shagreen heart
reading this thread makes me want to quit this site. so petty and derailed.

Agreed. We should not be fighting, but finding out facts. Where is the mutual respect?

lemmehowdt

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:26 PM

link

Originally posted by neformore
I have a question.

Given the alleged toxicity of the chemicals being pumped into the atmosphere by so called "spraying", why are we not seeing world wide mass animal die offs that are not isolated freak events, crop and foliage die backs and huge questions being raised by medical authorities about abnormally large amounts of chemicals in toxicity reports undertaken during autopsies, blood tests and other methods of medical examination?

Thanks in advance of the answer.

Was not trying to avoid the question, just hadn't got here yet. We are seeing animal die-offs - amphibians, bats and bees are all way down by early reports. I wonder about crops, since last year was horrid weather, but there are so many other variables. I'm very scared that we opened a pandora's box by allowing GMOs before understanding the ramifications.

Medical authorities are extremely self-serving and benefit by people being ill. They always want to run more tests to confirm something, but often they are not the right tests.

Oh - I'll be in for the radio show - i am also looking into a series of videos that get knowledge transfer happening.

lemmehowdt

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:37 PM

link

Originally posted by ParkerCramer

Originally posted by defcon5

If he cannot answer the hard questions, or questions about his background, then that is really telling IMHO.

Ahem!!!!

Could we get the same tough questions, along with verifiable proof from your so called experts here at ATS??

Can we get proof that your experts aren't just very good at research, looking up info, posting it, and claiming it's from THEIR own experiences???

I believe you can verify WHO the Dr. says he is.

It's almost as if you are afraid to even hear from the good Dr., if not, then why wouldn't you welcome him here...........then, your so called experts can rip him apart, pure satisfaction for you????

So, instead of trying to discredit him before he arrives, let him speak, and then "GAME ON".

Thank You
Parker

Ooh boy - rip me to shreds. I'm not into shoot the messenger games. But - i am willing to hear all theories that attempt to explain where the aluminum, barium and strontium are coming from. I can easily handle the idea that it is not spraying, but the geo-engineering stuff makes sense. I believe in conspiracies, so it is not beyond a shadow of doubt that Monsanto and the chemical corporations have nefarious intentions. I can really only speak to the bio-chemistry and the validity of the analytical data. My field is water, but air is important also. Be nice - i'm trying to get real facts.

Phage

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:43 PM

link

reply to post by lemmehowdt

You have not addressed my question regarding the testing in the Shasta Area.
1) Do you think the levels found are exceptionally high?
2) Do you have reason to believe there has been an increase the levels in recent years?

Do you not think that these questions should be answered before worrying about where the metals came from?

edit on 3/4/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

backinblack

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:36 PM

link

reply to post by Phage

IMO the tests were designed to test for levels of aluminum in the air, not the soil..
Is there a chart to show levels of airborne aluminum with past results for comparison?
IMO, that would be more pertinent.

lemmehowdt

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:08 PM

link

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by lemmehowdt

You have not addressed my question regarding the testing in the Shasta Area.
1) Do you think the levels found are exceptionally high?
2) Do you have reason to believe there has been an increase the levels in recent years?

Do you not think that these questions should be answered before worrying about where the metals came from?

edit on 3/4/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The aluminum definitely was exceptionally high - about three orders of magnitude more than natural. Barium and Strontium have no real good reason to have any concentration in snow melt. As to whether this is an increase - i only have a snapshot of one set of data - i can't discuss trends.

I am open to different alternative explanations. Earlier we were discussing pH - it really describes the status of the water, which is attracted to the different materials. Soil pH is altered by chemical fertilizers, but water pH depend on equilibrium species. There is more evidence that water is more significant than the metals and may have memory. You might appreciate the story told by Michel Schiff in his 1994 book The Memory of Water which delves into the science and politics of homeopathy.

The human body uses 75 different elements - just not these three. Why are they there? Let's challenge the assumptions - it is not spraying - okay snow melt - can it deposit in some way that is not airborne? Volcanic activity from some remote sector - carried by trade winds or the jet stream? I think spraying fits better.

Phage

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:12 PM

link

edit on 3/4/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

backinblack

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:13 PM

link

reply to post by lemmehowdt

Have you performed similar tests away from air traffic ?

We need a control of some kind to determine if these levels are abnormal or consistent with other areas where no contrails are seen..

Phage

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:18 PM

link

reply to post by Phage

This source, from 1920 says that aluminum was found in soils at levels from 2.07% to 17.11% in various areas in North America.
Soil Science
The highest level found in the tests published from the movie showed a level of 3.8%. Are there other soils tests available from Shasta which show much higher levels than that?

The snow melt tests were only for aluminum and barium. Both materials exist naturally in the environment and both materials appear in a single soil test which tested for both. Since there were no other materials tested for, how can it be said that the aluminum and barium were not from locally produced dust? How can it be said that the levels were high? For example, if silicon was tested for and the aluminum level was higher than to be expected in comparison there might be cause for concern but without that comparison, how can any conclusion be reached? Have you seen such tests?

edit on 3/4/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

backinblack

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:28 PM

link

reply to post by Phage

This source, from 1920 says that aluminum was found in soils at levels from 2.07% to 17.11% in various areas in North America.

Were them tests done on soil or on water ?
I'd suggest soil but your link is to buy the book...

Edit: Ah I see it says soil so I'm not sure of the relevance Phage...

edit on 4-3-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)

Phage

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:30 PM

link

reply to post by backinblack

The tests are for soil.
If aluminum were falling out of the sky it would not just land on water and snow.

backinblack

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:42 PM

link

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

The tests are for soil.
If aluminum were falling out of the sky it would not just land on water and snow.

No but you wouldn't expect the same concentrations in the air that are in the soil..

Phage

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:47 PM

link

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack

The tests are for soil.
If aluminum were falling out of the sky it would not just land on water and snow.

No but you wouldn't expect the same concentrations in the air that are in the soil..

There is a single "air test" provided, a filter wipe. It is as useless as the water tests are because it only tests for 2 materials. There is no reference to determine a percentage of metals in comparison to other materials.

edit on 3/4/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)