Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering aka "Chemtrails" DEBUNK THIS !!!!

reply to post by firepilot


the samples that had excessive aluminum, barium and strontium were snow melt from the top of Mt. Shasta. All three elements should not be in the atmosphere - the question is really where did it come from. I'm okay with it not being sprayed from chemtrails as long as there is an alternative viable explanation. Occam's Razor does not always hold, but generally the simplest explanation is the correct one. They are spraying - the question is to what end. I agree with the prior poster that questions how they are breathing the same air if they are willfully poisoning us - very good question. But then - why does Monsanto need a patent for aluminum resistant seeds?

reply to post by lemmehowdt


Wrong! Right here....you are perpetuating the crux of the very myth, the lie, the misconception that is being uttered, repeated and spread by the "chem"-trail hoaxers:

....We know that some planes leave short trails called comtrails and others leave long trails that turn into clouds called chemtrails.

CONtrails, ALL of them. The part I bolded, and underlined? Wrong. CONtrails that persist, and become high level CIRRUS clouds (and are usually joined by more, naturally-occurring cirrus clouds, due to conditons being ripe, and conducive). The mere passage of the airplane, and the contribution from its engines, makes the CONtrails form. This triggers MORE cloud formation.

The airplanes are merely a technological "catalyst" (a term from chemistry, I hope you will recognize...).

reply to post by Essan


awesome paper. this demonstrates that they were spraying chemtrails back in the 60's. who sprayed what? what was the composition? Maybe we think we know more than we really know. Did they also have crop circles back in the 60's?

Many other people both here and elsewhere do not believe that they actually exist either and they simply explain them away as being a normal and natural phenomenon of the common jet contrails. They like to call them "persistent contrails" and they vigorously defend that notion with quite a bit of passion and fervor. And they also like to deem anyone of an opposing view point to be unintelligent, naive fools. Who are gullible, uninformed and/or misrepresenting the facts. Along with a long list of other derogatory terms that end with things like con artists and even dis-info agents.

Some of those among the now non-believers were convinced that "chemtrails" do not exist due to the extreme tactics and lengthy efforts of the very same group of anti "chemmies" I encountered. They try to use as many angles as they can, if not all of them, The modes of attack and methods of explanation are sometimes scientific, sometimes rational, mostly they are overly critical and emotional, as well as other methods of distraction, diversion, dissemination and out right propaganda and bully tactics. They are able to and have been convincing many people that the mere notion that "chemtrails" are real is completely, utterly and absolutely absurd, preposterous, a lie, a con and a complete hoax unequivocally, without a shadow of a doubt a false, farce, creation of a wild imagination or a drugged up, doped out mind with a simplistic view point and just an out right unaware being who is living in an unawake state of consciousness of self delusion and fantasy

I agree wth the uninformed and/or misrepresentinmg the facts part. I will not beat the dead horse on your thread so I will say that I am flattered to be one of the folks you are talking about.

Thank you.

Originally posted by lemmehowdt
reply to post by firepilot

 

the samples that had excessive aluminum, barium and strontium were snow melt from the top of Mt. Shasta. All three elements should not be in the atmosphere - the question is really where did it come from. I'm okay with it not being sprayed from chemtrails as long as there is an alternative viable explanation. Occam's Razor does not always hold, but generally the simplest explanation is the correct one. They are spraying - the question is to what end. I agree with the prior poster that questions how they are breathing the same air if they are willfully poisoning us - very good question. But then - why does Monsanto need a patent for aluminum resistant seeds?

Yes they should be as part of dust. You can not have that in soil, which they invariably will be, without them being also part of dust.

Sorry, but the idea that these can be part of the ground, but somehow magically not get picked up as dust, is strange. What do you actually think makes up much of dust and natural particulate then?

For a scientist as you claim, you have this belief that water will not have anything else in it, and the dust should not actually have anything from the ground in it. Soil gets moved around by the wind, it always has been.

reply to post by lemmehowdt


Once again, some clarification:

....the samples that had excessive aluminum, barium and strontium were snow melt from the top of Mt. Shasta.

Would you please explain how these samples were obtained from "the top" of Mt. Shasta?

Was a helicopter (possibly) employed, to go up, land, and collect them? There, that is your "out". But, there should be some corroborating evidence to back it up.

To add....if you wish, I can search for the link to a report that was studying the naturally occurring methods that allow dust and other particulates that originated in East Asia to be carried by winds all the way across the Pacific Ocean, to be deposited in Alaska.

What would you think of that? Surely, there are evidences of many other (natural) mechanisms for distribution of "contaminates" all over the planet, besides intentional "release" and "spraying" from airplanes or other aircraft??

reply to post by weedwhacker


time out - not trying to argue semantics - no proof that chemicals are in the water vapor - you need to tell me an alternative for how they got into the snow melt, if not from the plane. I was trying to define words - if you wish to change the words, fine - the red queen in alice in wonderland stated very clearly that words meant exactly what she thought they meant.

Originally posted by lemmehowdt
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

time out - not trying to argue semantics - no proof that chemicals are in the water vapor - you need to tell me an alternative for how they got into the snow melt, if not from the plane. I was trying to define words - if you wish to change the words, fine - the red queen in alice in wonderland stated very clearly that words meant exactly what she thought they meant.

So, if I may ask, how did you get to this idea that anything present in water, must come from airplanes?

reply to post by firepilot


how much dust is in a snow sample that has just fallen? I'm confused - not critical - can you take the time to explain to me where your thinking here is.

check this link : hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

aluminum in earth's crust is not evil - it is inert. That is precisely why it is not good in the body - i posted about this on another thread. I did not personally collect the samples - i set forth an inquiry about them to the person that did collect them, to find out the answer to the where question. The top of Shasta was a colloquium , i doubt that they were taken at the very tip. But again - that is semantics - what is going on is the question that we would both like to answer.

reply to post by Essan


That isn't what I asked for, it is a paper that generically describes trail formation from an ambiguous point in the morning to a conclusion in an ambiguous time in the afternoon. This pictured formation could have started at 10:59am and ended at 1:01pm.

Well within the confines of what I would expect a trail to do in cold, wet Colorado, but failing to extend to the times I've seen Chemtrails stay around.

Even if you correctly showed "proof" of unusually extensive Contrails prior to 1990, you still would not have disproved all reported Chemtrail behavior. Among others, persistent trails in skies that contain little to no moisture. (cloudless)

Originally posted by lemmehowdt
reply to post by firepilot

 

how much dust is in a snow sample that has just fallen? I'm confused - not critical - can you take the time to explain to me where your thinking here is.

check this link : hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

aluminum in earth's crust is not evil - it is inert. That is precisely why it is not good in the body - i posted about this on another thread. I did not personally collect the samples - i set forth an inquiry about them to the person that did collect them, to find out the answer to the where question. The top of Shasta was a colloquium , i doubt that they were taken at the very tip. But again - that is semantics - what is going on is the question that we would both like to answer.

Well anything falling through the air, whether snow or rain will get some degree of dust in it. Ever noticed how the first drops of rain, often are the dirtiest and can make a car dirtier than it was before?

That, is dust, and is primarily going to be soil particulates picked up by the wind. And that link you posted, states exactly what I said, that its 8 percent of the earths crust.

So, again I would like to ask. If it is 8 percent of the earths crust on average, then why do the people in that "movie" get alarmed at much lower levels they have found?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


So many people ask for proof. If you refuse to believe what has been presented to prove that chemtrails actually do exist then trust your own eyes. Seeing is believing. I saw thirty of them lined up in the sky like corduroy and they lasted all day until they finally blended into each other. They are so heavy in the atmostphere they do not evaporate but expand over the course of hours into a milky haze. They aren't everywhere so many of you don't believe simply because you haven't been able to observe. So I understand your skepticism. I would highly recommed viewing the video series also on youtube called "What in the World are They Spraying?" In the video, Part 1, the chemtrail spraying is admitted by the researching scientists. They also admit that they don't know the long-term effects on humans of the ingredients. They are stumped. I have to say if you cannot accept the truth of chemtrails existing then you just cannot handle the truth or you are a disinfo agent. To all government disinfo agents out there: It's been admitted and documented so you can stop fighting it now, k? Go onto the next disinfo assignment.

Originally posted by firepilot






Well anything falling through the air, whether snow or rain will get some degree of dust in it. Ever noticed how the first drops of rain, often are the dirtiest and can make a car dirtier than it was before?

That, is dust, and is primarily going to be soil particulates picked up by the wind.

It would seem to me that the first drops of rain water are merely spreading the dirt around that is ALREADY present on your vehicle, as opposed to picking up dust, encapsulating it in the raindrop, and then spreading it onto your vehicle.................Just an observation??

Parker

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by Essan

 

That isn't what I asked for, it is a paper that generically describes trail formation from an ambiguous point in the morning to a conclusion in an ambiguous time in the afternoon.

It describes what meteorogists and atmosphereic scientists have known and have been studying for decades and what chemtrailers say only started in the 1990s.

It decribes exactly what I've been seeing for decades and what you see today.

Prove otherwise, or accept you may be wrong.

Edit: I cannot provide a 10 hour youtube footage of spreading contrails from the 1960s. No more than I can provide a youtube video proving the Giza pyramids existed in the 1800s.

But can you provide a 10 hour youtube footage of spreading contrails from the 2000s? One which can be proven to have been taken on a date and location when according to accepted atmopsheric science such spreading contrails cannot occur? The onus is on you.

Originally posted by ParkerCramer

Originally posted by firepilot






Well anything falling through the air, whether snow or rain will get some degree of dust in it. Ever noticed how the first drops of rain, often are the dirtiest and can make a car dirtier than it was before?

That, is dust, and is primarily going to be soil particulates picked up by the wind.

It would seem to me that the first drops of rain water are merely spreading the dirt around that is ALREADY present on your vehicle, as opposed to picking up dust, encapsulating it in the raindrop, and then spreading it onto your vehicle.................Just an observation??

Parker

Nope..they pick up dust as they fall, its just normal and has happened since as long as there has been rain. Not saying that rainfall may not alter pre-existing soil/mud/dust etc on the car, but that the earliest rain drops can have lots of dust and particulates in it, its well known

This really can not be something seriously controversial, that dust is in the air and raindrops pick it up on the way down.

reply to post by lemmehowdt



Good afternoon Dr. Thyme, and welcome to the boards

this demonstrates that they were spraying chemtrails back in the 60's.

I think this comment from you may be jumping to conclusions, based on a preconceived notion that contrails cannot persist, and what you are seeing is actually a chemical/s being dispersed into the atmosphere.

Here is a great thread authored by a credible meteorologist explaining the phenomenon of why contrails can persist and spread out, and is not evidence of spraying.

Real Contrail Science, why they persist and why they spread out and why they are not chemtrails

Originally posted by lemmehowdt
reply to post by Essan

 

awesome paper. this demonstrates that they were spraying chemtrails back in the 60's. who sprayed what? what was the composition? Maybe we think we know more than we really know. Did they also have crop circles back in the 60's?

No, Doug and Dave only started in the 80s I think.

But what the paper demonstrates is that the meteorological explanation for what people today claim to be chemtrails is nothing new - it came first.

So why profer a new explanation? Surely first you must falisify the original one? prove that what you see cannot be contrails. As a scientist you will know that that is the correct proceedure.

Surey, if they are not contrails, someone by now ought have obtained undeniable evidence to falsify the contrail theory? Until then .....

Hi MallardDuck.

Originally posted by MallardDuck

 

. . .I will compile my own findings on the topic and at time when I feel is suitable I'll post my findings.

To help you with infos, see that extensive well done report !
www.chemtrailcentral.com...

As usual, "they" will say the site is no good, yada yada yada yada. . .
You be the judge !

Blue skies.

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by lemmehowdt

Why do they not mention, that strontium is also used in toothpaste, and that aluminum is a major part of Mylanta?

Fluoride is in toothpaste. Have you ever heard about why the put Fluoride in the water? Dripping poison into our water supply is a safer way and legal way to get it into the environment. Did you know that the EPA finds someone dumping the same chemicals used to "fluoridate" water into fresh water they get fined?

I'm not trying to change the topic or to look like a disinfo agent, but the point i'm trying to outline is that if TPTB will make it legal to pay someone money for poison municipal water supplies then why wouldn't the same, if not more cruel, PTB be capable of chemtrails?

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
. . .Here is a great thread authored by. . .

posted on 2011/3/4 @ 05:39
Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Sourcing another ATS thread doesn't cut it as evidence.

Could you AT LEAST respect your own rules ?!?!?!

Blue skies.