The Burden of Proof

The lack of proof regarding chemtrails is resounding. The lack of actual data is amazing, considering how much "spraying" is being done. What proof is offered? Typically pictures of contrails, videos or pictures of planes or spraying that were debunked repeatedly, or a single lab report from many years back of a slightly higher than normal amount of barium.

This is not what you would call conclusive proof of anything. I'm not a serious "debunker" or "shill" as you like to call folks - I just like to use a modicum of common sense when considering these topics.

Consider for a moment, the stories repeatedly heard here and on other conspiracy boards about the "spraying" being done. That sometimes it is so heavy, it makes a fog in the sky. That the criss-crossing of "chemtrails" is so prevalant, it's like a hazy cloud that dims the sun. And this happens supposedly often, over major cities around the world.. and even in remote areas.

Now let's consider reality:

The point of spraying would be what? Get in our lungs? Get in our water? Get on our food? All of the above? One would assume so, if their agenda was sinister in nature. So if they are spraying so heavily so as to accomplish this, then it's also getting in the soil, and getting in our water.

But.. IT'S NOT THERE!

There are no mystery chemicals.. no deadly amounts of metals or anything else that would be a serious threat to our health. How could I know this? Because testing is done. Every single day. Across the nation, and in many other established countries that have guidelines for soil, drinking water and groundwater. I don't think you fully realize how much testing is done.

I work for a large environmental/construction company. Among the many things they are involved in, a key component of their services includes managing levels of toxic materials in water and soil. Who hires them? Many corporations, who do not want to be fined heavily by health organizations, like the EPA. The government also hires them - did you realize even the government gets heavily fined for infractions?

Who does the testing? Our company does (they have some very expensive equipment that can break down and get ALL details on soil samples), and MANY other companies that we send the samples to. Why do many companies get these samples? Because the results must be accurate, and they need more than one confirmed source for toxicity levels.

How often do they test? They test DAILY in some areas. Often several times a day. Some wells have meters in them constantly, always monitoring. Where? Everywhere. Cities, creeks, parks, landfills, government ammo ranges, you name it.

So it's pretty simple. You say there is massive spraying going on, yet nothing is being found in the water or soil.

WHY NOT?

Logic says... because nothing is there. Environmental companies would not make money or be in business if they gave erroneous results. They are incredibly accurate. And they are finding nothing in the way of dangerous levels of anything. They ABSOLUTELY WOULD, if they were spraying to the degree you claim "they" are.

Explain how this is possible.

Thanks....lol...laughter is the best medicine and this gave me a good laugh....

Originally posted by Caji316
Thanks....lol...laughter is the best medicine and this gave me a good laugh....

Why? Are you able to answer the question of why nothing is being found?

Your comment means nothing. Provide logic and proof.

reply to post by fleabit

I know how people feel about this subject here on ATS, but...

I have to ask....Since you work at a company that does this testing, you would probably be able to get your hands on some of the findings, right? Your burden of proof would be easy, just show the results.

I don't know what you have been looking at for proof. But I have to say, if a Senator is worried enough to make sure Chemtrails are listed as a weapon of mass destruction in a Bill, there might be something to it.

Not only that, but if you do a wee bit more research, you might find more testing with different results than that of the company you work for.

OK!! Then prove to us that they ARE contrails then.. show us your proof of these NEW extra thick, extra long lasting contrails are nothing to worry about ........ show me yours, I will show you mine...

Chems have been researched, they have been tested and they have chemicals that are bad for us.

So they still spray it? Maybe

Do they do it often? I doubt because it would show in tests

Is it to kill everyone or make them sick? The idea is a probable conspiracy but has no direct proof, chances are if they do make us sick, it is not it's fundamental use.

What was it intended for? Weather manipulation, for the army and crops

Not to admit it exist is ignorance but to think they shoot it constantly? With the proof we have, I would say it's an idea based on paranoia.

reply to post by Lost in america

I've explained this before. People got pissed at me in the other forum for being a "troll" so i will do my best not to infuse this with anything other than logic. I respect your opinion, and listen to it, so expect the same in return. Increased air traffic means more planes in the air AND more planes taking the same route from major city to major city. Contrails are basically sheaths of ice crystals and condensed water vapor, and the process of sublimation (going from a solid directly to a gas) and vaporization of the water is contingent on many different factors, most primarily humidity of the air around the crystals. Sometimes the ice sublimates in a matter of minutes, but other times it takes up to hours. The irregularity of contrails breaking down has always been as it is now. I would go a step further in saying that if multiple flights are taking similar paths throughout the day, perhaps the ice crystals are compounding on top of each other and reinforcing themselves, therefore lasting longer, or even "reinforcing" each other, especially when looked at from the ground. That is, if multiple flights take the same path at multiple altitudes, instead of seeing multiple contrails, we would see one, resounding contrail, from the perspective of the ground.

now do i get to see yours?

There may be isolated incidents of spraying - it's well known they have had experiments seeding clouds. I am talking about the -MASSIVE- spraying that apparently goes on, according to folks here.

And the burden of proof is not on those claiming these are contrails. Contrails DO exist. This is already known. It's on those claiming deadly chemicals are being rained upon us.

I'll see what I can release. I see the results all the time. I will not risk my job, nor release any data that should not be released, but I'll see what I can allowably show. Some of it may be public knowledge. I see loads of data regarding soil, groundwater and wastewater testing.

And again, it's not just my company. Many companies receive samples from the same site, so there are consistant results. If there were dangerous amounts of anything, this would be a big deal, since our company would have to clean it up, and the company we are working for would have to pay for that cleanup. And believe me, they go over sites in micro detail, so they know EXACTLY what causes a need for a cleanup.

If this was happening, MANY sites would have dangerous amounts of the same chemicals, and red flags would go up everywhere.

reply to post by fleabit


I am very much in agreement with you. Good job OP.

reply to post by fleabit


Have you watched: "What in the world are they spraying?"

Just curious.

reply to post by Lono1


I've watched it, and posted a rebuttal here:

contrailscience.com...

Again - testing is done daily in every major city by a multitude of enviromental companies. My company is but one that does this sort of work. Once we get a job for monitoring or a clean up, an extensive process begins, which includes testing, keeping up a CoC (chain of custody) for the samples, having them sent to multiple labs for testing, and providing results pre and post-cleanup (which sometimes can take years), to the client. The EPA and other agencies monitor and fine if certain levels are not met.

If there were deadly amount of anything being sprayed, this would show up. It would raise questions, red flags, and everyone would know about it.

I'm not saying there is not spraying ever. I am saying there is no proof of a massive coordinated effort to spray for days over cities leaving fog or clouds of vapor. It doesn't happen. If it were happening, we would KNOW.

reply to post by Uncinus


Nice rebuttal. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

reply to post by v0ice0freas0n


How do they form in rural areas that have very little, if any, air traffic?

And I have never gotten a straight answer as to why Mr. Kucinich introduced this Bill to the House on October second 2001, describing Chemtrails, not Contrails, as weapons of mass destruction.

107TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all
humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space
by the United States, and to require the President to take action to
adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

www.gpo.gov...

reply to post by fleabit


That would be awesome if you could release something.

Oh, I would never ask anyone to do anything to jeopardize their job.

Can I ask which report it was you did see?

And thanks for a nice response, it's really appreciated.

Originally posted by pagan_night
How do they form in rural areas that have very little, if any, air traffic?

Like where? Everywhere has flyover traffic.

And I have never gotten a straight answer as to why Mr. Kucinich introduced this Bill to the House on October second 2001, describing Chemtrails, not Contrails, as weapons of mass destruction.

He didn't write it, Alfred Webre and Carol Rosin wrote it. He didn't know what was in it when it was submitted. He thought it was to ban space based weapons.
contrailscience.com...

reply to post by Uncinus


OK, I'll let you have it that Kucinich MIGHT not have written the Bill. But, the Bill did go through committee. Some very interesting committies at that.

Here is a very short explanation of that proccess and the link to check for yourself, with further explanation of the processes of committies.....

Committee of Reporting
The full committee may then approve, or "report" the legislation with or without amendment back to the House or Senate floor. For a measure that has been reported out, THOMAS lists the Committee(s) of Reporting in the committee display. In very few cases, a committee may unfavorably report out, or disapprove passage of a bill; more commonly, however, such disapproved bills are not reported out at all, but "die" in committee, and no further action is taken.

thomas.loc.gov...


If the Bill was just thrown out, that would have been the end of it. But it wasn't, it was gutted, after going through committee and re-written and passed at a later date. Below is the information on that.

Here is the link to Thomas, Library of Congress. The link to the specific page will not link properly. Just get to the home page and type in your search for the Summary & Status of H.R. 2977.

thomas.loc.gov...

Summary & Status
107th Congress (2001 - 2002)
H.R.2977
Committees



H.R.2977
Latest Title: Space Preservation Act of 2001
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 10/2/2001) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2002 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from DOD.

ALL ACTIONS:
10/2/2001:
Referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
10/2/2001:
Referred to House Science
10/4/2001:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
10/2/2001:
Referred to House Armed Services
12/6/2001:
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
4/19/2002:
Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from DOD.
10/2/2001:
Referred to House International Relations

reply to post by pagan_night


You are aware that "chemtrails" are not attributed to being in "Space" right?
They are atmospheric. There is no reason for them to be mentioned at all in a bill about Space Weaponry. Neither do most of the other things mentioned in the same phrase. Do you believe all those items are real and being use? Mind control? Extra-terrestrial weaponry?
How is mind control space-based?
Wouldn't the possession and use of extra-terrestrial weapons be a lot bigger story than some aluminum dust in the air? It sure would be. Where are the people proclaiming all the other things exist because they are named?
I sure haven't seen anything about that yet, have you?
Just like patents, if something is mentioned somewhere does not make it reality. "Chemtrails" are the only thing anyone remembers about that HR, because "chemtrailers" apparently have nothing else to bring up. So it is brought up ad nauseum.
Nothing becomes more real because it is talked about a lot. It really just makes it seem like that is all "chemtrail" believers have.
Can you find something more substantial and new?

reply to post by stars15k


I believe Chemtrails are used as weather modification/geo-engineering. I stated it was mentioned in the Space Act, and actually I have to correct myself. It was claimed as an exotic weapon, not a weapon of mass destruction. And the Bills also lists

HAARP abilities are mentioned in the Bill also......

I refer you to the definitions......

DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.


(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

Originally posted by pagan_night
reply to post by fleabit

 

That would be awesome if you could release something.

Oh, I would never ask anyone to do anything to jeopardize their job.

Can I ask which report it was you did see?

And thanks for a nice response, it's really appreciated.

The reports are technical and rather boring, to be honest, at least the lab reports. It's all the levels of all the chemicals, metals etc. in the groundwater, soil and so on. And I've talked with our chemists (one is a buddy of mine), and while I didn't ask them something like "So.. is someone trying to poison us?", I've asked how accurate these samples are: ppm for what chemicals, metals etc., how many sources they get samples from, and so on. From all the answers I've gotten, and from the data I've seen, it seems pretty clear to me that there is -no- chance of a widespread spraying over major cities. Zero percent.. none at all.

Here is the first company that popped up when I did a search:

One of many environmental companies

That is not the company I work for.. just one of a LOT of companies that do that sort of thing. Check out what they do. Soil sampling and characterization, site assessment, soil profiling, groundwater sampling, well monitoring, etc. I know we have a lot of competition. And then there are labs that just test soil and water from companies like these. There is a LOT.. and I mean a lot of testing that goes on around cities, in parks, landfills, wells, drinking water, you name it.

Why does it need to be thorough? And example of what happens if you don't:

Wayne soil processor faces more fines for lagging removal of contaminated material

That's just the first example that popped up. I know our company stockpiles these sorts of reports, as it's a nice motivator for companies to do remediation work. It's -very- expensive to not clean up.

Here is the other kicker... there is a ton of cleanup to do, because in the past, there were fewer laws by far regulating dumping, contamination, etc. So there are a lot of sites that are doing cleanup now, especially and ironically, the military.

Also, when a site is checked, it's checked a rather long distance from the contamination point. For example, if we were cleaning up a site near a factory, we would run water models (using software like XPSWMM), to see where all groundwater runoff goes. Then you check for contamination all along that path as well. I've seen quite the complicated projects - we even have experts on all the wildlife, so they can access damage to the environment as well. We even have huge freezers to store specimens from contaminated sites like from the BP spill - birds, fish, seals, even whales are studied in great depth.

In other words, I think there is a lot of study of soil and water that happens that people don't realize or think about. And if wholesale spraying was going on over cities, it -would- stand out. Because several of the key chemicals and metals checked for, are the ones chemtrailers say are being sprayed, including barium and aluminum.

Why people dismiss all this testing baffles me. I'm more than willing to hear reasoning behind how this doesn't matter, if someone has a logical response. But it's not like it's a huge conspiracy - it's companies trying to make a profit, working for companies who don't want to spend too much money to clean up, getting results from multiple sources. The data just isn't there to support a mass-spraying effort by agencies unknown.