PDA

View Full Version : Tony7777's ChemTrail Ideas



tony7777
2010-Aug-14, 12:06 PM
There is something in the air.

It is visible on satellite photos concentrated over populated areas. Independent testing shows the air where spraying occurs to contain toxic amounts of the substance in question; barium, aluminum, ethylene dibromide, micro-crystalline substances, etc. Visibility is reduced due to the spraying. Multiple medical university studies show that exposure to these chemicals in these amounts in this fashion is detrimental to health. No one here has signed a permission slip to participate in a study involving being exposed to these substances.

It needs to stop.

Where's the debate coming in and why?

vonmazur
2010-Aug-16, 02:14 AM
tony7777: You will have to provide proof of your assertions....and look up Wilem Occam sometime....

Dale

Swift
2010-Aug-16, 02:26 AM
Tony7777,

First, welcome to BAUT.

Second, to keep things a little better organized, and so we can clearly see what you are asserting, I've moved your post (and the response) from this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=1777771#post1777771).

Third, I strongly suggest you read the Rules of this Board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/32864-Rules-For-Posting-To-This-Board) (particularly rule 13) and the Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/86593-Advice-for-Conspiracy-Theory-Supporters). You will note, that as an advocate of a conspiracy theory (CT) it is up to you to prove your ideas and answer questions about them from other members.

Selenite
2010-Aug-16, 03:33 AM
Where's the debate coming in and why?

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/17557-Help-me-debunk-the-CHEMTRAILS-belivers...!!!!

The forum has been there and done that.

chrlzs
2010-Aug-16, 07:40 AM
Tony, let's just cut straight to the chase.

First, show us the tests that unequivocally show the results you claim. In particular, those tests will of course not only show the *exact* chemicals and amounts, but will also include a full explanation of the testing methodology. Given that contrails occur at 25Kft plus (99% of the time), ground level tests are demonstrably useless.

Second, please CITE the 'multiple medical university studies', or withdraw that claim.

Lastly, and here's where you can separate yourself from EVERY other chemtrail believer, as NONE of them have been able to respond to my simple challenge (I've issued this challenge at various forums):

Videotape some aircraft laying what you think are NOT ordinary CONtrails. The videotape needs to have provenance. Do you know what that means? It's fairly simple - it has to include the date and time, and it also must include references that show where it was taken, and in what direction the camera is looking. That's not very difficult - just use the roadsigns at a large intersection, and make it one continuous sequence - don't stop/start the camera. Finally, we need to know what type of camera it was, and at what zoom settings. (And keep the original media if you think you have something, after what follows below). (Oh, and for stability's sake, use a tripod..:))


Now before you bother to do all that, read on. And maybe you should try it all out for yourself, don't you think?

Using FLIGHTAWARE and a properly provenanced video, we/you can identify the flights. AND the altitudes at which they were flying. You can probaby guess where this is heading... :D

Using various sources, eg the University of Wyoming's Upper Air Soundings page, you can examine the conditions that the aircraft were flying in.

Using a further variety of sources, including NASA's 'Contrail Formation Forecast' and innumerable papers on the subject, you can then work out the likelihood of contrails.


Now, if you wish to still claim these are something other than contrails after all that, you need to address the reality first - and methodically AND SCIENTIFICALLY show why they are not just contrails. Handwaving and unsupported claims just don't cut it.

Anyway, here's some of the relevant links:
flightaware.com/ (http://flightaware.com/)
weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html)
www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/contrail_forecast/contrail_prediction.html (http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/contrail_forecast/contrail_prediction.html)


Enjoy!

Glom
2010-Aug-16, 11:30 AM
Is this a chem trail proposition? From reading the OP, it looks he's concerned about pollution in general. It doesn't mention aircraft.

Tog
2010-Aug-16, 12:26 PM
There is something in the air.

It is visible on satellite photos concentrated over populated areas.
So, pollution is greater over populated areas. I agree with that.

Independent testing shows the air where spraying occurs to contain toxic amounts of the substance in question; barium, aluminum, ethylene dibromide, micro-crystalline substances, etc.First you need to establish there IS spraying. Could any of those chemicals come from vehicles or industries in the area? Can there even be a toxic amount of aluminum? (serious question. Can there?)

Visibility is reduced due to the spraying.Again, spraying needs to be proven. Could this be ground based pollution reducing visibility.

Multiple medical university studies show that exposure to these chemicals in these amounts in this fashion is detrimental to health.You have links to these, right? Some way we can look at them?

No one here has signed a permission slip to participate in a study involving being exposed to these substances.
It needs to stop.It needs to show that it has started. Once there is some example that it's actually happening people can start looking into retribution for it.

Where's the debate coming in and why?Most of us on the "it isn't happening" side of the fence are asking the same question.

Swift
2010-Aug-16, 01:46 PM
Is this a chem trail proposition? From reading the OP, it looks he's concerned about pollution in general. It doesn't mention aircraft.
Since he posted his post in a Chemtrail thread, I made that assumption (see post# 3 for the link to the original thread). If he ever posts again, I assume we'll learn more.

JayUtah
2010-Aug-16, 03:27 PM
...

There is something in the air. It is visible on satellite photos concentrated over populated areas.

Lots of things "in the air" would be visible in satellite photos. That doesn't necessarily mean what you say is there is what the satellites have seen. Nor does it prove that it got there in the way you say. Please show us these "satellite photos" and elaborate the methodology used to determine what the photos depict.

Airliners fly over both populated and unpopulated areas. Trail behavior is observed in both cases. Please explain why your data seems to limit the phenomena to populated areas.

Independent testing shows the air where spraying occurs...

More details please. We are accustomed to hearing reports of certain kinds of sampling, only to find they are surface samples whose contents and supposed contaminants are only speculatively connected with trails.

Air sampling "where spraying occurred" would retrieve any substances in the trails as well as any other substances that may have been put there by other means, such as by wind. Sampling the air is scientifically useless without proper empirical controls. The proper method is to sample the trail, using proper controls.

...to contain toxic amounts of the substance in question; barium, aluminum...

These substances do not occur naturally in their elemental metal forms. Barium and aluminum are among the most common elements in Earth's crust, occurring chiefly as the relatively harmless compounds barium sulfate and aluminum oxide. These and similar compounds would be expected in any sample of practically anything taken within 100 feet of the ground.

...ethylene dibromide

An ingredient in some pesticides. Its presence in soil, groundwater, and in low-altitude air samples would not be unexpected.

...micro-crystalline substances, etc.

Handwaving.

Visibility is reduced due to the spraying.

Visibility is reduced by a lot of things. Airliner contrails, assuming the mainstream analysis of them as water vapor and other hydrocarbon combustion products, reduce sunlight on Earth's surface.

Multiple medical university studies show that exposure to these chemicals in these amounts in this fashion is detrimental to health.

Yes, there is medical evidence that some compounds of aluminum and barium are toxic in high doses. However those studies are only relevant if you can substantiate the presence of those compounds at the appropriate concentrations where they might be inhaled or ingested. Your "independent testing" is undocumented. Further, "in this fashion" suggests that the medical studies in question specifically consider "chemtrails." That would be something you'd have to explicitly document.

No one here has signed a permission slip to participate in a study involving being exposed to these substances.

Yet the National Institute of Health, which has executive authority to enforce 45 CFR 46 regarding the use of human test subjects, does not seem to be concerned with the abundant "chemtrail" claims. Nor do the many international watchdog groups that monitor human-subjects testing.

It boils down to whether there is credible evidence of any such exposure.

Where's the debate coming in and why?

There is debate on this point because the claims of chemtrail activists are unsubstantiated and seem to be based on quite an ignorance of the relevant sciences. Before we do something like bring criminal charges or enact public policy, we need to test rigorously the claims that such actions would be based on. If you are completely sure of your claims, then there should be no need to beat around the bush.

Garrison
2010-Aug-16, 04:20 PM
There is something in the air.

It is visible on satellite photos concentrated over populated areas. Independent testing shows the air where spraying occurs to contain toxic amounts of the substance in question; barium, aluminum, ethylene dibromide, micro-crystalline substances, etc. Visibility is reduced due to the spraying. Multiple medical university studies show that exposure to these chemicals in these amounts in this fashion is detrimental to health. No one here has signed a permission slip to participate in a study involving being exposed to these substances.

It needs to stop.

Where's the debate coming in and why?

The highlighted portion actually undermines the whole idea of some sort of deliberate spaying operation. The same governments who would have to be responsible for the spraying put those satellites into orbit to monitor the earth's environment, and then makes their output material available to the public. Don't you think tony7777 that there's a fairly huge contradiction right there?

NEOWatcher
2010-Aug-16, 05:49 PM
The highlighted portion actually undermines the whole idea of some sort of deliberate spaying operation.
Gee; I was wondering what the spraying was supposed to accomplish... :lol:

Garrison
2010-Aug-16, 07:27 PM
Gee; I was wondering what the spraying was supposed to accomplish... :lol:

oh lord, that's what you get for relying on the spellchecker.:) Though I think that idea has actually been suggested...

JayUtah
2010-Aug-16, 08:03 PM
The same governments who would have to be responsible for the spraying put those satellites into orbit to monitor the earth's environment...

Actually there are privately operated Earth-observation satellites. Until we see the data in question we can't assume it must be from a government source.

Garrison
2010-Aug-16, 09:35 PM
Actually there are privately operated Earth-observation satellites. Until we see the data in question we can't assume it must be from a government source.

Fair enough but it still leaves us with a super secret global conspiracy dependent on absolute information control who seem to have forgotten about those pesky satellite things....

CJSF
2010-Aug-16, 10:53 PM
There are private, high-resolution imaging satellites; however, the data release from them are embargoed by the U.S. government when collected over "senstitive" areas. And yes, the quotes are meant to denote that "sensitive" is an amorphous concept.

CJSF

Shaula
2010-Aug-17, 05:00 AM
There are private, high-resolution imaging satellites; however, the data release from them are embargoed by the U.S. government when collected over "senstitive" areas. And yes, the quotes are meant to denote that "sensitive" is an amorphous concept.
Well apart from SPOT, that being French and all. Out of interest have you ever ordered commercial satellite data? I have. And I can tell you now that it is very rare to get told you cannot have it. That is my experience, at least. I'd be fascinated to hear what experiences you base your comments here on?

FWIW contrail data can be extracted from weather satellites as well - see MODIS and so on. In fact it is much easier to do it this way than use high resolution systems. The weather satellites are moderate resoluition systems which spit data to the web semi-automatically - no censorship in them at all due to the large pixels. In fact the USGS and NASA distribute this stuff. And I have never heard of anyone ever getting told they cannot have it.

Here (http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pathfinder_research.html) are some nice images of contrails over half the US, for example.

Gillianren
2010-Aug-17, 07:18 AM
I think you missed some sarcasm there.

CJSF
2010-Aug-17, 10:15 AM
I do work with high-resolutiion imagery, every day, but beyond that I can't say much else.

CJSF

tusenfem
2010-Aug-17, 01:56 PM
Well, looks like Tony7777 is a one-post miracle.
Thread closed