Debunk this tripple dare (impossible)

Just a small hint about Carnicom...

As you can see here http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/morgobs7.htm carnicom claims in his pictures magnifications from "approx. 5000x" to "approx. 7000x"...

Sorry, optical Microscopes are limited to around 1500x magnification, more isn´t possible, because by more magnification a pixel would be smaler than the wavelength of the visible light. This is called Abbe-Limit see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system#The_Abbe_diffraction_limit_for_a_microscope

I don´t trust Carnicoms claims, that his simpel-blurred pictures are made with such a magnification.

Please. First search the thing that exists, then as it doesn't. http://fap01.if.usp.br/~lff/moE.html up too 5000x (10 X 250 X 2 = 5000). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._Electron_Microscope,_magnification_5000x.JPG image speeks for itself.
His microscope is a regular one optimized with a logitech sfx webcam. pro wiki is pro.
 
Please. First search the thing that exists, then as it doesn't. http://fap01.if.usp.br/~lff/moE.html up too 5000x (10 X 250 X 2 = 5000).

The Manual of this microscope does only specificate up to 1000x (see http://www.mikroskopie.de/olydocs/BX51'52_DE.pdf - Page 30/31 ("gesamtvergrösserung")

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._Electron_Microscope,_magnification_5000x.JPG image speeks for itself.
His microscope is a regular one optimized with a logitech sfx webcam. pro wiki is pro.

This is not from an optical Microscope, it from an "Scanning Electron Microscope"
 
if the conditions are right it should be on all the time and the other planes should have the trail as well


Not necessarily...consider why clouds have gaps-why do clouds "turn on/off"?

the atmosphere is not a static parcel of air- its moves like a fluid and has lots of potential variability.

The conditions can change in just a matter of feet...a few degrees warmer and maybe the contrail will not form...

or a 1000 feet of altitude and the conditions change- so that 2 planes look like they are at that same level from the ground but are in different conditions
 
Like this, The second plane should also leave a trail???

As anyone can see, the plane without trail appears to move notably faster than the plane with trail. Yet it is very likely that both planes cruise at the same or similar speed but at different altitudes. The one that flies lower will appear to move faster.
 
It looks same height, everything.. Yes it is possible one area is dry or other one is wet .. or one is emiting something that isnt only water and CO2.


actually- it doesn't look the same- the first plane appears much closer to the viewer...and yet they appear to be nominally the same height- but given the angle of the viewer the plane further away would have to be at a higher altitude in order to appear to be the same height.

They could only be 1000 feet apart in altitude...and that could easily account for a few degree of temperature change- say between -30 and -35...

EDIT: I didn't actually watch the video at first...but after TS's comments I did...and he is spot on. (sorry for the pun)
 
It looks same height, everything.. Yes it is possible one area is dry or other one is wet .. or one is emiting something that isnt only water and CO2.

Different engines leave contrails in a different range of conditions - it's even possible for different engines on the same plane to leave contrails or not at the same time, due to different power settings. See Experimental Test of the Influence of Propulsion Efficiency on Contrail Formation, Schumann and Busen, 2000.

Edit: but I agree that it looks to me like those two planes are not at the same height.
 
I love these rational posts. They re good and i understand your logic. But u don't understand that the elite running the world are evil. When they anounce the new world order / UN bangerang and the world implodes financially and its all aout civil war. It is all a coincidence dont worry!! the state will save u!! Then think again about the chemtrail theory :)

EDIT: Won't be long now!
 
I love these rational posts. They re good and i understand your logic. But u don't understand that the elite running the world are evil. When they anounce the new world order / UN bangerang and the world implodes financially and its all aout civil war. It is all a coincidence dont worry!! the state will save u!! Then think again about the chemtrail theory :)

EDIT: Won't be long now!
I run into this sentiment a lot among chemtrails believers. It basically boils down to, "the government (or other powers-that-be) are evil, therefore chemtrails are real!" Non sequitur, it does not follow.
 
I love these rational posts. They re good and i understand your logic. But u don't understand that the elite running the world are evil. When they anounce the new world order / UN bangerang and the world implodes financially and its all aout civil war. It is all a coincidence dont worry!! the state will save u!! Then think again about the chemtrail theory :)

EDIT: Won't be long now!


So exactly how many airliners have ever been found with the 'chemtrail' equipment in them?
How much of the 'chemtrail' servicing equipment has ever been found at any civil airport?
How many 'chemtrail' orders have been released in the extensive Wikileaks documents?
 
I run into this sentiment a lot among chemtrails believers. It basically boils down to, "the government (or other powers-that-be) are evil, therefore chemtrails are real!" Non sequitur, it does not follow.

Indeed, it's also commonly phrased as "you people are stupid to believe the government are not evil".

Which totally misses the point that nobody is claiming the government is not evil (and generally nor are they saying the opposite). It's not about assuming the government would not do something, it's about the lack of evidence that they are doing that thing.
 
Indeed, it's also commonly phrased as "you people are stupid to believe the government are not evil".

Which totally misses the point that nobody is claiming the government is not evil (and generally nor are they saying the opposite). It's not about assuming the government would not do something, it's about the lack of evidence that they are doing that thing.

​ this and a thousend more.
yes evidence is lacking. Researchers/doctors/physicians are skeptical on morgellons by the label 'dellusional parasitosis' and lot of them dont want to put their reputation and credibility on the line. yeh..
 
if the conditions are right it should be on all the time and the other planes should have the trail as well

conditions can be right in small pockets of air and not right in adjavent small pockets of air, leading to intermittent trails - the air is not uniform.

And the 2 a/c types have completely different engines - just because 1 engine leaves a contrail is not an indication that the otehr will.

Eg see this photo - someone did an experiment with 2 aircraft - an A340 and a Boeing 707

707 airbus.JPG

you can read the paper this illustration is from here - http://elib.dlr.de/9281/1/AIAA-2715-2000.pdf
 
yes evidence is lacking. Researchers/doctors/physicians are skeptical on morgellons by the label 'dellusional parasitosis' and lot of them dont want to put their reputation and credibility on the line. yeh..
It's really about the evidence. If there were good evidence, then researchers would be glad to put their reputation on the line - documenting that something as remarkable as Morgellons was real could make someone's career.

Delusional parasitosis has been around a lot longer than the Morgellons or chemtrails ideas. You're likely to learn about it in a survey of entomology course, because the classic presentation is that they think they are infested with arthropods (I have some colleagues who have encountered such people in their work - I never have, probably because I work with tree pests). But it's otherwise nearly identical to Morgellons.

I don't enjoy debunking Morgellons, because regardless of whether it's the result of a mental problem or a real skin disease, the suffering is genuine. That makes it an especially volatile topic.
 
It's really about the evidence. If there were good evidence, then researchers would be glad to put their reputation on the line - documenting that something as remarkable as Morgellons was real could make someone's career.

Delusional parasitosis has been around a lot longer than the Morgellons or chemtrails ideas. You're likely to learn about it in a survey of entomology course, because the classic presentation is that they think they are infested with arthropods (I have some colleagues who have encountered such people in their work - I never have, probably because I work with tree pests). But it's otherwise nearly identical to Morgellons.

I don't enjoy debunking Morgellons, because regardless of whether it's the result of a mental problem or a real skin disease, the suffering is genuine. That makes it an especially volatile topic.

The best proof there is is when needles being randomly placed in your body at any time and when u have fibers growing from your skin and lesions. I know what hair looks like, and i know what it doesnt look like. U dont have to be a rocket scientist(haha) to recognise a hair. Or am i wrong? I have a 10x handmicroscope.
The truth is researchers are not willing to put everything on the line and enjoys the status quo. if u search hard there are some doctors, but not much.. I gave the fibers to my doctor to get it tested, but he couldn't send it too that specific lab and u need some procedure or just a lot of money to do that.

Also the symptons that morgellons patients have are on a rise like chronic fatigue and lyme. While lyme disease is rare its also risining. but hardcore proof? no. Looked good enough?
 
This claim do be indisputable proof. These pictere are NOT blurry like carnicom's. perhaps DO take them to your doctor (next time if u have to go anyway) and simply ask him what he thinks of it. Pictures @ 1:09. We can argue like shit, but in the end, were just talking without knowing.

 
The best proof there is is when needles being randomly placed in your body at any time and when u have fibers growing from your skin and lesions. I know what hair looks like, and i know what it doesnt look like. U dont have to be a rocket scientist(haha) to recognise a hair. Or am i wrong? I have a 10x handmicroscope.
The truth is researchers are not willing to put everything on the line and enjoys the status quo. if u search hard there are some doctors, but not much.. I gave the fibers to my doctor to get it tested, but he couldn't send it too that specific lab and u need some procedure or just a lot of money to do that.

Also the symptons that morgellons patients have are on a rise like chronic fatigue and lyme. While lyme disease is rare its also risining. but hardcore proof? no. Looked good enough?

Here in the States, the CDC did launch a real investigation into this issue. You can see the publication here.

Results

We identified 115 case-patients. The prevalence was 3.65 (95% CI = 2.98, 4.40) cases per 100,000 enrollees. There was no clustering of cases within the 13-county KPNC catchment area (p = .113). Case-patients had a median age of 52 years (range: 17–93) and were primarily female (77%) and Caucasian (77%). Multi-system complaints were common; 70% reported chronic fatigue and 54% rated their overall health as fair or poor with mean Physical Component Scores and Mental Component Scores of 36.63 (SD = 12.9) and 35.45 (SD = 12.89), respectively. Cognitive deficits were detected in 59% of case-patients and 63% had evidence of clinically significant somatic complaints; 50% had drugs detected in hair samples and 78% reported exposure to solvents. Solar elastosis was the most common histopathologic abnormality (51% of biopsies); skin lesions were most consistent with arthropod bites or chronic excoriations. No parasites or mycobacteria were detected. Most materials collected from participants' skin were composed of cellulose, likely of cotton origin.
Content from External Source
 
Here in the States, the CDC did launch a real investigation into this issue. You can see the publication here.
Most materials collected from participants' skin were composed of cellulose, likely of cotton origin.

Just take some dellusional drugged patients. we need impartial investigation. CDC really? Like the FDA allowing untested GMO foods in our shops nice.. One big mess. I had a patch on my lesion fully covered no air available and my skin grew black cotton fibers NICE. interesting is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047951/?tool=pmcentrez Similar to cdc one only this is only clinical, no test on fiber itself, looks more 'real' morg patients. I'll take another look at the cdc investigation. But it is late now, tomorow..
 
what about B and D???

B is a fiber from a green scrubbing sponge. I corresponded with Mark Darrah (who took the photos) about this, and he agrees that's what it was.


i.e. the green part of this


D, I don't remember if that was determined, but it looks like a sebum plug with some hairs.
[Edit] actually the description says: "Skin lesions with fibers stabbing through the epidermis". So that's what it is. Either hairs, or regular fibers that got embedded in a lesion.
 
Last edited:
And here's another photo from the video:


Here's a photo that's not Morgellons, but is some lint from a dryer:

This stuff:


Have a look at all these photos of things that are not Morgellons, and yet look just like photos that people say are Morgellons:
https://picasaweb.google.com/morgellonswatch/NotMorgellons?fgl=true&pli=1

Is there not some possibility then that people might be mistaken about the fibers they find?
 
Last edited:
Just take some dellusional drugged patients. we need impartial investigation. CDC really? Like the FDA allowing untested GMO foods in our shops nice.. One big mess. I had a patch on my lesion fully covered no air available and my skin grew black cotton fibers NICE. interesting is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047951/?tool=pmcentrez Similar to cdc one only this is only clinical, no test on fiber itself, looks more 'real' morg patients. I'll take another look at the cdc investigation. But it is late now, tomorow..
The study you linked also found higher incidence of drug abuse in the Morgellons subjects (self-reported; they didn't test hairs like the CDC study did).
 
I could argue on and on but im done with it. It was fun seeing the other side, other points of view. I don't need your 'hardcore' evidence to believe in this.
Alex jones - Max Keiser - Gerald celente - Ron Paul - Jesse ventura ALL great isightfull people. All will go very fast now - I wish u guys the best off luck!!! gold silver & food gogogo :)

PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE PEACE
 
I could argue on and on but im done with it.
Where have you brought up any valid argument, one which wasn't refuted within no time?

I did take another look at the chemwebs in your video in the original opening post. If you're looking for the guilty ones you should look around from 6.44 in the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9H59h_dH3bw#t=404s

In the upper left corner you can find him, or I guess it is a "her" in this case, running towards a branch trying to hide from you.
 
You had a lesion, fully covered, with what exactly? A band aid, dressing, material of some sort?

Don't know the english term but just a regular band aid to cover the wound. i cleaned my wound first with oxygenwater then a band aid (with white fibers) to cover the area. My skin was producing black fibers. Also check this video ​ around 1:30 and on. It is a regular fuzzball out of the dryer or your bed. But it moves on its own so the conclusion is that it is alive? Don't know what else.
In my original video ​ @ 15:00 u see a so called morgellons timelaps. I dont know of any fiber, cotton or spider silk that grows and moves on its own. Or am I wrong? I have showed this before, also that a dental sample changes polarization when induced with a magnet. = It is alive.
 
Where have you brought up any valid argument, one which wasn't refuted within no time?

I did take another look at the chemwebs in your video in the original opening post. If you're looking for the guilty ones you should look around from 6.44 in the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9H59h_dH3bw#t=404s

In the upper left corner you can find him, or I guess it is a "her" in this case, running towards a branch trying to hide from you.

Apperently i came back..
@ 15:00 What does it look like to u?


Anyone?? Fiber(ish) growing on itself??
 
For ChemtrailsBelgium -

So exactly how many airliners have ever been found with the 'chemtrail' equipment in them?
How much of the 'chemtrail' servicing equipment has ever been found at any civil airport?
How many 'chemtrail' orders have been released in the extensive Wikileaks documents?
 
It is a regular fuzzball out of the dryer or your bed. But it moves on its own so the conclusion is that it is alive? Don't know what else.
When you have a bit of fluff like that under magnification, it's very easy for very slight air currents to move it around. Also, if you have something that has some moisture in it, it will frequently twist and curl as it dries out under the microscope. I do a lot of looking at very small insects under a dissecting scope, so I see these effects frequently.

a dental sample changes polarization when induced with a magnet. = It is alive.
Not sure how this follows? Ordinarily if I see something affected by magnets, my first thought is that it might contain some metal.
 
Back
Top