Discussions with chemtrailers on facebook

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.


I wonder where they got these numbers from.

They got it from Brian Holmes.
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/soiltest.html

I don't believe he has participated with chemtrails for years, but chemtrail misinformation stays on the web lke a lost gillnet, still catching unfortunate fish who wander by and don't have a clue where they are swimming.

Why do these people simply latch onto anything they see and accept it as fact?

Why didn't Brian Holmes bother to check it all out and then correctthe misinformation?

Holmes also posts the following:

The average of all ten [fields owned by Brian Holmes -JBR] fields was 1247 ppm which is in the "Very High" range of the above published Aluminum Rating.


The typical range of aluminum in soils may be from 1 percent to 30 percent on a worldwide basis with naturally occurring concentrations varying greatly.

Doesn't even one chemrail believer understand that PPM stands for Parts/million, a simple ratio that when the top is divided by the bottom results in a percentage? This is math for ten-year olds. Many 8 year olds can figure batting performance percentages!

Foryou chemtrail believers out there, 1247 ppm equals .1247 %, that is a smidgen over one thent of one percent, so when Holmes says, "The typical range of aluminum may be from 1-30%", yet HIS OWN SOIL is less than one percent and he says it was "Very High"?

Brian didn't seem to fathom the mistake, and he hasn't figured it out years later, now "Chemtrails Project" posts it as fact with no context where their folks can even see where it came from or help find the mistake anymore.

And now I see that they have rejected any possibility that we could help prevent them from spreading the misinformation even further, in fact, it's seems probable that they will intentionally do so.

This is sooooo wrong on soooo many levels, it's a real shame how this keeps happening and they are so close-minded to prevent any way of correcting it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JFDee

Senior Member.
Chemzy McTrails said:
Oh and use your damned eyes if you are wondering about physical proof. Two jets. Same altitide. Leaving different trails.
I wonder how you can judge that they were at the same altitude in the beginning, because that part of the flight is not in the video. They may have been on different levels and later adjusted their altitude to fly in formation.

Looks like military training to me. Will try to find out.

BTW, this was one of the few cold days in Germany this winter. Contrail conditions may have been good even on lower levels.

For the other readers - the video in question is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phk1AmiCriE
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
Altitude can not be judged, but the issue is that in the mind of chemtrailers, every jet up there must be at the same altitude, they think of airspace in more of a 2D way, instead of 3D with altitude as part of that. They do not think of altitudes for aircraft in terms of 31000, 32000, 33000, with required altitude separation. Not even going to try to explain what a Flight level is.

Its just baffling how they can not understand how aircraft are at different altitudes, or even how temperature changes with altitude for that matter.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
The video discussed by "Chemzy McTrails" and others is showing dogfight training south of Stuttgart. The area is known for regular military exercises.

The "Stuttgarter Rundschau" newspaper quotes the civil ATC Helmut Montag, who gives an altitude of 9000 m (30000 ft) for these maneuvers.

Here is the link (German).

In dogfights, there is plenty of vertical movement. If that meets a packet of air favourable to contrail creation, it makes for some quite exciting trails.

 
R

Roland

Guest
Chemtraills or High atmospheric geo-engineering IS ADMITTED MY MULTIPLE FORMS OF GOVERNMENT!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Roland, that's quite simply not true. No field tests have ever been performed. The most that has been admitted is discussion about how tests might process in the future.

If you have evidence that states otherwise, then I encourage you to post it. But I'd also request you google you evidence with the word "debunked" added to the query, to ensure you are not going over old ground.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Foryou chemtrail believers out there, 1247 ppm equals .1247 %, that is a smidgen over one thent of one percent, so when Holmes says, "The typical range of aluminum may be from 1-30%", yet HIS OWN SOIL is less than one percent and he says it was "Very High"?

Interesting that the lab he cites as a source of those figures now says:

http://www.alcanada.com/index_htm_files/AL_NovemberNewsletter2011.pdf

Ratings for % Aluminum
Good (G) 0-1%
Marginal (M) 1-2%
Moderately Phyto-Toxic (MT) 2-3%
Phyto-Toxic (T) 3-5%
Severely Phyto-Toxic (ST) 5+%

1% is 10,000 ppm.

But also:

http://www.alcanada.com/index_htm_files/Calcium Nutrition in Plants.pdf

Aluminum toxicity (greater
than 400 ppm.) attacks the root cap reducing the secretion of mucilage and disrupting both the cytoplasmic
calcium and the calcium in the mucilage.

But finally:

http://www.alcanada.com/index_htm_files/Metal Concentrations in Natural Soils.pdf

Aluminum Al
Common Range (ppm or mg/kg) 10,000 - 300,000
Average Concentration (ppm or mg/kg) 71,000

So the 400 ppm is either referring to available aluminum, or is something to a typo or miscalculation, and should have been 400,000 ppm. (40% - which would be a very sandy soil)
 

Des O

New Member
Wow, I know Mick and I used our "Orwellian-esque" real names when we discussed sampling methods. Not sure who else he is refering to.

How can a question discredit? Only the answer to the question can. Of course Chemtrails Project never actually answered the critical questions.

Where are the lab results?
What are your sampling methods?
Do you filter rainwater samples?
What is your result criterion?
How do you link your results to contrails left by planes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Des O

New Member
The sad thing is, I was actually really interested in understanding how their rainwater samples had no aluminum, but had minor concentrations of strontium. The only way to know is to see some lab reports, oh well.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Wow, I know Mick and I used our "Orwellian-esque" real names when we discussed sampling methods. Not sure who else he is refering to.


How can a question discredit? Only the answer to the question can. Of course Chemtrails Project never actually answered the critical questions.

Where are the lab results?
What are your sampling methods?
Do you filter rainwater samples?
What is your result criterion?
How do you link your results to contrails left by planes?

They did actually answer the questions about filters, kind of:

no filter, not left out overnight, collected from uncovered area.

But I'd like to see the actual instructions. It's also hard to know how well people follow the instructions.
 

Des O

New Member
More from Chemtrails Project

  • [h=6]Chemtrails Project
    [/h][h=6]New Rainwater Results from San Francisco:

    Strontium: 8 ug/l
    Barium: 4 ug/l
    Aluminum: ND

    **Note: Low levels detected, much lower than other regions, but one thing remains constant: strontium / barium and no aluminum. This, once again, rules out "soil contamination" as aluminum is the most abundant metal in soil (so it would have to be detected as well, if this were soil contamination).**[/h]Share · 2 minutes ago ·




Just curious if they actually ran an analysis for Aluminum. No way to know for sure without a lab report. Those are some really clean rain water samples though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Chemtraills or High atmospheric geo-engineering IS ADMITTED MY MULTIPLE FORMS OF GOVERNMENT!

The latest ploy that the chemtrails promoters are using is to give a list of cloud seeding permits and claim that these are geoengineering.

What they are pointing to are some NOAA documents that report weather modification activities. The promoters have determined that if the word is used, and they point towards contrails and claim "That is weather modification", they will gain converts.

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1953101900
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C9A.txt
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~noaaforms/eforms/nf1704r1.pdf
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/15cfr908_06.html
http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~audit/privacy_act/systems-of-records/noaa-8.html

It is quite possible that the recent brou-ha-ha between the Rosalind Peteson/Michael J. Murphy and the Chris Maples/Paul Wittenberg factions was precipitated by a dispute over using this very tactic.

It also demonstrates the shallowness of chemtrail believer "research", and harkens back to the days when they searched patent databases using the keyword aerosol and pointed at patents pertaining to silicon chip construction methods as proof for chemtrails.

I think Roland has likely fallen for this tactic.
 

Des O

New Member
Interesting comments about those low SF rain water results.
So they claim the wind wasn't right and the labs are crooked. Couldn't be that those planes were actually spraying nothing?

Another post by Chemtrails Project trying to reinforce the idea that with no aluminum confirms that there is no dust contamination.
  • Chemtrails Project


    RE-POST: From 12/06....give you an idea of how high the strontium has tested (with no aluminum).

    Chemtrails Project
    Rainwater "highlight" from Redding, CA: Strontium: 820 ug/l From our consulted retired USDA scientist: "Having strontium in the rain is....artificial absolutely". Seems our friends may have flipped from aluminum to strontium which is more reflective, and much more expensive. Your tax dollars, hard at work.
The problem with this is that it is clear from his original post that they never analyzed for aluminum because he never mentions the results. Here he is making a false conclusion (no dust contamination) based on the analysis of one element.

This bad science is making my head hurt!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


I find it more than a little ironic that Chemtrails Project uses this quote from George Orwell (about suppression on unfashionable ideas, and the dangers of "the gramophone mind"), while simultaneously rudely silencing not only dissenting opinions, but even polite request for clarification.

In the same essay that quote is from, Orwell goes on to say:

"To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment. [...] If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go
 
Last edited:

firepilot

Senior Member.
And of course, no one has denied that cloud seeding is going on. In their mind, if we deny chemtrails, that means we deny cloud seeding.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The conflation of cloud seeding and chemtrails seems to be a stage all chemtrails go through. Most of them eventually figure it out, but there's always a steady stream of fresh young minds waiting to discover the nefarious WMI.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Presumably "Chemtrails Project" is reading this thread, as they just posted:

Yes, we test aluminum for ALL samples (aluminum, barium and strontium).

So perhaps they could answer another question:

Rainwater "highlight" from Redding, CA: Strontium: 820 ug/l. From our consulted retired USDA scientist: "Having strontium in the rain is....artificial absolutely".*

How does that tally with Strontium being a naturally occurring element, quite common in the earth's crust (although nothing like aluminum). See:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp159-c6.pdf

Strontium is widely distributed in the earth’s crust and oceans. Strontium is released into the atmosphere
primarily as a result of natural sources, such as entrainment of dust particles and resuspension of soil.
[...]
Strontium present in the atmosphere is in the form of wet or dry aerosols. The principal chemical species
in the air is strontium oxide (SrO). Strontium oxide will react rapidly in the presence of moisture to form
Sr+2 and SrOH+ ions. Strontium is dispersed by atmospheric cycling and is subsequently deposited by wet
deposition on the earth’s surface. In surface water and groundwater, strontium exists primarily as a
hydrated ion.
[...]
The mean concentration of strontium in U.S. surface water is <1 mg/L. Dissolved strontium has been detected in groundwater and surface water used for drinking water supplies with average concentrations of 0.81 and 1.1 mg/L, respectively

0.81 mg/L is 810 ug/L. Which means that the Redding strontium readings do not seem unusual at all.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
"Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing." - Orwell

I find the irony (or worse- hypocrisy) of Believers using this quote as inspiration whilst simultaneously banning and censoring those with opinions they consider unfashionable and outside the Believers orthodoxy to be truly disheartening.
 

Des O

New Member
Presumably "Chemtrails Project" is reading this thread,

Pretty awkward way to discuss results. 820 ug/L of strontium could be expected in dust laden rain water.

I would advise Chemtrails Project to make a page on their website that shows all the lab reports (blackout customer names etc). That way there is no question about these things. When I present my findings from a environmental site assessment report, all lab certificates must be included by law. I would also suggest they develop a proper comparison criteria and sampling methodology. If I were them, I would find a scientific article that tests metals in rainwater (particulate and dissolved) and follow their sampling methodology as closely as possible. That 1967 Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences paper would be a good start.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What they son't seem to realize is that if their experiment is going change anything at all, then it is going to have to pass the exact same scrutiny that we are currently subjecting it to.

So really we are doing them a favor, by subjecting their experiment to peer review. Hence they can work out the kinks before they present it to the scientific world and the media, and blow the lid off the chemtrail conspiracy.

At least we were attempting to do that, until we got banned.
 

Des O

New Member
Well since they read this site they can maybe glean a bit of help. I actually think gathering widespread data like this is a neat idea. I just think they are more likely to find a correlation of contamination in rain to areas of heavy industrial pollution. As a student of environmental science, we do testing in the most difficult, and hard to control lab ever, nature. There are so many factors to consider when interpreting your results that it is mind boggling.

Now its time for a beer!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
More on their testing technique:

Mike Williams
hey man. got a good sample that i will be sending out in the next few days. luckily it rained hard today. i used a couple of other jars too to get more water and swirled them nice and good before dumping them into the test jar. looking forward to seeing what we got.
12 hours ago ·
Alan Hill likes this.

John Whyte Actually, try to only collect the mist rainfall, and only in the sample container, and then seal and ship! When it passes thru other "non-approved containers" it can get corrupted
10 hours ago

Mike Williams well crap, its too late for that, as i didnt have enough for the sample, as it wasnt 1/3 full. but, the other containers were glass and were cleaned well and air dried before i used them, and sealed until time for use.
about an hour ago

John Whyte That should be fine then, no worries!
38 minutes ago

Mike Williams ok, great, thanks!
27 minutes ago
 

Des O

New Member
Another funny discussion with a chemtrail believer. She actually linked an article that talks extensively about the formation of contrails and how they can persist. Did she even read the article?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
John Whyte, giving advice about collection methods in the post above, is "Chemtrails Project".

John Whyte
FYI to admin, "Paul Williams" is with Contrail Science and is taking screenshots of your conversations with him and mocking you on their board.
Like · · Wednesday at 6:24pm ·

1,000,000 Against ChemTrails do you have a link?
Wednesday at 6:37pm · Like

1,000,000 Against ChemTrails ahahaha!!! thanks for the tip! caught you cagey little trolls and moles! time to ban some sneaky little idiots that would rather let their own kids die of respiratory illness, cancer of morgellons! fucking idiots!

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/398-Discussions-with-chemtrailers-on-facebook
Wednesday at 6:43pm · Like · 3

Kris Tal Silver-Nephthys Knutson What patriot, rebel, or activist doesn't get mocked? Let them mock One day they will go "damn they were right"
Wednesday at 6:43pm · Like · 1

John Whyte I just had to clean out my board, Chemtrails Project. You will notice the previous 40 messages on that thread are about us. They appreciated my message to them this AM, posted on my board and they put it on that thread too
Wednesday at 6:51pm · Like · 2

1,000,000 Against ChemTrails fucking dikheds!
Wednesday at 7:09pm · Like

Todd Thompson Those guys just go from page to page for the purpose of mocking others. They are all pseudo scientists and wanna be pilots. Not a very impressive bunch.
Thursday at 2:50pm · Like · 1

Todd Thompson I read that whole board yesterday....whew....they are busy at metaBS.....the cool thing is that it gave me a bunch of new stuff to look at that I hadn't seen before and I am more convinced than ever that geo-engineering IS a multi-national, co-operative program that IS being withheld from the public. If you haven't read the interview with "deep shield" you will definitely want to....keep in mind that this guy died of a mysterious suicide not long after doing the interviews.
20 hours ago · Like · 2

Todd Thompson http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html
19 hours ago · Like

John Whyte Todd, interesting read for sure. tks for the share!
16 hours ago · Like

John, if you read this (and I can't address you directly since you banned me for asking about your collection process), we really are just regular folk who like aviation and science. I think your project is a great attempt to bring some scientific rigor to the chemtrail theory - but it has some problems. All that people here are doing is pointing out the issues that will be raised if you ever want to use this study as evidence. I, and I presume the others here, would be happy to discuss this with you, so you can hammer your evidence into shape.

I'm sorry that you see it as mocking. It's not. It's pointing out scientific errors. Sometimes those errors seem so great that people are a little incredulous, even amused, at the magnitude of the errors. I'm sorry if that upset people. I know that can derail a conversation, and it's something I try to avoid.

Again, these are just issues of science that you will have to face eventually if you ever want to convince anyone other than people who already believe.

I invite you to join an open conversation.
 
Last edited:

scombrid

Senior Member.
#1 Nebraska has no clouds unless CHEMTRAILS have been sprayed...2 years at least now11 hours ago
Some of the chemtrail believers have come to notice the correlation between trails/cirrus clouds and weather. That correlation being that over-running moisture ahead of an approaching storm system often results in natural cirrus clouds and persistent contrail formation. So weather does often follow contrail days. Unfortunately they conclude (as instructed by the HAARP hoaxers that pointed them to chemtrails and chemclouds in the first place) that the cirrus clouds and contrails that precede an approaching weather front are artificial and are causing the weather in concert with HAARP. I've been banned from numerous youtube channels for attempting to explain a bit of meteorology to people.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Todd Thompson, please be aware that so far as i was able to determine, the "Deep Shield" stuff was all a hoax.
Here are my findings:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/351-Debunked-The-quot-Deep-Shield-quot-Hoax?highlight=deep+shield

Note that Brian Holmes did not tell you complete information as I did. You get the WHOLE TRUTH here at metabunk.org, though you may not like what the truth actually turns out to be.

You can find out more here than any 'chemtrail' site on the planet. Guaranteed. If you find anything here that you would like more documentation on, or care to dispute my findings in any way, just post it and I will personally try to examine what you have to say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
John Whyte, giving advice about collection methods in the post above, is "Chemtrails Project".



John, if you read this (and I can't address you directly since you banned me for asking about your collection process), we really are just regular folk who like aviation and science. I think your project is a great attempt to bring some scientific rigor to the chemtrail theory - but it has some problems. All that people here are doing is pointing out the issues that will be raised if you ever want to use this study as evidence. I, and I presume the others here, would be happy to discuss this with you, so you can hammer your evidence into shape.

I'm sorry that you see it as mocking. It's not. It's pointing out scientific errors. Sometimes those errors seem so great that people are a little incredulous, even amused, at the magnitude of the errors. I'm sorry if that upset people. I know that can derail a conversation, and it's something I try to avoid.

Again, these are just issues of science that you will have to face eventually if you ever want to convince anyone other than people who already believe.

I invite you to join an open conversation.

I don't think i mocked anybody. I tried as gently as possible to get one questioned answered: How can you tell the difference between contrails and chemtrails?

That's all i did.:confused:
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
But, they react to questions, in the same way the religiously devout do when their dogma is questioned. They think that questioning with an skeptical viewpoint, is mocking.

Its not, but they way they lash out with hostility and cling to their dogma, is where chemtrails gets compared with a religion. To them, a skeptical viewpoint, is tantamount to mockery, when its just asking questions and wanting proof.

For so long there was this dogma that contrails can not persist, and that aluminum is not found in nature. Now MJM admits contrails can persist, and John Whyte is admitting aluminum is present in the soil and gets blown around in the air. Funny how I have said those same two things for so long, and been called a shill or government agent. I bet I could just repeat their words on a different chemtrail forum and I would be told I was a government agent.

I remember reading about chemtrails in 2000, and back then, it was about contrails at low altitudes. It eventually morphed into persistent contrails and about finding aluminum and other metallic compounds in the air.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But, they react to questions, in the same way the religiously devout do when their dogma is questioned. They think that questioning with an skeptical viewpoint, is mocking.

It varies. And more specifically, some people think we are disinformation agents who are lying and that our questions are actually somehow calculated misinformation designed to muddy the waters. Hence any polite request for information must have undertones of mockery.

But no, really, we just want to apply science to find the explanations that best fit the observations.

It's very hard to hold a conversation with someone who is convinced you are a psychopath.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
I think there is a posting of an actual test report at FB ChemPro.
The resolution is not good but with some effort it may be readable.
 

Attachments

  • report_aldicicco.jpg
    report_aldicicco.jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 456

Des O

New Member
I think there is a posting of an actual test report at FB ChemPro.
The resolution is not good but with some effort it may be readable.

Perfectly normal levels for unfiltered rain water. So how will they explain this rain sample having aluminum? Have they (chemtrail planes) switched back to aluminum instead of strontium now?
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
Hey, John Whyte, since you are reading this, you may check into Sensodyne toothpaste and warn your flock.

Strontium is a major ingredient in it!

http://albinaturals.com/products/strontium-2
Strontium is a natural occurring white to yellow colored alkaline earth metal. It is the fifteenth most abundant element in the earth’s crust. Strontium was first discovered in 1787 in the lead mines of Scotland near a town called Strontian. Strontium compounds have been used in industry since its discovery for a variety of uses. Strontium alloys have been used in the automobile industry. Strontium has been combined with other compounds to give off a brilliant red color in fireworks. Strontium is a common element in certain magnets. Strontium has been added to commercial paints and is used a glaze in the pottery industry. Strontium has been used in several toothpaste brands. A ten percent strontium compound has been used for sensitive teeth.

A two gram dose of strontium ranelate liberates 680 milligrams of elemental ionic strontium.This is the most common dose used in the scientific studies used to show the improvements in bone density. Medical researchers believe that other forms of strontium compounds such as strontium citrate in the same dose are as effective as the prescription drug. Strontium citrate readily dissociates into ionic strontium in the digestive system and is absorbed into the bloodstream and made available to bones for uptake and utilization.

So, strontium ranelate is about 333,333 PPM of Strontium! Sensodyne is 10% strontium apparently.

Mr Whyte, going to inform people about this, how it is used beneficially for bone health, instead of just trying to fear monger?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
From wiki:

Dental care
SrCl2 is useful in reducing tooth sensitivity by forming a barrier over microscopic tubules in the dentin containing nerve endings that have become exposed by gum recession. Known in the US as Elecol and Sensodyne, these products are called "strontium chloride toothpastes", although most now use potassium nitrate instead which works as a nerve calming agent rather than a barrier.[1]

Looks like strontium is obsolete for toothpastes now
 
Top