Scientific paper stating airborne barium releases 'responsible' for human illness

solrey

Senior Member.
[...]
deejay, you're such an [...] that it's impossible to have a civil meaningful discussion with [you].

My IQ, for the record... 162.

Your main defect... you're not half as smart as you think you are.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please focus on the claims and evidence, and not on each other's comprehension skills. Thank you.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Purdy's paper was first mentioned round these parts almost five years ago:

http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/comment-page-1/#comment-3100

But really this thread should have stopped at post #2, which pretty much covers everything:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/49922
 
Last edited:

deejay

Banned
Banned
French study "Roundly criticized" - Just addressed that, Mike. Now the 'hundreds of studies you cite, where are they, please, and who funded them? (That topic is covered extensively in several documentary films about GMO - you will find that Monsanto funds the vast majority of these in the 'self-policing' effort which has been placed upon it by a largely non-functioning and entirely absent-from-process FDA)

You also still cannot satisfactorily explain how I know what an 'endocrine disruptor' is without your help, or even without Purdy's assistance - therefore by your logic, I must be 'making it up'... you do realize that's what he's saying, don't you? He's describing an endocrine disruptor in very, very specific terms.

As well, I've already demonstrated the links:

a - historical observations worldwide, substantiated with independent testing (much of which is not available to me) citing undue presence of "aluminum, barium,", et al being closely associated with the phenomenon known as "chemtrails" (check chemtrail sites for that, they contain more than a dozen years of reports and data, much of which predates Purdy's writing).

b - Purdy's observation that certain epidemiology can essentially be "mapped" across the human spectrum, purely by the presence of these chemical elements in soil and water at toxic concentrations.

c - The presence and 'human intervention' required to produce IRREGULAR, TOXIC concentrations of barium, aluminum, et al in vivo within human populations and resulting epidemiology

Open question: Anyone here know what 'myelin' is, where it's found in the body, in what form it takes, or what it's function is in a healthy human? Why a scientist might possibly mention 'myelin' without building an entire thesis on it (eg, because the information is commonly known)? Pathological symptoms in unhealthy tissue? In what diseases the 'myelin sheathing' is damaged or disrupted, and the mechanism/s thereof? Anyone?

So apparently what you're saying here is that established science 'doesn't exist' simply because established scientists, having 'done their own research', already know what they're talking about - and therefore they use their own terminology, not having need to use language you may understand, and therefore they don't need to 'reinvent the wheel within their chosen fields, assuming a bit of 'common knowledge' being shared among the readers -

then I must ask, is 'your particular understanding' now somehow a 'prerequisite' for established science? And if so, by whose authority do you claim that to be?

I'll leave you with this thought on GMOs - go ahead, have a nice bowl of it for breakfast if you'd like (BTW, this is NOT the first time GMO grass has killed cattle via cyanide poisoning - how do you think they knew what to look for?:
http://www.inquisitr.com/262111/gen...-begins-releasing-cyanide-kills-texas-cattle/

GMO grass: Safe and effective for your fields and lawn. Assuming you can tolerate cyanide. And good luck with that, assuming you have the stomach for it.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Your talking about chemplanes - I'm talking about biological loading due to human-induced sourcing.

Big difference.


Have you stated the source, though? I haven't come to it yet. What is the means? The thread is called "airborne barium release". What are they using to get it airborne? Is it there intentionally? Why can't you plainly state what you are claiming.
 

pseacraft

Active Member
That grass is not GMO, as has been pointed out in other threads. Perhaps you should read the entire article and not the sensationalized headline. The very last sentence says this: "Update: The original report we received stated that the grass was a GMO version of Tifton 85. In fact it was a hybridized version of the product."
 

Pete

Member
Not only 'responsible', but gives the chemical analysis of exactly HOW it is responsible:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082100

[...]

Sounds like inside information to me. Open for discussion.

I will reply with: http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=589

I haven't done any research into this, but judging from how many cars and trucks on the road there must be worldwide, your point seems massively moot. Yes, more airborne Barium than 'normal' might be bad for us, but don't you think there might be a whole host of sources much closer to home, other than supposed chemtrails?!

Potential source: brake pads.
Found in: Millions of cars, trucks, bikes, and probably trains.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
a - historical observations worldwide, substantiated with independent testing (much of which is not available to me) citing undue presence of "aluminum, barium,", et al being closely associated with the phenomenon known as "chemtrails" (check chemtrail sites for that, they contain more than a dozen years of reports and data, much of which predates Purdy's writing).

Which tests, which chemtrail sites, what data and reports? Please cite one example of a test AFTER searching Metabunk and Contrailscience.com to make sure it wasn't full of bunk.

Also, please define what YOU mean by chemtrails. What do you believe this term is referring to? There are a large number of different interpretations, and I'd like to see yours stated.
 

justanairlinepilot

Senior Member.
a - historical observations worldwide, substantiated with independent testing (much of which is not available to me) citing undue presence of "aluminum, barium,", et al being closely associated with the phenomenon known as "chemtrails" (check chemtrail sites for that, they contain more than a dozen years of reports and data, much of which predates Purdy's writing).

Deejay, I'll never claim to be a scientist, I'll never claim to be an intellect, I'll never claim to know anything about biology, however, once you begin talking about the upper troposphere and the dynamics of the weather "up there", that's when my ears perk up...I spend nearly 50% of my monthly life, "up there". I've been in aviation since I was 15 and have been involved in the US commercial airline industry for 16 years, I'm going to tell you, with much confidence, that I am an expert in upper tropospheric activity and in US commercial airline activity. I'm also going to tell you that chemtrails don't exist in any way, militarily or commercially.

Whatever is going on in your mind, please consider taking a step back...maybe a few miles back, and get a grip on what you are telling us. I am being sincere, people her who debunk actually know what they are saying and can back it up with formal, scientific education. For me, I have formal education, I have an undergrad in aviation and meteorology. I also have 11,000 hours of flying all types of aircraft, and, I've participated in weather modification. I'll never claim to be smart, but I thoroughly understand my field and the atmosphere around me.

You've done a great job of avoiding the knowledge you could achieve on contrailscience (it is exact), instead you waste your time listening to blowhards who want to make money from the...um...less willing to learn...you are severely misguided and if that is against the politeness policy please ban me as I can't take this anymore.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
French study "Roundly criticized" - Just addressed that, Mike.

Only to your own satisfaction.

Now the 'hundreds of studies you cite, where are they, please, and who funded them? (That topic is covered extensively in several documentary films about GMO - you will find that Monsanto funds the vast majority of these in the 'self-policing' effort which has been placed upon it by a largely non-functioning and entirely absent-from-process FDA)

Both questions are answered here

Who funded the studies that supposedly show GMO has problems?

You also still cannot satisfactorily explain how I know what an 'endocrine disruptor' is without your help,

I have no problem with that - since I'm no trying to.

or even without Purdy's assistance - therefore by your logic, I must be 'making it up'... you do realize that's what he's saying, don't you? He's describing an endocrine disruptor in very, very specific terms.

No - I say you are making it up because what you say has no link that I can see to what Purdy said for those cases when I said you were making it up.

If hter is a link then perhaps you could make it clearer - then I won't think you are making it up.

As well, I've already demonstrated the links:

a - historical observations worldwide, substantiated with independent testing (much of which is not available to me) citing undue presence of "aluminum, barium,", et al being closely associated with the phenomenon known as "chemtrails" (check chemtrail sites for that, they contain more than a dozen years of reports and data, much of which predates Purdy's writing).

Sources for any such studies that you do know of?

b - Purdy's observation that certain epidemiology can essentially be "mapped" across the human spectrum, purely by the presence of these chemical elements in soil and water at toxic concentrations.

c - The presence and 'human intervention' required to produce IRREGULAR, TOXIC concentrations of barium, aluminum, et al in vivo within human populations and resulting epidemiology

There is no such actual requirement for human intervention - there are places in the world where barium in the form of Barite "blows in the wind" from surface deposits.

Open question: Anyone here know what 'myelin' is, where it's found in the body, in what form it takes, or what it's function is in a healthy human? Why a scientist might possibly mention 'myelin' without building an entire thesis on it (eg, because the information is commonly known)? Pathological symptoms in unhealthy tissue? In what diseases the 'myelin sheathing' is damaged or disrupted, and the mechanism/s thereof? Anyone?

Open question - when is Deejay actually going to answer any questions?

So apparently what you're saying here is that established science 'doesn't exist' simply because established scientists, having 'done their own research', already know what they're talking about - and therefore they use their own terminology, not having need to use language you may understand, and therefore they don't need to 'reinvent the wheel within their chosen fields, assuming a bit of 'common knowledge' being shared among the readers -

Apparently you cannot read what I write, since I said no such thing.

What I actually said was that Purdey's conclusions had been examined a decade or more ago and found faulty - and you quoting him does not make them correct.

then I must ask, is 'your particular understanding' now somehow a 'prerequisite' for established science? And if so, by whose authority do you claim that to be?

No, and none.

I'll leave you with this thought on GMOs - go ahead, have a nice bowl of it for breakfast if you'd like (BTW, this is NOT the first time GMO grass has killed cattle via cyanide poisoning - how do you think they knew what to look for?:
http://www.inquisitr.com/262111/gen...-begins-releasing-cyanide-kills-texas-cattle/

GMO grass: Safe and effective for your fields and lawn. Assuming you can tolerate cyanide. And good luck with that, assuming you have the stomach for it.

Organic beansprouts from Germany have killed more people than all the GMO in the world.

Your OP was shouting to the heavens that airborne barium releases are responsible for human illness - and now you have resiled from that.

What's more you have never actually examined Purdey's sources for claiming that barium airborne releases were used in the manner he said. If you had read the links to discussions already held on here you would know why you are wrong.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
Ceterum censeo, deejay,

you still owe us some evidence for the claim of "5,000 percent rise in soil concentrations of aluminum in non-industrial area".

Yet annother question unanswered ...
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The 'GMO grass releases cyanide' article is a lie.
Under stressed conditions of drought it can build up prussic acid, there was some growth from rain and the cows rushed to eat it, then it turned lethal inside them.
It's a known phenomena that has happened before, and has nothing to do with GM.

http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo...t-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
First the grass was a common hybrid, not GMO. Just more nonsense and fear mongering from the anti GM crowd.

http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/06/24/a-case-of-mistaken-identity/

http://pearlsnapblog.com/2011/09/30/forage-facts-prussic-acid-poisoning/

 

Pete

Member
I feel there are way too many topics inside this thread... But hey, most of the posts are good ones!
 

MikeC

Closed Account
It is with some interest that I found this article on using barium to analyse prehistoric teeth -

having established this from modern human and monkey teeth, they applied it to a 100,000 year old Neanderthal tooth:

Which makes a mockery of any claim that it's all new, or it's all added to jet fuel, or it must be from human-generated sources, or anything else that fails to acknowledge that barium is in the "natural environment"!
 

deejay

Banned
Banned
I hear a lot of interesting excuses and am reading offerings of what amount to "screen grabs" from erstwhile academic sites - still, no one has SPECIFICALLY addressed the mechanisms which Purdey outlined in the original link, the basic topic being atmospheric concentrations of endocrine disruptors due to manmade influence and the detrimental effects of these chemical-biological reactions on human health - except to dismiss Purdey offhand with little more than a sideways glance, based on secondary information without any credible analysis whatsoever of the information contained therein.

That's a nice technique: Distract, change the subject, discredit... but never address the obvious question: What about the thesis?

Certainly there's no lack of detail in Purdey's thesis. It's all right there, in black and white - and yet some here are pretending VERY HARD to not know what an 'endocrine disruptor' is - I find that absolutely fascinating for someone (anyone in fact) who claims to have a scientific background, let alone anybody publicly proclaiming an an IQ 'above average' and a college education.

Not to anyone specific, just an observation. Endocrine disruption. It's really basic biology, basic medicine, basic epidemiology. Somebody who reads scientific publications on a regular basis should know this without needing to resort to an encyclopedia or having to acquire a second Bachelor's.

Now coincidentally, one of the side topics which has arisen in this thread has been GMO, and the supposed "safety" of GMO products and pesticides.

The following film illustrates very well how firms like Monsanto, et al, have conquered the funding landscape for university and research science - therefore, they GET the 'science they expect' from their employees and grantees. Not coincidentally, Monsanto et all use precisely the same techniques as seen implemented throughout various threads at this site... and quite a few more, which are only alluded to in this film (yet are often more violent)... perhaps that's just an extraordinary coincidence of the tactical landscape.

http://covvha.net/scientists-under-attack-full-length/#.UcS_ir9caG8

and here's a link to an article sussing out the PR industry-fronted 'astroturf' campaigns put out by firms like Monsanto, Coca Cola, etc., designed to hide the facts of their dangerous products from the general public, and also to adequate "smokescreen" to any criticism which does somehow make it's way through the press

http://www.takepart.com/photos/big-ag-and-biotech-industry-front-groups-1?cmpid=foodinc-fb
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Certainly there's no lack of detail in Purdey's thesis. It's all right there, in black and white - and yet some here are pretending VERY HARD to not know what an 'endocrine disruptor' is - I find that absolutely fascinating for someone (anyone in fact) who claims to have a scientific background, let alone anybody publicly proclaiming an an IQ 'above average' and a college education.

Not to anyone specific, just an observation. Endocrine disruption. It's really basic biology, basic medicine, basic epidemiology. Somebody who reads scientific publications on a regular basis should know this without needing to resort to an encyclopedia or having to acquire a second Bachelor's.

So why did Purdy not mention the endocrine system or hormones?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I would suggest that the discussion on GM food be taken to another thread. I will be willing to discuss it there. You are not going to distract me on this thread.

This thread is about barium, not GM crops.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
That's a nice technique: Distract, change the subject [...]

Is that the "technique" which you employed when you veered off after your claim of immensely elevated aluminum levels, somehow moving on to radar rings, military weather manipulation, HAARP, Evergreen, questioning the qualification of debunkers, IQ levels and ultimately 9/11 ?

Now you seem to be on a similar path again after you learned that there are multiple sources for barium particles all around us.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Is that the "technique" which you employed when you veered off after your claim of immensely elevated aluminum levels, somehow moving on to radar rings, military weather manipulation, HAARP, Evergreen, questioning the qualification of debunkers, IQ levels and ultimately 9/11 ?

Now you seem to be on a similar path again after you learned that there are multiple sources for barium particles all around us.
You forgot to mention GMOs.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I hear a lot of interesting excuses and am reading offerings of what amount to "screen grabs" from erstwhile academic sites - still, no one has SPECIFICALLY addressed the mechanisms which Purdey outlined in the original link, the basic topic being atmospheric concentrations of endocrine disruptors due to manmade influence and the detrimental effects of these chemical-biological reactions on human health - except to dismiss Purdey offhand with little more than a sideways glance, based on secondary information without any credible analysis whatsoever of the information contained therein.

That's a nice technique: Distract, change the subject, discredit... but never address the obvious question: What about the thesis?

Certainly there's no lack of detail in Purdey's thesis. It's all right there, in black and white - and yet some here are pretending VERY HARD to not know what an 'endocrine disruptor' is - I find that absolutely fascinating for someone (anyone in fact) who claims to have a scientific background, let alone anybody publicly proclaiming an an IQ 'above average' and a college education.

Not to anyone specific, just an observation. Endocrine disruption. It's really basic biology, basic medicine, basic epidemiology. Somebody who reads scientific publications on a regular basis should know this without needing to resort to an encyclopedia or having to acquire a second Bachelor's.

Now coincidentally, one of the side topics which has arisen in this thread has been GMO, and the supposed "safety" of GMO products and pesticides.

The following film illustrates very well how firms like Monsanto, et al, have conquered the funding landscape for university and research science - therefore, they GET the 'science they expect' from their employees and grantees. Not coincidentally, Monsanto et all use precisely the same techniques as seen implemented throughout various threads at this site... and quite a few more, which are only alluded to in this film (yet are often more violent)... perhaps that's just an extraordinary coincidence of the tactical landscape.

http://covvha.net/scientists-under-attack-full-length/#.UcS_ir9caG8

and here's a link to an article sussing out the PR industry-fronted 'astroturf' campaigns put out by firms like Monsanto, Coca Cola, etc., designed to hide the facts of their dangerous products from the general public, and also to adequate "smokescreen" to any criticism which does somehow make it's way through the press

http://www.takepart.com/photos/big-ag-and-biotech-industry-front-groups-1?cmpid=foodinc-fb

Detail is something that is very much lacking in the paper. Essentially his proposal is that Ba2+​ in free ion form scavenges sulphur to form BaSO4​. No mention is made as to how the Ba2+​ is produced or the actual pathway and by products of the production of BaSO4​. Similar there is no mention as to the fate of the BaSO4​. Now that is the really interesting thing as if his hypothesis is correct it would be really simple to test for. In his discussion section he proposes

Well call me picky but surely there would be no Ba deposits if the Ba2+​ has been converted to BaSO4​? Given that it is biologically inert and is not metabolised by the liver it would be readily excreted. Surely then a simple test for the hypothesis would be to test for elevated BaSO4​ levels in the urine and faeces of MS sufferers? Or is that just too simple?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Dave, you are stating the obvious about the paper which the OP didn't understand.
Bottom line is the top line, and the Journal which published it.

The problem with reading much into Purdy's paper is that it is has no result. It is a hypothesis statement, nothing more. I don't think he meant it as anything else, and anyone who reads more into it than what he puts forward as a hypothesis simply doesn't understand the scientific method.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Dave, you are stating the obvious about the paper which the OP didn't understand.
Bottom line is the top line, and the Journal which published it.

The problem with reading much into Purdy's paper is that it is has no result. It is a hypothesis statement, nothing more. I don't think he meant it as anything else, and anyone who reads more into it than what he puts forward as a hypothesis simply doesn't understand the scientific method.

It sounds like you are inferring the OP does not understand what he is talking about. I am shocked as I was under the impression he had a brain the size of a planet ;) However I did feel that someone had to answer Deejay.

You are correct about Mark Purdey and his meaning of the paper. I met him a few times and he was a really nice guy. He made a few appearances at some meetings for Gulf War Syndrome campaigners and his work with organophosphates and BSE was quite compelling (organophosphates have been suggested as a causative factor for GWS). I have nothing but the utmost regard for the bloke but even he would admit that his knowledge was lacking in many areas. I do think that what happened is after "success" with the issue around BSE he got to big for his boots and began to see patterns that maybe did not exist. I guess it was like a hobby.

I challenge Deejay to show me where his work from this paper has been continued or subject to further investigation. Cluster and occupational epidemiological studies would be a relatively simple way to prove the hypothesis, as would biochemical analysis, yet I seem unable to find any. Surely if the paper had some legs it would at the very least have been referenced in articles other than conspiracy websites?
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
I challenge Deejay to show me where his work from this paper has been continued or subject to further investigation. Cluster and occupational epidemiological studies would be a relatively simple way to prove the hypothesis, as would biochemical analysis, yet I seem unable to find any. Surely if the paper had some legs it would at the very least have been referenced in articles other than conspiracy websites?

I'll get ready to add that to the list of direct questions and challenges Deejay has ignored in the course of this thread.
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
That's a nice technique: Distract, change the subject, discredit... but never address the obvious question: What about the thesis?

What about it? Many people, including me, have asked you this already. Where are the experiments? If there is no reason to believe that this mechanism of barium interfering with and permanently damaging endocrine pathways does what he claims, then there is simply nothing more to debunk here. It's a poorly written paper.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Last edited:

deejay

Banned
Banned
well then I'm mistaken - Aluminum levels hundreds of times beyond expected soil concentrations must be part of the new landscape...
 

Woody

Member
Is it Aluminum? We know there is a direct link to neurological disorders and aluminum toxicity, such as Alzheimer patients all have aluminum toxicity, but this doesn't mean they have Alzheimer's either, there is another catalyst or perhaps genetic, the research is still out but neurological problems are known to exist and why aluminum cookware is being banned soon. Antacid tablets are by far the worse form, chewing gum does the same thing without side effects. If we are going to consider anything, we should look to nature first. Across Minnesota and much of the nation we are seeing some plant species die unexpectedly and rapidly. Attached are a series of pictures of two species dying so rapidly that their needles are still intact. There is a lake over the ridge and these trees have plenty of water available, sapling show good rooting in areas where these species are dying. Invasive species generally takes time to invade an area, this is throughout the state of the past year. The DNR and others are looking into it, but according to my water samples and visual discoveries, I believe it is acidic soils caused from an abundance of magnesium and other elements, possible aluminum as well. It is vital, no matter what the cause, that we find the source before we see the great northern woods die. The species being affected the most is a juniper and long needled pine. The colors look like fall but that's because of their rapid death and the needles still intact.
View attachment 3273
View attachment 3274
View attachment 3275
View attachment 3276
View attachment 3277
View attachment 3278
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Is it Aluminum? We know there is a direct link to neurological disorders and aluminum toxicity, ....

we do?

It is certainly news to me - I've read all the scaremongering of course - but you mean there's actually credible evidence now?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp
 

Woody

Member
we do?

It is certainly news to me - I've read all the scaremongering of course - but you mean there's actually credible evidence now?
Yes we do, its very well known. Aluminum Toxicity is very well known, along with the side effects, you can research OSHA and other industries where accidents occur. As I said, they know that Alzheimer patients all have an abundance of aluminum in the brain, but an abundance of aluminum doesn't mean you have Alzheimer's, there is a trigger that they are still researching. The U of M (University of Minnesota) is doing great research on this and have made many breakthroughs.
 

Woody

Member
http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp
Maybe, but this doesn't take away from one fact, if you have low levels of aluminum in your system, you will not be subjected to Alzheimer's when you get older.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes we do, its very well known. Aluminum Toxicity is very well known, along with the side effects, you can research OSHA and other industries where accidents occur. As I said, they know that Alzheimer patients all have an abundance of aluminum in the brain, but an abundance of aluminum doesn't mean you have Alzheimer's, there is a trigger that they are still researching. The U of M (University of Minnesota) is doing great research on this and have made many breakthroughs.

http://theconversation.com/does-aluminium-cause-alzheimers-and-breast-cancer-8799

 

MikeC

Closed Account
Yes we do, its very well known. Aluminum Toxicity is very well known, along with the side effects, you can research OSHA and other industries where accidents occur.

Yes aluminium toxicity is well known - but what about this direct link to Alzheimers and/or neurological disorders??

As I said, they know that Alzheimer patients all have an abundance of aluminum in the brain, but an abundance of aluminum doesn't mean you have Alzheimer's, there is a trigger that they are still researching. The U of M (University of Minnesota) is doing great research on this and have made many breakthroughs.

So does alzheimers cause the abundance of aluminium....or vice versa?

Maybe, but this doesn't take away from one fact, if you have low levels of aluminum in your system, you will not be subjected to Alzheimer's when you get older.

From the Canadian Alzheimers society:

 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
JFDee Scientific Doubts about the "Welsbach Patent" Contrails and Chemtrails 8
mrfintoil Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
M Claim: Study finds nearly all scientific papers controlled by six corporations? Conspiracy Theories 1
Marin B Claim: Academic research groups increasingly beholden to interests of corporate publishing groups Science and Pseudoscience 19
K Please help me find sources on anthropogenic climate change scientific consensus General Discussion 5
Tybalt ‪98.7% Proven Meditation Techniqu‬e - scientific research? Science and Pseudoscience 6
Critical Thinker Scientific American: Just Thinking about Science Triggers Moral Behavior General Discussion 2
Mick West Richard Feynman Explains the Scientific Method Practical Debunking 1
MikeC 10 outlandish things the 'scientific' controllers have in mind for you Conspiracy Theories 4
MikeC A new scientific paradigm from NZ chemtrailers..... Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West A "Molten Metal" 9/11 Photo - Is Just Burning Paper 9/11 20
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Jay Reynolds New Dutch paper Analyzes how Conspiracy Theorists see themselves Conspiracy Theories 3
MikeC Aluminium nano-particles stunt plant growth - paper Contrails and Chemtrails 3
ki_cz "The Chemistry in Contrails" - paper Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Gundersen White paper on "Contrails/cirrus optics and radiation" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
KC-10FE Stanford Paper on Global Warming Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Hitstirrer Kuttler's paper: Estimates for time to collapse of WTC1 9/11 262
Mick West Bad science in the paper 'Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant GM maize' Science and Pseudoscience 120
Mick West Paper: Clarifying the Dominant Sources and Mechanisms of Cirrus Cloud Formation Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Spongebob Has this Government paper been debunked yet? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
solrey Debunked: HAARP rings/scalar squares, etc. validated in paper from Stanford HAARP 257
FlightMuj Explained: NASA documents stating a flat Earth??? Linear Aircraft Models Flat Earth 7
Related Articles























Related Articles

Top