Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > chemtrails      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 76
chemtrailsPage 4 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
@ Paul

I can post a video of a jacka$$, and put verbage on the screen saying that this is the president of the USA....

I wish you would... we could all probably use a laugh right about now. Did you hear the one about OW...Never mind...I'll get back to you later after the "anesthetic" takes effect....
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 77
chemtrails
Posted: 1/20/2010 7:49:28 PM
I went out walking today, on the mountain watching the chem-trails being laid down. When I went out it was still sunny, not so when I came back in.


So what's your forecast for the next couple of days?

Edit: Forecast for Victoria from The Weather Network says you've got wet weather coming. Hmmm....
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 78
chemtrails
Posted: 2/8/2010 8:03:32 PM
Wow, what a wonderfully paranoid little world you people live in! I hear tinfoil can be quite stylish if done right.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 79
chemtrails
Posted: 2/8/2010 9:03:55 PM

Wow, what a wonderfully paranoid little world you people live in! I hear tinfoil can be quite stylish if done right.

That standard "debunker" tactic of an ad hominem that in no way tries to explain or even rationalize the posted vid and its allegations indicates that you are neither a skeptic or a man who might be interested in true scientific inquiry. I no longer value your opinion; especially since it seems to consist of little more than attacks on the character of sincere people.

I guess there will be little value in ever posting the results of my research into the matter. I'm quite sure if it doesn't support the "official" dogma, it will be because I wear a tinfoil hat. I'll save my findings for the tinfoil hat crowd. They at least might listen, rather than dismiss it out of hand as you just did.
 VI-Ferrata
Joined: 9/30/2009
Msg: 80
chemtrails
Posted: 2/8/2010 10:32:26 PM
Chem trails are due to the H.A.R.P Program.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 81
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 2/8/2010 11:05:08 PM

That standard "debunker" tactic of an ad hominem that in no way tries to explain or even rationalize the posted vid and its allegations indicates that you are neither a skeptic or a man who might be interested in true scientific inquiry. I no longer value your opinion; especially since it seems to consist of little more than attacks on the character of sincere people.

I guess there will be little value in ever posting the results of my research into the matter. I'm quite sure if it doesn't support the "official" dogma, it will be because I wear a tinfoil hat. I'll save my findings for the tinfoil hat crowd. They at least might listen, rather than dismiss it out of hand as you just did.

That vid (which wasted quite a few minutes of my life I'll never get back) provided zero verifiable data. If you insist on considering it valid, you're doing no better than donning the tinfoil. If the problem is as clear, rampant, and observable as this yahoo claims (4000 times safe levels in collected rainwater of certain elements), tell me, why has not ONE chemtrail proponent bothered to get an independent lab to both collect and analyze the alleged chemtrail fallout? It would be both easy and relatively inexpensive.

I'll wait.

(And if you're going to bash the "out of hand dismissal", be sure to look up one post and apply the same logic to the "they're due to H.A.R.P. (sic)" blather. That is, if you're interested in being intellectually honest, rather than just jumping on the Appy pigpile.)
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 82
chemtrails
Posted: 2/8/2010 11:33:52 PM
@ Rhino

If you insist on considering it valid, you're doing no better than donning the tinfoil.

I didn't say it was valid. What I did was suggest it might be at least worthy of checking out. The guy had the documentation of the analysis. Presumably we could get a copy along with some sworn testimony in an affadavit to check the story's veracity. Was that even suggested?...No! That more than everything else tells me where your heads are at. You aren't the least bit interested in verifying allegations.. It's more fun to simply "debunk."

Well I'm sorry, that isn't science; for all the claims you make that it might be. I for one prefer to investigate rather than dismiss evidence out of hand. Sorry as hell if that makes me a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. I don't accept something unquestioningly just because some lying government offers an "official version". You guys have some nerve calling yourselves skeptics; you're only too willing to accept the government's story as a matter of faith. This is skepticism? You don't know the meaning of the word!
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 83
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 2:59:46 AM

I didn't say it was valid. What I did was suggest it might be at least worthy of checking out. The guy had the documentation of the analysis. Presumably we could get a copy along with some sworn testimony in an affadavit to check the story's veracity. Was that even suggested?...No! That more than everything else tells me where your heads are at. You aren't the least bit interested in verifying allegations.. It's more fun to simply "debunk."

Well I'm sorry, that isn't science; for all the claims you make that it might be. I for one prefer to investigate rather than dismiss evidence out of hand. Sorry as hell if that makes me a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. I don't accept something unquestioningly just because some lying government offers an "official version". You guys have some nerve calling yourselves skeptics; you're only too willing to accept the government's story as a matter of faith. This is skepticism? You don't know the meaning of the word!

I have a perfectly acceptable explanation for jet contrails, which is in complete agreement with my personal education and understanding of the physics and meteorology involved, and have seen nothing that exceeds the parameters of that explanation in the alleged photos of "chemtrails." If you want to propose that it is instead a great conspiracy to poison the people, you have to PROVIDE PROOF.

GET that affidavit from the guy in the video. GET the unreadable piece of paper he holds up to the camera. GET a statement regarding his procedure for collecting, storing, and shipping his sample(s). GET the name of the lab he used. GET an independent, bonded lab to collect their own samples under controlled conditions, and VERIFY the alleged results. Until then, you've got jack.

That's how science WORKS. Any claims of "that's not science" are just noise until someone, anyone, bothers to actually apply SCIENCE to the question, instead of uncritical "well, it COULD be" tin-foil ponderings.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 84
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 6:07:52 AM

If you want to propose that it is instead a great conspiracy to poison the people, you have to PROVIDE PROOF.

Oh come on Rhino; Don't insult my intelligence by trying to dump a strawman in my lap! You know damn well I suggest no such thing. The most I've ever done is suggest the issue needs further in-depth study. Were you guys even aware that jet fuel changed in the late nineties till I found the patents for the aluminum additive that explained the increase in contrail longevity WITHOUT a conspiracy theory? NO! Why not? Because you guys wouldn't even bother, considering the change in contrail character to be my imagination. I guess it was easier to think me nuts & write me off than to attach any semblance of credibility to what I say. After I presented the information, did I get a "OK, maybe you had a point" from you guys? NO. what I got was "See?...There's no conspiracy." if you bothered to comment at all. I'm sick of the "tar your opponent with a label" strawman innuendo crap to the exclusion of honest inquiry.

In case you guys didn't notice there's a huge disparity between truth and the government line on just about anything. Conspiracy theory? No, conspiracy! Or are you guys all so stupid that you really believe Oswald killed Kennedy, or that Iran has or wants nukes? (those were gauntlets I just threw down BTW, should you wish to debate either of them in the political forum)
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 85
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 6:17:23 AM
C'mon ducky, You honestly expect scientifically minded people to respond intelligently when the "evidence" produced has VERY little credibility. Even if it was the case, asking them to respond reasonably to unreasonable evidence seems odd.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 86
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 6:40:28 AM

asking them to respond reasonably to unreasonable evidence seems odd.

Do you consider dismissing something out of hand a "reasonable response"? Imagine what might have (not) happened if nobody bothered to check the apparent star displacement in the 1919 eclipse because "everybody knows" relativity is just a nonsensical theory and that Albert is just a crackpot who thinks he's smarter than Newton.

How do you know the evidence is unreasonable before you even look at it?
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 87
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 7:15:16 AM

How do you know the evidence is unreasonable before you even look at it?


Because i DID look at it. I watched the video.

Heres what i saw.

A man in his back yard, with a possibly contaminated source to collect rainwater collecting "rainwater". We don't know the source, location or makeup of the plastic bucket he used, what he used it for before the test or even where the bucket is placed, OR that it even contains rainwater at all.

We then have a "report" from a "government" lab that shows toxicity of heavy metal toxins in the "rainwater" including variables above "safe levels" which were put there by the WHO. Now for some reason all of the numbers are rounded, 300 times over safe level, 8000 times over safe level etc. This seems at least at a glance to be not only not sourced with the math or data in the video, but non precise at best.

Then we have videos of clouds at different levels of the atmosphere and he points out that becuase there are lower atmosphere clouds that they are HAARP "white clouds of death". He didn't test the makeup of the lower altitude clouds, or ANY clouds at all, just the "rainwater". He seems to presuppose that clouds can only exist in one level of the atmosphere at a time, which is of course untrue, he THEN uses that presupposition to assume that they are "HAARP" clouds without any data.

Even the rainwater and heavy metals he finds he shows no causation or even correllation to "chemtrails". He just finds heavy metals in rainwater, in a contaminated experiment with too many variables. Maybe he lives near a paper mill that used heavy metals in printing, maybe he lives near a coal burning facility. Maybe there is a natural aluminum deposit that is contaminating groundwater.

His "science" could be performed better by an elementary student.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 88
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:08:53 AM
@ Big

His "science" could be performed better by an elementary student.

All of that granted, do you not think it worth further investigation & study? I'm planning now to contact him to get a certified copy of the lab reports & all data (just out of my own curiosity and for comparison purposes). I want to see all his videos and I want to get a sworn statement & precise description from him of methodology used & contamination precautions taken. IF it looks like there might be some validity to his findings, I'm going to want to see how they relate to the findings of my own rigorously controlled & documented scientific study I'll be conducting in the rainy season. Originally, I wasn't going to bother taking more than one or two samples, but in light of this guy's apparent results, I feel the study merits deeper examination and so I will likely be spending the extra money on getting several timed analyses done (instead of a couple) to see if there is any correlation between the contrails and the air/water samples taken over time.

You see, I'm a pretty skeptical guy myself, but I don't dismiss things out of hand. I don't convict someone without a fair trial.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 89
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:10:00 AM
dukky,

Sure i think it merits looking into. My post was to show you that HIS video had ZERO scientific credibility, as you well know. You are educated enough to know the difference between science and speculation. "white clouds of death" indeed. LOL.

I would be incredibly interested to know the data myself, and also would like to know how rainwater heavy metal levels can be linked to "chemtrails" and not ground water contamination or emissions from vehicles etc ad naseum.

As a science guy i find shit like this


To attack the massager is expected … this happens when the information can’t be debunked.


Revolting. The guy posts a video with NO controls, completely contaminated and unbased speculation WITHOUT data and guys like THIS guy just gobble it up without question.

What information is it that can't be debunked? I mean seriously, there is ZERO information to BE debunked.

Their is as much evidence that Pretty Pink Unicorns like Prarie Ponies and that is causing the heavy metal levels.

 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 90
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:19:09 AM

I trust science from independant and non biased sources.

Why? Haven't the emails documented fraud by respected scientists with respect to AGW? How can you trust ANY opinion scientific or not? I certainly don't.

There is no science in what you posted, and it's from a biased source who doesn't even show the findings.

I sometimes wonder why I waste my time on you guys.:
I didn't allege that there was any science in it, did I?
The source is ALWAYS biased. There would be no scientific testing if nobody had a "pet" hypothesis to test. Do you think researchers spend large chunks of their own money, or fight like hell for funding because they're totally disinterested third parties?
As for showing his findings, what do you expect him to do spam every inbox on the planet, or mail you his findings without your asking for them? At least I'm curious enough to ask him for the findings.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 91
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:26:33 AM

Why? Haven't the emails documented fraud by respected scientists with respect to AGW? How can you trust ANY opinion scientific or not? I certainly don't.


Indeed, and i trust no opinion without research. That being said REAL scientists post data, THIS video posted none. If you are going to advance a theory, in order to be taken seriously you better provide the data that creates that theory.


I didn't allege that there was any science in it, did I?


That wasn't directed at you, it was directed at another poster trying to defend the validity of a non-scientific backyard experiment. When i saw you posted, i edited to reflect your post in between.


The source is ALWAYS biased. There would be no scientific testing if nobody had a "pet" hypothesis to test. Do you think researchers spend large chunks of their own money, or fight like hell for funding because they're totally disinterested third parties?


While there may be an inherent bias in the scientist, that doesn't mean there will be in the results. Fact is, this guy instead of using facts to create theory, is using theory to create facts. How can you possibly say that the only source of heavy metals in rainwater is due to a vast global conspiracy by the WHO to poison humanity? His findings could have any manner of reasoning that i've already posted or reasoning i haven't considered. To jump to conclusions and use it as evidence of "chemtrails" is scientifically and morally irresponsible.


As for showing his findings, what do you expect him to do spam every inbox on the planet, or mail you his findings without your asking for them? At least I'm curious enough to ask him for the findings.


No, i EXPECT the data to be in the video. If he can find the time to show his testing of the water in the back yard with a lack of knowledge of how to even button a shirt, he couldn't throw an excel spreadsheet in there? Or perhaps even explain how you can rule other sources or variables out when it comes to heavy metal contamination of groundwater?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 92
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:54:36 AM

Fact is, this guy instead of using facts to create theory, is using theory to create facts.

He was an amateur, no doubt, but he wasn't using facts to create a theory. He has no theory (unbeknownst to even him). What he had was a hypothesis and he tested it as best he could, given his lack of expertise. His conclusion was also so much hot air, as his testing, even if legitimate shows no correlation between contrails and the rain sample toxins. So the testing he did didn't even support his primary hypothesis that HAARP & contrails were at the root of it. I'm not stupid...I can see that.

Something I DID see was apparently documented toxin levels orders of magnitude over what they ought to have been. Granted there could be a hundred reasons for this and it might easily be explained by poor (amateurish) experimental rigor & sample contamination. Nevertheless, even the suggestion of such levels merit closer examination and further testing, using proper, scientific methodology & documentation. If proper testing shows such levels to be anywhere in the ballpark he alleges, we can go from there to either study a possible contrail correlation, and/or to get everybody in the neighborhood gas masks, because the air is killing them.

i EXPECT the data to be in the video....

It would have been nice, but I'm not going to ignore his allegations because he's kinda stupid. I'll ignore them if & when I can falsify his findings.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 93
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 11:05:36 AM
If proper testing shows such levels to be anywhere in the ballpark he alleges, we can go from there to either study a possible contrail correlation, and/or to get everybody in the neighborhood gas masks, because the air is killing them.


Indeed. However, the contrail correlation is LAST on the list of things i'd check. My education is in environmental science, while I only hold a BS, even that little amount of study would lead me to believe his theory is probably the least possible cause. For rainwater in an area to contain levels of heavy metal in the range he is suggesting, you would need HUGE amounts of substance to spike numbers that high. Unless he literally lives underneath a runway (and even then) i seriously doubt the ability of a contrail to create that concentration.

I mean look at acid rain, all the coal plants in the country, vehicle emissions and other contributing factors all took years to really magnify their effect. While heavy metals react differently, if his theory holds true, anyone within a 50 mile radius of a paper mill, coal plant or incenerator SHOULD be dead.

The volume of gas emitted in a contrail to be perfectly frank so so infinitesimal in regards to the atmosphere that a change of THAT nature would be extremely unlikely.


I would be incredibly interested to see your results whenever you compile them and compare to data that i've picked up in my travels. How do you plan to test the contrails? Are you going to test in a static location or in an area where contrails are more frequent against a control?

I think you will difficulty falsifying a theory that didn't have a basis in fact, how can you disprove a negative?
 Bloke_up_North
Joined: 12/13/2008
Msg: 94
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 11:06:54 AM
Why arn't we tripping over bodies in the streets?
 VI-Ferrata
Joined: 9/30/2009
Msg: 95
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 11:10:36 AM
<<<<<......Has tin foil hat on so the mother ship can not read my thoughts!
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 96
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 11:39:22 AM

I do trust backyard folk more than those in positions of power and influence …

Even without corroborating data? And in this case, who do you think are "those in positions of power and influence?"


I have seen quite a few similar water analysis over the years …

We are still waiting for you to provide them so we can also see.


What humanity is doing and has done to the environment and ecosystems is despicable and immoral beyond description.

non sequitur
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 97
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 5:05:20 PM
@ Big pacific
I've decided not to contact the guy in the vid. He rants more that I do!! He reminds me of my uncle Donald Dukky. I went on his website and he's all over the place. If he really wants people to listen to him he's gonna have to learn to focus on one thing at a time. I think I'll stick to my own research for now.

Revolting.

Yeah, yeah...I know... I need a beer...
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 98
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 7:31:23 PM

Were you guys even aware that jet fuel changed in the late nineties till I found the patents for the aluminum additive that explained the increase in contrail longevity WITHOUT a conspiracy theory?

This assumes that there IS an increase in contrail longevity. So far, you have only given your personal take on that as fact. Would you direct me to said patents (on this thread or elsewhere)? Even IF there is an aluminum additive in fuel being used for nefarious purposes, it brings up at least a few questions-- many of which I doubt have good answers:

-earlier in this thread you said you noticed contrails lingering more in the early nineties, but supposedly fuel changed in the late nineties?

-if there are additives in fuel causing chemtrails, then why aren't there chemtrails while planes are taxiing on the ground, taking off, and generally at low altitudes?

-what's the purpose of intentional toxins? We toxify things quite well without even intending to.

-how does the additive affect engine life and efficiency and maintenance schedules?

-intentional toxins would be much more effective being put directly into the water supply rather than spraying up high and waiting for it to work its way into the water supply-- that method is just nonsense

-how do these nefarious powers protect their own health and well being from these alleged activities?

-if toxin levels are indeed going up, aren't there a whole slew of other possible causes? Why the obsessive fixation on alleged chemtrails?

I could go on given enough time, of course.

I don't convict someone without a fair trial.

In that vein, if a case lacks sufficient evidence to even have a trial, I dismiss it.
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 99
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 9:13:03 PM

It is almost invisible, and as a matter of fact, it is probably a UFO. I mean, like, uh, what else could it be?

I thought it was Wonder Woman.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 100
chemtrails
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:11:35 PM
@ flyguy

So far, you have only given your personal take on that as fact.

Who else's can I give? All I can give you is my testimony.

Would you direct me to said patents (on this thread or elsewhere)? Even IF there is an aluminum additive in fuel being used for nefarious purposes, it brings up at least a few questions-- many of which I doubt have good answers:

I don't think I alleged additives were being introduced for nefarious purposes. What I might allege is that not informing the public about the introduction of known toxins to the air we breathe is nothing short of criminal. It's no worse (and probably a lot better) than anything Monsanto ever did, what with their giving us PCBs & frankenfoods & all.

Here's a few of the more interesting patents:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MJUjAAAAEBAJ&dq=us+5003186

http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20070056210/description.html

Here's the posts that put me onto it:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=14470

There are other patents not related to aluminum, but interesting nonetheless:

http://www.ih.navy.mil/working_with_us/technology_transfer/patents/patent_files/6652682.pdf

After I punched in one of the patent numbers, the search engine turned up this article.:

http://www.firstissues.net/sitearchives/307/html/chemtrails.html

Just for the helluvit (and because he was a local boy) here's a URL of some trails in Manitoba taken about 10 years ago.:

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/kanuckski02/SkytrailPhotos.html

Anyway, the addition of aluminum oxide isn't something they'd really want known, since aluminum oxide particles of that order of size will hang in the air and slowly settle to the ground. Of course a lot of people will breathe it in. Aside from being suspected as a possible cause of alzheimers, inhaled aluminum oxide makes a great carcinogen. My guess is they don't want too many people knowing about it because class action lawsuits can get pretty expensive.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > chemtrails