U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-05-2012, 07:25 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,364 posts, read 14,070,534 times
Reputation: 6524

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
well well well, I just got backup from this interview with Michael J Murphy, one of the producers of the documentary, actually both of them, Why and What are they Spraying. If you don't have much time, just watch the first 15 minutes of this. It gives a preview of the Why, then some interview with Michael.
Don, if you haven't seen this, you should. He talks about California. Around 16 minutes in, he talks about weather trading with derivatives, on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the future of crops etc. Then he goes into Monsanto, the soils, Ardegen, ecosystems collapsing and corporations benefiting from all this.
We may be able to stop this thru legislation. Around 27 min. they go into military applications.

This interview with the films, backup everything Don has been trying to tell you. He has nothing left to prove to you. It's all provided for you.
We need whistleblowers, along with public awareness. Don't be intimidated by the gov't/corporate shills that flood these forums.

Shading Earth: Delivering Solar Geoengineering Materials to Combat Global Warming May Be Feasible and Affordable | THE JEENYUS CORNER « The Jeenyus Corner
murphy is a certified nut case, and his propaganda movie has been debunked a dozen times just in this thread


some of murphys lies:
Claim #1-
In the area of Mohave County, Arizona, due to chemtrails spraying, 25 people had blood tests which showed barium at over 1000 times the toxic level.
Conclusions:
Michael J. Murphy's claim that these lab tests show "1000 times above the toxic amount of barium" is false. These lab tests show that none of the people tested had toxic levels of barium in their blood, and certainly not 1000 times above a toxic level. Most had completely average levels, some had none at all.

These tests in actuality are an indication that debunks the "barium is being sprayed" claim!

Murphy's claim isn't even logical. If all those people had 1000 times a toxic level in their blood, they would have been buried already
================================
Claim #2-

A predicted 3” rain in Siskiyou County, California, was dried up by jets spraying barium, which is a desiccant.




hmmmmm
Is Murphy’s claim plausible, or not? He is obviously unfamiliar with chemistry and aviation, and his comments also show that he doesn’t actually know anything barium. This is odd, especially since he has been making claims about barium for years.

The facts are that while barium metal does react with water, it is not a very good desiccant, while barium oxide is! I actually think that barium oxide is what Murphy refers to. So let’s just see what Murphy’s claim comes down to on paper.

What would be required to use barium oxide as a desiccant sprayed from an airplane to “sequester” a 3” rain down to a ½” rain?

First, we are trying to subtract a 3” rain minus ½”, so that equals 2 & ½ inches of rain. A 1” rain falling over one square mile yields 17.38 million gallons of water:
Rain and precipitation, USGS Water-Science School

17, 380,000 gallons x 2 & 1/2” of rain equals 43,450,000 gallons of water. Hmmm, these numbers are already starting to look pretty big, eh, and this is only the amount of water that would fall over one square mile!

Now for the chemistry, remember high school, folks? Maybe Michael slept through this one…..

Here is the chemical equation for barium oxide reacting with water:
BaO (s) + 2 HOH (l) ---> Ba(OH)2
So, one mole of barium oxide will react with one mole of water to produce one mole of barium hydroxide.
The molecular weight of water is 18 grams/ mole.
The molecular weight of barium oxide is 153 grams/mole.
Water weighs 3780 grams/gallon, so 43,450,000 gallons of water weighs
43,450,000 x 3780 gm/gal. = 164,241,000,000 grams

164,241,000,000 grams / 18 gm./mole = 912,450,000 moles
So, 912,450,000 moles of water will react with 912,450,000 moles of barium oxide.

How much does 912,450,000 moles of barium oxide weigh?
912,450,000 moles of barium oxide x 1/153 grams/mole = 5,9637,254 grams

Converting grams to pounds:
5,9637,254 grams/ 3780 = 131,649 pounds

So, reacting 2 & 1/2 inches of rain over one square mile requires 131,649 pounds of barium oxide.

Shasta County contains 3847.44 square miles. To adsorb the water for Shasta County, where Murphy says the incident occurred.:
131,649 lbs./sq.mi. x 3847.44 sq. mi. = 506,511,628 lbs.

How many flights would Murphy’s claim require?
A 747 cargo jet can carry 124 tons, 248,000 lbs.
506,511,628 lbs./248,000 lbs/flight = 2042 flights

Conclusion: Michael J. Murphy’s claim that jets spraying barium(oxide) could have reduced rainfall by 2 & ½ inches over Shasta County would require 2042 flights of 747 cargo class jets. The claim is quite simply preposterous. This example is just one of many in which people who believe in chemtrails appear to simply repeat what others say with no proof or rational examination whatsoever.



=====================================

 
Old 09-05-2012, 07:34 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,202 posts, read 18,272,814 times
Reputation: 8032
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
If you don't choose to believe in geo-engineering than there isn't much I can do about that.
Santa Claus is something you "believe in." The tooth fairy is something you "believe in." Chemtrails are something you "believe in." Geo-engineering is a concept that encompasses every possible way to manipulate the environment. Planting a tree is geo-engineering. There's no nebulous abstract in which to "believe." Either something is or is not geo-engineering, and this:



is not. Persistent contrails may have the unintended consequence of slightly altering ground temperatures temporarily, but they are not part of a deliberate geo-engineering program. They're a byproduct of air travel, and nothing more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
Until then, you can deny all you want, and I will continue to believe otherwise.
Of course I deny that fantasy is reality. You can continue to believe the fantasy if you like. You can also continue to believe in Santa Claus. No skin off my back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
I'll even go further and say that the climate changes we are experiencing globally, the intense heat, the droughts, the fires, the flash floods, are a result of covert gov't operations. Some are experiments, some are part of Agenda 21, some are weaponry.
As was pointed out earlier, you've never seen a conspiracy theory you didn't fully embrace, so seeing what you just wrote, as flabbergasting as it is, comes as no surprise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
Call me crazy, I don't care.
 
Old 09-05-2012, 08:02 AM
 
5,113 posts, read 4,959,838 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
you have google

to use your own quote..."I am not going to do the research for you"

Michael J. Murphy and Barry Kolsky are LIBERAL ENVIRONAZI's

their progagando that YOU use in your OP,,is a LIE

it has been debunked many many times...yet you fail to see it...why don???
You are the one making the claim so its on you to show proof ... see how that works
 
Old 09-05-2012, 08:05 AM
 
5,113 posts, read 4,959,838 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
OK, here you go. All the debunking you could possibly want and all based on SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Debunked: What In The World Are They Spraying? - Contrail Science » Contrail Science
Are you serious? Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Here is how the web page starts: If you are looking for a debunking of Why In The World Are They Spraying, first check out this post, as the second film really depends on the first being true, then have a look at the various errors in Why In The World Are They Spraying, detailed here:

LOL Here is the source of your proof:

ContrailScience.com is just a place where I write about both contrails and science – which also includes some looking at the “chemtrail” theory, and the pseudoscience associated with it.
My name is Mick West, I have private pilot training up to long distance solo certification, and have flown a 150 mile solo flight. I’ve been training out of Santa Monica airport, so I know the airspace round here. I like writing, and figuring things out. I’ve been writing about contrails and the “chemtrail” theory since 2007.


I’m not a scientist, or a meteorologist, but I try to ensure that what I post is comprised of independently verifiable facts. You can check these facts yourself. If you find ANY error on this site, then let me know and I will issue a correction immediately.
I’m not paid for this. I do not work for anyone in conjunction with this site. I’m just some guy.
 
Old 09-05-2012, 08:13 AM
 
5,113 posts, read 4,959,838 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
You still don't get it do you...You are the one making the claims, so it is you that has to provide evidence...That mockumentery you posted is NOT evidence.
As I said many times in this thread, this thread is about the documentary and the documentary contains the source information for its claims from lab test reports, scientists and other experts. I don't need to provide any additional information since the documentary is self-contained. You on the other-hand, are making claims that are unfounded and you are unwilling to show proof so I don't accept them.

See how that works?
 
Old 09-05-2012, 08:17 AM
 
5,113 posts, read 4,959,838 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
Of course he won't. He's not interested in science unless the word junk proceeds it. He'll continue with his 'Lalalala...I'm not listening" debate style when presented with facts.

However, others with open minds will follow the link and can determine for themselves where the truth lies. That site debunks all the arguements made by chemtrailers and exposes them for the tin foil hat wearing idiots they are.
The author of the website admits he is not a scientist or expert in geoengineering ... he is political propaganda and you guys are drinking the kool-aid.

I have posted video from John Holdren, Obama's science czar, and he claims geoengineering is real, viable, and needed to combat global warming.

I have posted video from a world leading geoengineering scientist who claims the same thing as Jogn Holdren.

I show the proof and you guys just show propaganda kool-aid.
 
Old 09-05-2012, 08:20 AM
 
5,113 posts, read 4,959,838 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by boreatwork View Post
So you ppl go outside everyday and see for yourself massive hazy lines for miles on end and think that's OK? I barely see blue skies any more and that's natural? . Sound like a bunch of government trolls that have not a damn clue. No point in arguing with these fools.
BINGO!!!
 
Old 09-05-2012, 08:21 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,364 posts, read 14,070,534 times
Reputation: 6524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don9 View Post
As I said many times in this thread, this thread is about the documentary and the documentary contains the source information for its claims from lab test reports, scientists and other experts. I don't need to provide any additional information since the documentary is self-contained. You on the other-hand, are making claims that are unfounded and you are unwilling to show proof so I don't accept them.

See how that works?
Quote:
documentary contains the source information for its claims from lab test reports
which have been debunked.

Claim #1-
In the area of Mohave County, Arizona, due to chemtrails spraying, 25 people had blood tests which showed barium at over 1000 times the toxic level.

Murphy's claim refers to a website by Gianluca Zanna which displays 12 lab reports showing blood barium levels between 70 and 250 mcg/L :

Mr. Gianluca's report is individually linked here:
http://mohavecountyconstitution.com/...ca%20blood.jpg

The Zanna lab report was created by NMS labs and shows the following:
Analysis- Barium, Serum/Plasma
Result - 130
Units - mcg/L
Reporting limit - 11
Notes - elevated

The report includes the following comments:
Barium
reported normal: less than 10 mcg/L
NMS lab derived data:
Median, 21 mcg/L
Range, 0-489 mcg/L
(N=1155)
10-90% of concentrations range from 1.8 to 165 mcg/L

On June 8, 2011, Jay Reynolds contacted NMS labs at 1-800-522-6671, and spoke to their Client Support Representative Mr. Marlow. Here were his questions and his responses:

Q: What does a "reporting limit" mean?
A: This is the minimum detectable amount for which we will make a report.

Q: What does elevated mean?
A: Any amount above the median(average) amount will be reported as elevated.

Q: What does "N-1155" mean?
A.: That is the number of people that NMS tested when we were researching average blood barium levels.

Q: I am looking at a report of barium in blood, what does the comment "Median, 21 mcg/L" mean?
A: 21 mcg/L lies in the center of the range of what 1155 people had in ther blood.

Q: What does "Range, 0-489 mcg/L" mean?
A: That is the spread of blood barium levels that NMS labs found when they tested 1155 average people. The lowest was 0, the highest was 489.

Q: What does "10-90% of concentrations range from 1.8 to 165 mcg/L" mean?
A: Most people's blood barium levels fall into the range of 1.8 to 165 mcg/L.

Conclusions:
Michael J. Murphy's claim that these lab tests show "1000 times above the toxic amount of barium" is false. These lab tests show that none of the people tested had toxic levels of barium in their blood, and certainly not 1000 times above a toxic level. Most had completely average levels, some had none at all.

Normal human blood contains 0.08-0.4 mg Ba/l; most or all is in the plasma fraction. Avg values are found: Bone 4.1-29 ug Ba/g; blood 41-95 ug Ba/g; kidney 1.3-20 ug Ba/g; liver 0.2-10 ug Ba/g; spleen 0.6-12 ug Ba/g. Assuming an avg of 70 kg as human body wt, the barium content has been estimated to be 16 mg. HUMAN ADULT BODY CONTAINS ABOUT 22 MG BARIUM, 66% OF IT PRESENT IN BONES. .............Worst case from Mohave = 250 mcg/L

mcg/L = Micrograms/Liter
mg/L = milligrams/Liter
ug/L = Micrograms/Liter

250 mcg/L = 0.25 mg/L

Normal human blood contains 0.08-0.40 mg/L

Hence all results are within normal range.



These tests in actuality are an indication that debunks the "barium is being sprayed" claim!
Murphy's claim isn't even logical. If all those people had 1000 times a toxic level in their blood, they would have been buried already. Dr. Stanley Monteith should know better as well.

Last edited by workingclasshero; 09-05-2012 at 08:47 AM..
 
Old 09-05-2012, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,202 posts, read 18,272,814 times
Reputation: 8032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don9 View Post
The author of the website admits he is not a scientist or expert in geoengineering
Neither are you.

He also states, "what I post is comprised of independently verifiable facts. You can check these facts yourself."

Have you? No, you haven't.

You don't just dismiss anyone that disagrees with you, you actually accuse them of being paid to do so. That goes far beyond confirmation bias - that's outright paranoia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don9 View Post
you guys are drinking the kool-aid.
No, Don, we've given the evidence an objective look and reached a different conclusion than you. The reality isn't that hard to grasp - those white lines in the sky are NOT part of some geo-engineering program. It's pretty straightforward and the only logical conclusion one can reach when considering the facts.
 
Old 09-05-2012, 08:36 AM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,364 posts, read 14,070,534 times
Reputation: 6524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don9 View Post
I have posted video from a world leading geoengineering scientist who claims the same thing:
oh and his name was????


let me guess your post#233
Quote:
The following article is about Geoengineering scientist David Keith and his research and plans for geoengineering the earth. This article was released almost 3 years ago and before the massive geoengineering SRM started in the USA. David Keith appears in the documentary I posted.
for which I debunked it with this
http://www.city-data.com/forum/25839940-post254.html

oh really


SCIENTIST: The Guardian Article About Me Was 'Substantially Fabricated'

Read more: David Keith Says Guardian Story Is 'Substantially Fabricated' - Business Insider

================================

here is the cost analysis of David Keith for a geoengineering project. the altitude needs to be above the troposphere, and preferably mid stratosphere which is above the range of heavy payload jets. The best location would be near the equator because air circulation there helps loft stuff up higher, but a tradeoff there is that the tropopause there is higher yet. Bottom line is that the best airplane for geoengineering would have to be newbuilt and would operate at about TWICE the altitude of the planes people are seeing and photographing calling them chemtrails.

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~keith/Mis...aGeoReport.pdf



====================================


and even your scientist David Keith says that they are not spraying, and that if he found out that they were, then he would drop everything else he was doing, and risk his life to try to stop it.

25 min in here.


We Are Change Calgary meets David Keith - Chemtrail / Geo-engineering - YouTube


=================================

He’s one of the world’s leading experts on geoengineering, and he very specifically states that no field experiments have been done
– except for one using a helicopter in Russia. See:
We Are Change Calgary meets David Keith - Chemtrail / Geo-engineering

I’ve made notes in the second comment of that Metabunk thread, so you can jump to the relevant part. The part where he says there are no experiements is at 12:40 to 14:40

Also at 15:16 he states that it would NOT look like contrails.

=================================




debunked by your own scientist
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:53 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top