I am wondering if there is evidence of fluctuating levels of barium
compounds in rainwater?
As a scientific hypothesis, IF thousands of kilograms of barium compounds
are being put into the atmosphere, AND mass is conserved, AND the atoms
constituting those compounds should eventually be washed out of the sky, AND
up in water resevoirs, AND municipalities test their water AND publish
results for trace elements such as barium. THEREFORE, the barium atom
concentrations in drinking water should be observable.
The evidence of chemtrails should be clearly detectable looking at barium
concentrations in municipal water sheds, which are tested semi-annualy in
Vancouver, B.C. (
http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/water/pdfs/QualityControlAnnualWaterReport2004Volume1.pdf )
Each municipality will test its own water for various elements, and so
evidence that barium concentrations are fluctuating should be available. I
have not yet done the detailed research here, but the days on which various
municipalities test their water may be random, so the chemical evidence of
this procedure should be all over the place. People just have to look for
the evidence.
If their is no evidence of fluctuating barium compounds, either they are not
using barium, barium forms a light compound that floats up and escapes the
earth's gravity into outer space, or the chemtrails hypotheisis is not
supportable by facts.
Is there an error in my logic?, evidence should exist or the chemtrails
hypothesis is probably not true.
Mr. K Breslauer, Vancouver B.C. CANADA
klausbreslauer@hotmail.com
.
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Chemtrails, simple evidence possible and requested. |
21 Oct 2005 03:10:01 AM |
|
|
"Mr. K Breslauer" <klausbreslauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JlQ5f.243088$1i.22724@pd7tw2no...
I am wondering if there is evidence of fluctuating levels of barium
compounds in rainwater?
As a scientific hypothesis, IF thousands of kilograms of barium compounds
are being put into the atmosphere, AND mass is conserved, AND the atoms
constituting those compounds should eventually be washed out of the sky,
AND
up in water resevoirs, AND municipalities test their water AND publish
results for trace elements such as barium. THEREFORE, the barium atom
concentrations in drinking water should be observable.
The evidence of chemtrails should be clearly detectable looking at barium
concentrations in municipal water sheds, which are tested semi-annualy in
Vancouver, B.C. (
http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/water/pdfs/QualityControlAnnualWaterReport2004Volume1.
pdf )
Each municipality will test its own water for various elements, and so
evidence that barium concentrations are fluctuating should be available.
I
have not yet done the detailed research here, but the days on which
various
municipalities test their water may be random, so the chemical evidence of
this procedure should be all over the place. People just have to look for
the evidence.
If their is no evidence of fluctuating barium compounds, either they are
not
using barium, barium forms a light compound that floats up and escapes the
earth's gravity into outer space, or the chemtrails hypotheisis is not
supportable by facts.
Is there an error in my logic?
Well, the most glaring are: "Why would you expect to find Barium in the
condensed exhaust vapour from turbofan engines?" and "what would spraying
barium into the tropopause achieve?" In addition, you haven't considered
other possible sources of barium contamination.
, evidence should exist or the chemtrails hypothesis is probably not true.
Well, seeing as there is no evidence for "chemtrails" other than the
squawkings of hysterical kooks who don't understand things like VORs,
airways, dewpoints, contrail formation etc etc, I think it's probably
fairly safe to dismiss them out of hand. the kooks have been squawking about
it for years, posting easily explainable pictures of either regular
contrails, wingtup vortices and on one occasion fuel dumping but they have
yet to present one tiny shred of compelling evidence.
Mr. K Breslauer, Vancouver B.C. CANADA
klausbreslauer@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. K Breslauer" |
|
| Title: Re: Chemtrails, simple evidence possible and requested. |
21 Oct 2005 10:22:15 AM |
|
|
Agreed that there is no compelling evidence.
My objective was to show that readily collected evidence that cannnot be
concealed, can easily be measured with a University Level Chemistry Lab,
whose results are ALREADY published, show that the hypothesis is
unsupportable and hence FALSE.
I was trying to educate the public on the scientific method, to have people
ask simple questions that can support or deny assertions. As a science
teacher I spend a surprising amount of my time dealing with students and
fellow teachers who have been wound up with variations of conspiracy
theories.
I call it the 'beautiful question', the question, which when properly
answered by the original asker, requires them to recognize the fundamental
illogic of their original proposition. It is 'beautiful', because, at the
end of it, they usually say, you are right.
Thanks for adding to this dialogue the logical explanations of the
'evidence' presented to date.
I think we can educate the public about
The conspiracy theories that I regularly encounter (and debunk)
CONSPIRACY THEORY: The oil and car companies keep super-efficient
automotive technology from the public.
DEBUNK: The Chinese, Japanese and Korea are heavily oil-dependent nations.
Their corporations are not owned, controlled or heavily influenced by the
Western World. Two decades ago, the technically advanced Soviet Union was
opposed to our Western consumer Society. If any nation could develop
technology that would radically reduce their oil consumption, their balance
of trade payments would shift even further in their favour. Even if they
did not export this technology, they could use their trade balance to buy up
the rest of the planet. If they exported this technology, they would again
dramatically increase their market share, again buying up the rest of the
planet from the inefficient.
Is there an error in my logic?
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:dja7oq$pq9$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
"Mr. K Breslauer" <klausbreslauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JlQ5f.243088$1i.22724@pd7tw2no...
I am wondering if there is evidence of fluctuating levels of barium
compounds in rainwater?
As a scientific hypothesis, IF thousands of kilograms of barium compounds
are being put into the atmosphere, AND mass is conserved, AND the atoms
constituting those compounds should eventually be washed out of the sky,
AND
up in water resevoirs, AND municipalities test their water AND publish
results for trace elements such as barium. THEREFORE, the barium atom
concentrations in drinking water should be observable.
The evidence of chemtrails should be clearly detectable looking at barium
concentrations in municipal water sheds, which are tested semi-annualy in
Vancouver, B.C. (
http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/water/pdfs/QualityControlAnnualWaterReport2004Volume1.
pdf )
Each municipality will test its own water for various elements, and so
evidence that barium concentrations are fluctuating should be available.
I
have not yet done the detailed research here, but the days on which
various
municipalities test their water may be random, so the chemical evidence
of
this procedure should be all over the place. People just have to look
for
the evidence.
If their is no evidence of fluctuating barium compounds, either they are
not
using barium, barium forms a light compound that floats up and escapes
the
earth's gravity into outer space, or the chemtrails hypotheisis is not
supportable by facts.
Is there an error in my logic?
Well, the most glaring are: "Why would you expect to find Barium in the
condensed exhaust vapour from turbofan engines?" and "what would spraying
barium into the tropopause achieve?" In addition, you haven't considered
other possible sources of barium contamination.
, evidence should exist or the chemtrails hypothesis is probably not
true.
Well, seeing as there is no evidence for "chemtrails" other than the
squawkings of hysterical kooks who don't understand things like VORs,
airways, dewpoints, contrail formation etc etc, I think it's probably
fairly safe to dismiss them out of hand. the kooks have been squawking
about
it for years, posting easily explainable pictures of either regular
contrails, wingtup vortices and on one occasion fuel dumping but they have
yet to present one tiny shred of compelling evidence.
Mr. K Breslauer, Vancouver B.C. CANADA
klausbreslauer@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Chemtrails, simple evidence possible and requested. |
22 Oct 2005 04:35:21 AM |
|
|
"Mr. K Breslauer" <klausbreslauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HI76f.259172$tl2.20710@pd7tw3no...
Agreed that there is no compelling evidence.
My objective was to show that readily collected evidence that cannnot be
concealed, can easily be measured with a University Level Chemistry Lab,
whose results are ALREADY published, show that the hypothesis is
unsupportable and hence FALSE.
Right.. presumably someone hypothesised that barium was being spread by
"chemtrails" right? In whchi case, yes, your experiment could prove that
there were no unexpected levels of barium in the atmosphere.
<snip>
CONSPIRACY THEORY: The oil and car companies keep super-efficient
automotive technology from the public.
DEBUNK: The Chinese, Japanese and Korea are heavily oil-dependent
nations.
Their corporations are not owned, controlled or heavily influenced by the
Western World. Two decades ago, the technically advanced Soviet Union was
opposed to our Western consumer Society. If any nation could develop
technology that would radically reduce their oil consumption, their
balance
of trade payments would shift even further in their favour. Even if they
did not export this technology, they could use their trade balance to buy
up
the rest of the planet. If they exported this technology, they would
again
dramatically increase their market share, again buying up the rest of the
planet from the inefficient.
Is there an error in my logic?
Not that I can see. Though one of the things about C.T. is that lack of
evidence equals evidence of a coverup, and their paranoia knows no bounds.
Hence:
West v East was just propaganda fed to the masses while the REAL people in
control (the ZOG/UN/Illuminati/Bilderburg ) hid these technologies from us
to keep us in poverty and ignorance.
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:dja7oq$pq9$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
"Mr. K Breslauer" <klausbreslauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JlQ5f.243088$1i.22724@pd7tw2no...
I am wondering if there is evidence of fluctuating levels of barium
compounds in rainwater?
As a scientific hypothesis, IF thousands of kilograms of barium
compounds
are being put into the atmosphere, AND mass is conserved, AND the atoms
constituting those compounds should eventually be washed out of the
sky,
AND
up in water resevoirs, AND municipalities test their water AND publish
results for trace elements such as barium. THEREFORE, the barium atom
concentrations in drinking water should be observable.
The evidence of chemtrails should be clearly detectable looking at
barium
concentrations in municipal water sheds, which are tested semi-annualy
in
Vancouver, B.C. (
http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/water/pdfs/QualityControlAnnualWaterReport2004Volume1.
pdf )
Each municipality will test its own water for various elements, and so
evidence that barium concentrations are fluctuating should be
available.
I
have not yet done the detailed research here, but the days on which
various
municipalities test their water may be random, so the chemical evidence
of
this procedure should be all over the place. People just have to look
for
the evidence.
If their is no evidence of fluctuating barium compounds, either they
are
not
using barium, barium forms a light compound that floats up and escapes
the
earth's gravity into outer space, or the chemtrails hypotheisis is not
supportable by facts.
Is there an error in my logic?
Well, the most glaring are: "Why would you expect to find Barium in the
condensed exhaust vapour from turbofan engines?" and "what would
spraying
barium into the tropopause achieve?" In addition, you haven't considered
other possible sources of barium contamination.
, evidence should exist or the chemtrails hypothesis is probably not
true.
Well, seeing as there is no evidence for "chemtrails" other than the
squawkings of hysterical kooks who don't understand things like VORs,
airways, dewpoints, contrail formation etc etc, I think it's probably
fairly safe to dismiss them out of hand. the kooks have been squawking
about
it for years, posting easily explainable pictures of either regular
contrails, wingtup vortices and on one occasion fuel dumping but they
have
yet to present one tiny shred of compelling evidence.
Mr. K Breslauer, Vancouver B.C. CANADA
klausbreslauer@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
