Comments on: Chemical Analysis of Contrails

By: Traducción de un artículo de Contrailscience.com « Los chemtrails no existen

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:55:25 +0000

[...] es concreta y contrastada, una maravilla. Tiene artículos realmente interesantes, como el del timo de Carnicom (los análisis científicos que realizaron), que más adelante [...]

By: Uncinus

Uncinus — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:28:43 +0000

The video shows normal levels of barium. See:

http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/

By: wildwelder az

wildwelder az — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:20:11 +0000

http://youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

watch the video ,then tell me all these people are lying.

TELL US THE TRUTH

“THEY”started spraying again here in az on monday am ,sky completely clouded over in 4 hours ,just like last week ,monday-clear,mon afternoon cludy-tuesday spray-wednesday cold cloudy and supposed to rain?

what are you spraying?!?!?!?!?

By: JazzRoc

JazzRoc — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:36:37 +0000

http://newyorkskywatch.com/

I quote jbreezes today on a “Chemical Awareness Day” thread:

“Check out the site newyorkskywatch dot com which has much info, including the faultiness of the site contrailscience dot com. Jazzrock is apparently a debunker. Check out newyorkskywatch to learn more about weather modification, chemtrails, and debunkers”

Hoping you find this of interest,

JazzRoc

By: Duncankunz

Duncankunz — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:05:44 +0000

This is an invaluable resource to people like me who want to present fact — as opposed to fantasy and paranoia — about the “chem-trail” debate.

By: Uncinus

Uncinus — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:17:48 +0000

Hello E M., no, I don’t think this one article debunks the whole chemtrail story, but have a look at the other articles, and see what you think.

I’m not sure why I get top result for “kuchinich+chemtrails – maybe other sites link here? I do think this is the most in depth article I’ve seen about the 2977 bill, so Google actually doing a good job in guiding you here. I don’t say anything incorrect, do I?

By: E M.

E M. — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:09:48 +0000

So you get some evidence against one thing on carnicom’s site and you assume that it debunks everything?

Look here:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind4.htm

Your site is gov’t disinfo. Propanganda. It was the first site that came up when searching for kucinich / chemtrails looking for the HR 2977 bill information. Why did the search results change recently ? It’s anyone’s guess I suppose. You obviously have the upperhand in this debate. You’ll probably present fact sheets directly from google as to why you are so high in the ratings. And of course I’ll believe them. Just like everyone else

Just got here. I’ll certainly check out the rest of what you say.

-E

By: siegmund

siegmund — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 21:25:48 +0000

Hello Uncinus,

in your above article you refer to a report dated 02/13/2002 from Clifford Carnicoms website called "Lab tests are positve"
http://www.carnicom.com/lab1.htm

This report is showing test results according EPA 200.7 (Metals by ICP AES) with MDL 1 mg/L for Ca, 0.1 mg/L for Al, 0.02 mg/L for Ba, whereas ISO 11885 (issue 4/1998) is showing MDL 0.001 mg/L for Ca, 0.05 mg/L for Al, 0.002 mg/L for Ba.

It seems that this no name analytical lab (name and address blackened) was equipped with a first generation ICP spectrometer. But even then, especially when analytical results are near or below MDL, an experienced chemist would have delivered exact results. There is an old analytical rule which everybody knows: One has to concentrate the water sample (vacuum evaporation) by factor 10 or 100. And a top chemist would have told you whether this Barium fallout from the atmosphere was of geogenic or anthropogenic origin.

I can imagine quite well why Clifford Carnicom did not disclose the name of the lab.

In two words: EMBARRASSING PERFORMANCE