posted 04-11-2002 11:26 PM            

California Annual Statewide Toxics Summary

Barium: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/toxics/statepages/bastate.html

Note dramatic increase in maximum barium concentrations detected in 1999!

Everyone should try to obtain comparable data from their own state agencies responsible for air quality.

Next step...our own air sampling with analyses by certified laboratories (on clear and "cloudy" days).

posted 04-12-2002 12:23 AM            

be they thieves in the night, lurking spooks, crowing roosters, housewives from Indiana, spelunkers (in dark caves of ignorance) or the more mundane debunkers (earning their thirty pieces of silver)...

...yep, I'm ready...

Anytime

Anywhere

posted 04-12-2002 01:08 AM            

Wonder what the National Security could be?

posted 04-29-2002 11:24 PM            

Evidence for WHAT, Throat? Evidence that barium in the atmosphere has gone up? No disagreement there, bubba. Suppose YOU tell ME how an increase in barium in the air (given the data) means that the barium came from anywhere but increased mining and burning of hydrocarbons.

I assume you've gone to Tables 942 through 948 of the US Census Bureau's "Statistical Abstract of the United States", right? And you have done a correlation between the rise in barium on your graph and "No. 942. Energy Supply and Disposition by Type of Fuel: 1970 to 1999", followed by "No. 943. Energy Supply and Disposition by Type of Fuel—Estimates, 1997 to 1999, and Projections, 2005 to 2020", right?

You DO know about ANOVA correlations and derivatives, right? And you HAVE checked out the Statistical Abstract, right?

Throat, I know that you are not a technical person, so I will type this very slowly.

When you see a graph that shows a rise in barium (or pixie dust, for that matter) the ONLY conclusion you can make, absent any other data, is that there is more barium (or pixie dust, for that matter) in the atmosphere.

Absent any other data, you cannot say that rise supports your pet theory about barium being belched from airplanes. It might, of course -- a real scientist doesn't dismiss anything out-of-hand -- or it might not. What you need to do is to show a correlation between the rise of barium in the air of California and, say, a rise in the number of air miles flown, (corrected for the deltas in barium mining, drilling using barium, or burning of hydrocarbons, etc.)

Now I can see why you might not want to do that kind of thing. It requires a lot of work, a bit of statistical analysis, and (ghasp!) intellectual honesty to report your findings if they don't happen to support your pet hypotheses.

But if you're going to talk "evidence" to me, scooter, and expect any sort of correspondence back, then do your homework or quit wasting my time.

posted 04-29-2002 11:30 PM            

Your time is so precious.

You wouldn't want to waste any of that...

posted 04-29-2002 11:34 PM            

...what a great name.

You, however, are NOT the ultimate arbitrator of what qualifies as evidence...

...no matter who you think you are.

I'd be happy to see your evidence of a factor of two increase in barium mining or hydrocarbons consumption in California over the time period in question...

or are you just blowing smoke?

posted 04-30-2002 12:34 AM            

A big jump in barium in the air the SAME YEAR a major volcanic eruption takes place in Alaska which likely spewed barium and sulfur across the globe.

posted 04-30-2002 09:28 AM            

When you see a graph that shows a rise in barium (or pixie dust, for that matter) the ONLY conclusion you can make, absent any other data, is that there is more barium (or pixie dust, for that matter) in the atmosphere.

That. is. all. you. can. tell.

No matter how much you want to believe it was caused by the bilderburgers or TPTB or the Little Purple Men From Arcturus or the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, it is simply not good evidence. As our new colleague Sgt. Baxter says, there was volcanic activity then, too. Is that a correlation? Maybe. Maybe not.

One of the toughest jobs I had in raising my seventeen-year-old (besides getting him to clean up his room) was to help him overcome his tendency, both in elementary and junior high school, to confuse the way things are with the way he'd like it to be (or as he called it, "the way it ought to be").

When you are really trying to find something out, you cannot mix in wishful thinking with evidence and common sense and expect to come up with the truth. No matter how much salt you add to the cake mix, it simply won't get any sweeter!

Now I admit that there are advantages to plugging in your favorite belief system into your conclusions: (1) it may validate your sense of self-worth; (2) it may make you popular with some of your peers; and (3) it will give you a reason to keep posting.

But it doesn't make your conclusions either true or valid, and you end up being the laughing stock of people who really want to get to the bottom of the 'chemtrail' hypotheisis.

And believe me, there are some of those people here.

posted 05-01-2002 09:25 PM            

"pixie dust"

Gee Kunz...you seem to be losing your touch. Do you think you could be a little more disgustingly derisive?

As far as Sgt Baxter is concerned, there is absolutely NO data to support his contention that an Alaska volcano is responsible for the ONGOING barium increases in California air. NONE NOTHING NADA.

"I assume you've gone to Tables 942 through 948 of the US Census Bureau's "Statistical Abstract of the United States", right? And you have done a correlation between the rise in barium on your graph and "No. 942. Energy Supply and Disposition by Type of Fuel: 1970 to 1999", followed by "No. 943. Energy Supply and Disposition by Type of Fuel—Estimates, 1997 to 1999, and Projections, 2005 to 2020", right?"

Sure, I keep this on my nightstand for those times when I can't sleep.

What ALL should notice is that Kunz provided NO DATA to support his claim...only an obscure citation. Nor does he provide any data supporting HIS red herring about an increase in barium mining.

Statistics were provided on the thousands of samples taken,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/toxics/statepages/bastate.html

and yet Kunz spouts a few words "ANOVA correlations and derivatives" assuming that some how, some way, this negates an obvious trend upward. And while he spouts about statistics, he of course has provided NONE of his own...merely pontificates about HIS concept of "the scientific method".

As far as definitive proof goes, Kunz, the self-described Boeing engineer, would likely take shots at whatever growing body of evidence was provided, including samples taken at altitude from directly behind a ChemTrail spewing plane.

Now IF he really wanted to help, he would enlist that very chase plane to take such samples. I mean, we are talking Boeing aren't we? Think they have a plane they could spare for such a project? They apparently are at least funding a debunking engineer.

Just how concerned are they anyway?

Real help...or ongoing coverup?

posted 05-02-2002 12:30 AM            

Throat, it’s hard not to be derisive of you; you’re such a disgustingly easy target.

“ ‘I assume you've gone to Tables 942 through 948 of the US Census Bureau's "Statistical Abstract of the United States", right? And you have done a correlation between the rise in barium on your graph and "No. 942. Energy Supply and Disposition by Type of Fuel: 1970 to 1999", followed by "No. 943. Energy Supply and Disposition by Type of Fuel—Estimates, 1997 to 1999, and Projections, 2005 to 2020", right?’
Sure, I keep this on my nightstand for those times when I can't sleep.”

That’s just the point, Scooter, you don’t know anything about any other data.

“What ALL should notice is that Kunz provided NO DATA to support his claim…”

Well, Duh! You’re the one making the claim that barium is caused by the pixie-people in the sprayplanes. I can understand that you’re terrified of the concept that someone who comes up with a hypothesis has to come up with the evidence, especially when your “evidence” is provided by Great Scientific Minds of the Century like Carnicom and Aigner. Wouldn’t it be nice it the everybody believed that our job is to prove your hypotheses wrong?

But they’re not, Throat, and you know it. That’s why you’re so desperate to change the subject. “If you can’t prove that Santa doesn’t exist, then he does!" No.

“As far as definitive proof goes, Kunz, the self-described Boeing engineer, would likely take shots at whatever growing body of evidence was provided, including samples taken at altitude from directly behind a ChemTrail spewing plane.”

You’ll never know, bubba, because there simply isn’t any growing body of evidence, including samples taken at an altitude from directly behind a chemtrail spewing plane. And the reason for that is real simple. No one in the Chemtrail community – including you -- cares enough about finding out the truth to cough up a single dollar for any program like that. Why bother? You can get all the strokes you need by complaining about the powers that be or the illuminati.

“Now IF he really wanted to help, he would enlist that very chase plane to take such samples.”

Throat, I can see you know as much about aerospace companies as you do about science. Do you think some mid-level, non-management, on-the-verge-of-retirement bureaucrat at a company of over a hundred thousand people has any influence at all? Do you think that anyone at any management level of Boeing has even heard of chemtrails? Throat, you and your beliefs are not even a blip on the radar of any aerospace company or military organization, except maybe as an in-joke in Maverick’s ready room. You are simply not important to anyone outside your own clique and the people to whom you owe money.

“Just how concerned are they anyway? Real help...or ongoing coverup?”

Throat, again, you’re not important enough to have anything to cover up. And no, we’re not going to send a black helicopter to poison your kitty-cat either.

posted 05-02-2002 10:27 AM            

Hummmm.

I guess as with many other issues, Kunz refuses to acknowledge the FACT of the visitor logs to the numerous (and growing) number of ChemTrail sites on the Internet.

Yeah, we're certain they have NO INETREST.

Just as Kunz, who believes this is totally foolish, is drawn to the boards on a daily, if not hourly basis.

posted 05-16-2002 10:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sore Throat:
Data from the California Air Resources Control Board
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aaqm/toxics.htm

California Annual Statewide Toxics Summary

Barium: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/toxics/statepages/bastate.html

Note dramatic increase in maximum barium concentrations detected in 1999!

Everyone should try to obtain comparable data from their own state agencies responsible for air quality.

Next step...our own air sampling with analyses by certified laboratories (on clear and "cloudy" days).

ToxFAQsTM for Barium
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts24.html

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Sore Throat on 04-11-2002]

---