Real evidence for spraying barium???

Miscellaneous hoaxes, conspiracies and all around bad things not covered elsewhere.

Real evidence for spraying barium???

Postby Lance » Tue May 24, 2005 11:44 pm

Um, guys?

Check out this page at the National Institutes of Health.

NIH wrote:The high levels of Ba stemmed from local quarrying for Ba ores and/or use of Ba in paper/foundry/welding/textile/oil and gas well related industries, as well as from the use of Ba as an atmospheric aerosol spray for enhancing/refracting the signalling of radio/radar waves along military jet flight paths, missile test ranges, etc.

Emphasis mine.

Is this for real?

Please feel free to join the party at GLP in the thread: Chronic barium intoxication disrupts sulphated proteoglycan synthesis: a hypothesis for the origins of multiple sclerosis.
No trees were killed in the posting of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

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

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
Lance
Administrator
Administrator
Cheeseburger Swilling Lard-Ass who needs to put down the remote and get off the couch.
 
Posts: 63953
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Oswego, IL

Postby Nighthawk » Wed May 25, 2005 2:59 am

I'm not sure what to make of that. One thing I have noticed about the chemtrail crap is that the idea of them "spraying" us is creeping into official reports.

It's like they have heard about chemtrails somewhere, they find something odd and make a connection to chemtrails as a possible source for whatever they found.

I don't think that they are actually confirming that chemtrails exist but are just saying that it is possible. But, of course, the chemtards jump on stuff like this as "proof"
User avatar
Nighthawk
Paid Debunker
Paid Debunker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Wabash, IN

Postby Bill EE » Wed May 25, 2005 4:38 am

This could be an attempt to create a duct or EM waveguide. This way you could increase the operational range of communication or sensor systems. I just don't see it as a common practice which makes me believe the report is reporting something heard rather than a real event. I am on my PPC so forgive any typos.
User avatar
Bill EE
Disinformation Agent
Disinformation Agent
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:04 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby Lance » Wed May 25, 2005 11:29 am

Bill EE wrote:This could be an attempt to create a duct or EM waveguide...


Interesting...

Is this speculation Bill EE or something that you know is actually done on occasion?
No trees were killed in the posting of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

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

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
Lance
Administrator
Administrator
Cheeseburger Swilling Lard-Ass who needs to put down the remote and get off the couch.
 
Posts: 63953
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Oswego, IL

Postby Bill EE » Wed May 25, 2005 9:34 pm

A little of both. Project Echo (I believe that is what it was called) had two components. The first was to use reflective ballons to create "communication satellites" without the effort of launching spacecraft. This part was implemented and tested. Launching actual communication satellites turned out to be cheaper and more reliable. The second was a study conducted by Lincoln Labs (as I remember) to launch a shit load of dipoles into LEO to act like the ionosphere at higher frequencies - bascially create a waveguide for frequencies above about 30 MHz and allow beyond-radio-horizon communications at those frequencies. Discarded because of cost and improvements in technology (and lucky too - with all the stuff up there it was be almost impossible to have manned space missions).

There is also a technique recently (last ten years or so) found in underwater to improve resolution in a constrained waveguide. It could be possible to implement a waveguide in the atmosphere and use these types of techniques to get high resolution RADAR images but I am not sure it has been done. The draw I see is if you can spray the area with a low speed tanker aircraft you are not worried about sending planes over, use standard recon birds instead. Unless the conductive "cloud" can remain long enough to make this technique viable. I don't know!
User avatar
Bill EE
Disinformation Agent
Disinformation Agent
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:04 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby Lance » Wed May 25, 2005 9:56 pm

Okay, so basically, chemtrails may be real after all and I should quit trying to debunk them. This will be good for my blood pressure.

Um, hazzard? Maybe we should shut up.

:glp_(139):
No trees were killed in the posting of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

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

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
Lance
Administrator
Administrator
Cheeseburger Swilling Lard-Ass who needs to put down the remote and get off the couch.
 
Posts: 63953
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Oswego, IL

Postby Bill EE » Thu May 26, 2005 12:56 am

Not exactly what I said. I said there my be a reason to do one of the ten thousand different "chemtrail" described by the idiots who can not keep a straight story. I am not sure I actually believe anyone would do it except as a proof of concept.

Most of the "chemtrail" people believe they are preparation for a mass kill off of the excess population or a fruitless attempt to halt global warming. Now why they would start the mass kill off in a country with some of the best medical care as oppossed to a less developed country they don't explain. They also don't explain why, if the light levels have increase, why isn't it showing up in solar panel specs. They also don't explain if "they" are going to try and block solar radiation why are they doing it at such low altitudes. They also don't explain why the airlines, given their present debt problems, are flying around tons of "chemicals" to spray for free.

:glp_(139):
User avatar
Bill EE
Disinformation Agent
Disinformation Agent
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:04 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby Nighthawk » Thu May 26, 2005 2:59 am

I would also think that if they are using something like this to increase RADAR range (not oven :) ) it would only be done over a battle field, not all over the world nor on the scale the woowoo's claim.
User avatar
Nighthawk
Paid Debunker
Paid Debunker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Wabash, IN

Postby hazzard » Thu May 26, 2005 6:35 am

"Um, hazzard? Maybe we should shut up."


Shutting up on GLP .....?

NAAA ! :twisted:

And their chemtrails,are not the same as this one.

We never said that there spewing out things that are good for us,just that theye arent spraying us with some mind controll cemicals.

OOHH...I dont know... :)
I still await the compelling Exhibit A.
User avatar
hazzard
Disinformation Agent
Disinformation Agent
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 2:19 pm
Location: Inside the New Horizon probe.

Postby Lance » Thu May 26, 2005 1:58 pm

Bill EE wrote:Not exactly what I said.


I guess I forgot the smily face in my post.

My bad.
No trees were killed in the posting of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

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

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
Lance
Administrator
Administrator
Cheeseburger Swilling Lard-Ass who needs to put down the remote and get off the couch.
 
Posts: 63953
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Oswego, IL

Postby twinstead » Thu May 26, 2005 2:28 pm

Lance (LBM™) wrote:
Bill EE wrote:Not exactly what I said.


I guess I forgot the smily face in my post.

My bad.


Unless you mean 'simile face' then I'm all confused--again.
AKA DogFishHead on GLP

The great thing about being a cynic is that in the end, you are either right or pleasantly surprised
User avatar
twinstead
Government Shill
Government Shill
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Lance » Thu May 26, 2005 2:50 pm

twinstead wrote:
Lance (LBM™) wrote:
Bill EE wrote:Not exactly what I said.


I guess I forgot the smily face in my post.

My bad.


Unless you mean 'simile face' then I'm all confused--again.


damn dab spleeing

Here, this: :D

I meant one of those.

And I think it's "smiley" for the singular.
No trees were killed in the posting of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

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

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
Lance
Administrator
Administrator
Cheeseburger Swilling Lard-Ass who needs to put down the remote and get off the couch.
 
Posts: 63953
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Oswego, IL

Postby twinstead » Thu May 26, 2005 3:49 pm

This whole chemtrails argument on GLP seems to be distilled down to the belief that the difference between contrails and chemtrails is that chemtrails persist and contrails don't.

In fact, it has been suggested that it is impossible for contrails to persist, and that anybody who has ever seen one persist before about 20 years ago is a liar.

I don't see anything different today than I have ever seen in the sky, and I'm 44. I've been looking at it for at least 40 years.

It is infuriating to me to be called a liar because some woo woo can't remember seeing a persistent contrail years ago (that one last hit of Mr Natural blotter might have something to do with it)

Freaky subject.
AKA DogFishHead on GLP

The great thing about being a cynic is that in the end, you are either right or pleasantly surprised
User avatar
twinstead
Government Shill
Government Shill
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Cl1mh4224rd » Thu May 26, 2005 4:38 pm

twinstead wrote:It is infuriating to me to be called a liar because some woo woo can't remember seeing a persistent contrail years ago

I'm thinking that something like, "You having the memory retention of a gnat doesn't make me liar," might be a good response to something like that.
User avatar
Cl1mh4224rd
Government Shill
Government Shill
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 9:44 pm
Location: Belle Vernon, PA, USA

Postby Bill EE » Fri May 27, 2005 12:06 am

Sorry if I sounded grumpy - it has been a really bad week! :evil:
User avatar
Bill EE
Disinformation Agent
Disinformation Agent
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:04 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby hazzard » Fri May 27, 2005 9:18 am

I asked our friends over at BA about barium in contrails.....on the (against the mainstream) forum.

Check it out.
I still await the compelling Exhibit A.
User avatar
hazzard
Disinformation Agent
Disinformation Agent
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 2:19 pm
Location: Inside the New Horizon probe.

Postby Lance » Fri May 27, 2005 1:50 pm

Bill EE wrote:Sorry if I sounded grumpy - it has been a really bad week! :evil:


Sorry to hear that BillEE.

Here, maybe this will help:

:glp_(24):

I'll even have one with you:

:glp_(39):
No trees were killed in the posting of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

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

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
Lance
Administrator
Administrator
Cheeseburger Swilling Lard-Ass who needs to put down the remote and get off the couch.
 
Posts: 63953
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Oswego, IL

Postby hazzard » Fri May 27, 2005 2:21 pm

Count me in :glp_(24):


I thought I might throw my self into the lions pit in an hour or so...

What are you guys up to...Friday and all......BBQ with the GF is on my "to do" list.. 8)
I still await the compelling Exhibit A.
User avatar
hazzard
Disinformation Agent
Disinformation Agent
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 2:19 pm
Location: Inside the New Horizon probe.

Postby twinstead » Fri May 27, 2005 2:26 pm

Me too.

We can have some DogFish Head 90 Minute India Pale Ale. 9% alcohol and hops goodness in a 12 ounce delivery vehicle
AKA DogFishHead on GLP

The great thing about being a cynic is that in the end, you are either right or pleasantly surprised
User avatar
twinstead
Government Shill
Government Shill
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Nighthawk » Sat May 28, 2005 3:13 am

A quick thought about barium in chemtrails.

Barium is used to remove moisture and oxygen from vacuum tubes, correct?

Wouldn't putting barium in the engine exhaust remove the moisture from the exhaust, thus causing the trails to disappear very quickly?

Wouldn't this shoot down their claim that chemtrails persist for long periods?

Not sure if this is right but sounds logical to me.
User avatar
Nighthawk
Paid Debunker
Paid Debunker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Wabash, IN

Postby Bill EE » Sat May 28, 2005 4:27 am

Barium Sulphide is a white pigment used in paints I believe but Barium Nitrate is used in firework for (or all colors) GREEN. So if Barium was in the fuel of an aircraft in sufficient quanity to make a difference, wouldn't the exhaust be green?

It is also used as a weighting agent (Barite) is oil well drilling fluids. http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=Barite A weighting agent increases the density of the fuild it is added to. Given this, how would it stay in the air for any length of time?

Barium is used in the production of rubber products and occurs naturally in limestone and sandstone. Any samples taken on the ground showing Barium could (read - are probably) contaminated by dust from automobile tires or from the environment.
User avatar
Bill EE
Disinformation Agent
Disinformation Agent
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:04 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby Cl1mh4224rd » Sat May 28, 2005 5:26 am

I'm also a bit amused as to how they can claim these elements float in the air (presumably this is the whole idea behind their "persistent contrail = chemtrail" crap), while at the same time floating to the ground, causing illness and being detected in "significant" quantities...

Hmm...
User avatar
Cl1mh4224rd
Government Shill
Government Shill
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 9:44 pm
Location: Belle Vernon, PA, USA

Postby MM_Dandy » Sat May 28, 2005 4:36 pm

Bill EE wrote:Barium Sulphide is a white pigment used in paints I believe but Barium Nitrate is used in firework for (or all colors) GREEN. So if Barium was in the fuel of an aircraft in sufficient quanity to make a difference, wouldn't the exhaust be green?


Actually, a couple of days ago, Dee claimed claimed that pink and green are never found in rainbows but can be found in rarefactions from 'chemtrails'. After it was pointed out that the entire visible spectrum is present in all rainbows, she changed her story to say that she has seen pink and green glowing clouds.

I'm really getting sick of her mass cnp jobs. I think she just posts the material in the hopes that we don't figure out the source and actually try to verify ourselves. Most, if not all of the web sites she references have done terrible jobs of validating their sources. For example, I spent about 3 hours trying to find any mainstream article written by this Patricia Doyle (who seems to be a staff writer for Rense's site). I have found absolutely none. All of her work that I've been able to find is posted on fringe sites - many of them are just cnp's that I suppose originated from Rense's site. At any rate, Ms. Doyle's writings are almost entirely anectdotal and void of references to verifiable sources. They certainly do not have the feel of being written by someone who is supposed to have been a professional scientist. By the way, I believe her specialty is supposed to biology related, but I have been unable to even verify that.
User avatar
MM_Dandy
Moderator
Moderator
King of Obscurity
 
Posts: 4597
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: Canton, SD, USA

Postby Cl1mh4224rd » Sat May 28, 2005 5:58 pm

As far as I can tell so far, there only seems to be one pro-chemtrail source for the "barium in chemtrails" argument. I found it on the Wikipedia Chemtrail theory page. His name is Clifford E. Carnicom.

I have also found something rather interesting:

Barium is emitted mainly from mining and refining industrial processes, in the production of barium chemicals, and as a result of combustion of coal and oil. ... The primary stationary sources that have reported emissions of barium compounds in California are electric lighting and wiring manufacturing, office furniture manufacturing, and national security.

Source: Scorecard

That "national security" bit is pretty vague, but it should be interesting to see how they dodge that one.
User avatar
Cl1mh4224rd
Government Shill
Government Shill
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 9:44 pm
Location: Belle Vernon, PA, USA

Postby Lance » Sat May 28, 2005 6:37 pm

I emailed the guy who wrote the article at NIH several days ago to see if he could shed some light on where he got that information.

I havn't heard anything back from him.
No trees were killed in the posting of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

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

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
Lance
Administrator
Administrator
Cheeseburger Swilling Lard-Ass who needs to put down the remote and get off the couch.
 
Posts: 63953
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Oswego, IL

Next

Return to Conspiracy Theories and Hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest