Let's look at this article about unknown author and claimed former naval officer and UCLA graduate. Denis Mills written by himself.
While researching for his new novel, author Denis Mills discovered an alarming link between chemtrails and the super wildfires.
How is this link proven?
The author discovered that unprecedented levels of aluminum and barium nanodust, primary components in chemtrails, both of which are incendiary, are fueling the ferocity of the super wildfires.
I've searched everywhere and I've not been able to find anything about this. How did he discover these?
"Millions of tons of aluminum and barium are being sprayed almost daily across the U.S., stated Mills, a former naval officer and UCLA graduate.
What is the source or this claim?
When wildfires break out, the aluminum/barium dust results in levels of fire intensity so great as to cause firefighters to coin a new term ̶ 'firenados,' " he said.
I've not been able to find a source for this claim that aluminium/barium dust is the cause for the higher fire intensities or any firefighter confirming this link as Mills implies.
According to the articles I've read it is due to climate change, prolonged droughts, and increased fuel loads in certain areas.
Recently I've been experimenting with ChatGTP plus which includes ChatGPT 4 and the ability for it to do web searches and read big documents, for instance you can upload a book to it and discuss it. Works quite well. For instance I asked ChatGPT with voice to go to the online shop where I bought my bicycle, search for model and specifically the larger model and tell me what kind of chain it uses and it worked perfectly.
Now I entered the following into ChatGPT 4
In California's Mt. Shasta region, Francis Mangel, a USDA biologist tested and found elevated levels of aluminum in water and soil samples of 4,610 parts per million which is 25,000 times the safe guidelines of the World Health Organization.
Result:-
"The claim that Francis Mangel, a USDA biologist, found elevated levels of aluminum in water and soil samples in California's Mt. Shasta region, indicating levels significantly higher than World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, is indeed reported in various sources. However, the context and interpretation of these findings appear to be a matter of debate.
One perspective, as noted in a blog post on Scientists for Wired Technology, discusses the potential environmental and health implications of such high levels of aluminum, linking it to various concerns including the effects on wildfires【source】. Another source, Geoengineering Watch, also mentions the findings of Francis Mangels and discusses the implications of aluminum oxide nanoparticles in the environment【source】.
However, it's important to consider the counterarguments and analyses that challenge these claims. For example, Metabunk, a website dedicated to debunking various claims, discusses the natural composition of the soil around Mt. Shasta, which is known to be high in Aluminum, Barium, and Strontium. This suggests that the elevated levels of aluminum might be a natural characteristic of the area rather than an indication of environmental contamination or geoengineering【source】.
It's crucial to approach such claims with a critical perspective and consider multiple viewpoints. The scientific community often engages in debates and discussions to scrutinize and validate findings, and it's always beneficial to look for peer-reviewed research and official statements from relevant authorities for the most accurate understanding of environmental issues."
The discussion and theoriess in the Metabunk thread make a lot of sense to me.
Some have claimed Mr. Mills is publicity-seeking for his teen and young adult fiction adventure series, Matt Legend, about four teens who encounter and battle the supernatural and all kinds of strange things, including the forces behind the chemtrails. The adventure thriller is being called the new Harry Potter .
Wow, the new Harry Potter.....
However, I'm unable to find such a quote. Actually no one is talking about Mr. Mills and his book so I believe he is being dishonest.
Mr. Mills states the research speaks for itself and the novel is only what led to the discovery.
Exactly which research is he talking about?
The article ends with a link to his book on Amazon.
Are these patents proof that when we sometimes see airplanes leaving persistent contrails that they are "chemtrails"? All of the patents? Some of them? Which ones?
Is there any Government agenda you actually disbelieve? Do you actually believe CO2 is a pollutant? Carbon dioxide is actually a requirement for plants to thrive using photosynthesis. Plants produce Oxygen as a byproduct of this. Plants thrive in elevated levels of CO2. The carbon the WEF wants to reduce is YOU and the rest of us.
Some very interesting question:: How much of the "chemtrails" that we see are composed of chemicals? All of it or does it consist of the material that has been sprayed as a nucleus to which condensation / ice forms?
If all of it then is that feasible? How much would fit in tanks in airplanes? How much could an airplane carry? How much would they be able to cover? When we see a trail stretching for instance from horizon to horizon how much does that trail weigh?
I've let ChatGPT rewrite my questions:
"Regarding the composition of what is commonly referred to as 'chemtrails,' is it entirely made up of chemicals deliberately dispersed, or do these trails primarily consist of condensation or ice particles forming around nuclei that might have been released? If these trails are entirely chemical, how viable is this? Specifically, what is the capacity of aircraft tanks to carry such substances, how much area can one plane feasibly cover, and what would be the estimated weight of a trail that stretches from horizon to horizon?"
I did some discussing with ChatGPT about this and also went through a discussion "The Ice Budget argument" about this on Metabunk ("Essentially, this argument says that there is no amount of a substance could be carried in payload which could account for the optical density of a persistent contrail. The only possible source for such a mass is accretion of water vapor from the air onto the contrail particles formed by the exhaust.")
ChatGPT's reply:
The Metabunk discussion on the "Ice Budget" argument supports the idea that persistent contrails are primarily composed of accreted water vapor from the air and not from materials carried by aircraft. The argument is based on the fact that the mass of an aged persistent contrail can be up to 10,000 times greater than the original ice mass produced by combustion. This suggests that the only feasible source for such mass is natural accretion rather than any added substance, debunking the main myth of chemtrails. This aligns with our discussion about the weight of contrails being primarily due to water vapor produced by aircraft engines.
For the sake of continuing looking into how AI is able to perform here is what it replied when I discussed your reply.
In the context you've described, where the person did not respond to any of your specific questions or arguments and instead chose to reply only with a sarcastic comment, it does seem like a classic example of a straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy involves distorting, exaggerating, or misrepresenting someone's position to make it easier to attack.
Here, instead of addressing the substance of your arguments or engaging with the specific points you raised, the other person has chosen to sidestep this by making a broad, sarcastic remark. This approach doesn't confront your actual position or the details of your argument; rather, it creates a simplified or caricatured version of your stance (implying that you uncritically believe any government agenda) and targets that instead.
This tactic can be seen as a way to avoid engaging in a meaningful discussion or debate. It shifts the focus from the arguments at hand to a generalized, exaggerated position that is easier to ridicule but does not accurately represent your views. In a constructive dialogue, it's more helpful when both parties directly address each other's actual statements and concerns, rather than resorting to such rhetorical diversions.
Do you think it could be possible for CO2 to both be a pollutant (a greenhouse gas) and a requirement for plants?
Do you have any evidence that shows that co2 is not a greenhouse gas?
greenhouse gas?
CO2 is identified as a greenhouse gas through well-established scientific research. The identification is based on its molecular structure which allows it to absorb infrared radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. When CO2 molecules absorb this heat, they re-emit it in all directions, effectively trapping the heat in the Earth's atmosphere. This process has been verified through laboratory measurements and atmospheric observations over decades, confirming CO2's role in the greenhouse effect and its impact on global climate.
Is The Tyndall effect a lie?
Apologies for linking to PBS and Wikipedia, should I look in the holy Bitchute archives instead or see what Jeff Rense has archived?
Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore: "There is no definitive scientific proof that CO2 is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the last 300 years."
"But there is certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth, and that without its presence in the global atmosphere… this would be a dead planet."
Full talk (https://youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c)
"Game over. We are dealing with a fraud".
Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, exposes the monumental fraud that is "human-induced global warming"—upon which Net Zero is built—in just two minutes.
"No one has ever shown that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming… And if it could be shown, then you would have to show that the 97% of emissions which are natural, do not drive global warming."
Full talk (ADH TV)
This is how people who speak the truth about the climate scam are treated.
I take it you will be ok to cause mass starvation on the planet, and happy to pay increased carbon taxes and limits on travel all in the name of climate change? Do you ever wonder that perhaps if you are on the same side as the Globalists/NWO/WEF that perhaps you are on the wrong side of history, does it set off any red flags for you?
Was this the same Google AI used for the alleged NASA moon photos, or a different one? Seems not, so how could this be a valid comparison?
Well I suppose its an improvement on Greta Thunberg...or Al Gore.
Thanks, I'll look into these. I've not had the interest/know how to look into the whole global warming/climate change but lately I've been starting to look into it more and more. I belive that know the arguments but not the details and who is right and who is wrong....
Your take is wrong. Does one believing that perhaps co2 really is a greenhouse gas warming up the planet automatically make one do that which you describe, please?
The Russians claimed to have used some AI by Google. I don't believe there is any information available. Having looked into AI for a while now I don't believe the incident is relevant at all. Like I said, we don't know how the AI was trained, who trained it, what AI it was etc. They might have used Googles infrastructure and trained it themselves.
This consumer based AI picture/text detector that I experimented with was quite accurate though.
I used ChatGPT 4. Not as a comparison with that incident.
That maybe a wise thing to do. You're welcome.
It is the reason TPTB are going to use to bring in their tyrannical control of Agenda 2030, Research what that means in reality...Mass culls of livestock, takeover of farms, banning nitrogen based fertilizers, lab grown meat, limiting travel, banning humans from vast tracts of land etc. you really should study the big picture and not focus on minutae IMHO.
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”
—Henry Kissinger
I don't think there is any denying that climate change really is happening. But of course the climate change could be "natural" too caused by solar cycles, ocean currents.
Specifically looking into whether climate change is manmade by co2 or not...
Yes, I'm well aware of the situation. Since you recommend that I research am I giving you the impression that I'm not aware of these things?
Here I wished to focus on the chemtrail theory and specifically point out the improbable insertion of chemtrails into old Disney (cartoons? Disney owned movies?) movies...
Here's a paper written by this body's cousin that I'm trying to wrap my head around.
Essay 1 Kauko 2020.pdf (435.5 KB)
The climate part sounds spot on, not sure about his views on the corona virus.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell
How confident are you in this statement, when many of the temperature reading monitor sites are set up in concrete heat sink areas and even next to aircraft runways? They are cooking the books to push an agenda. We are currently in a global cooling cycle - a solar minimum:
The sun and its solar activity is by far the primary driver of temperatures on earth, not some colourless gas.
That's a good question. Not very confident. The winters here after the year 2000 or so are quite different than before but I know of newspaper clippings of mild winters in the early 1900s etc...
If we look at satellite images we can see boundaries between clear skies and clouds and indications that persistent contrails only form in these cloudy areas.
This can be predicted (weather fronts) and confirmed also...
Well, of course someone could argue that the clouds are formed by the contrails or that they are now chemtrailing over the clouds to mask their activity... but I think not.
Here's another example; a link to the old Sentinehl hub, ignore the prompt about trying their new system (which is worse)
Where I am seems to be colder, rather than warmer.
The Club of Rome came up with "global warming" as the new pretext to wage war on humanity
The Club of Rome came up with "global warming" as the new pretext to wage war...
The cognitive dissonance exhibited by those whom claim the skies have always looked like this truly astounds me.
Did the vaccines also make people that ignorantly stupid as well? - apparently so.
https://twitter.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1741129855138242604