I wish I had my camera handy one day last week when chemtrail planes, after
a long absence, did some "skywriting" over downtown Fort Worth. Maybe
ZORRO was piloting one of the three planes, because from my house they
laid three strokes that formed a large letter Z. On the other hand, from the
north or south it would have looked like the letter N. I guess they got bored
with the usual parallel lines or crisscross grids. Was this done on orders,
or were the three pilots acting on their own?

Jack

To understand the cost of your constructs, read Monty's "Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying".

I protest Parker's repeated unprovoked attacks on me.

Jack

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Dec 29 2007, 01:47 PM)
QUOTE(Jack White @ Dec 26 2007, 03:11 PM)
To understand LHO trip to Russia, read Armstrong's Harvery and Lee.

Jack


Jack, in the past I'd been giving you the benefit of the doubt. But this can be construed in no other way but as an attempt to bait me.

Well, jack, I'll take your bait and pull you into the water with it every time.

Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>.

----------------------
JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?


----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years"

Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her."



Greg,

I hope I don't have to go into detail regarding the high regard in which I hold your research and insight. That being noted for the record, I submit that you've gone a bit overboard on the charges against my friend Jack as noted above.

"Three" interviews can be one man's "many" and another man's "few."

"Classmates" in the American idiom may refer to individuals who matriculated at the same institution at the same time, but who may not have taken the same courses in the same class room at the same time.

A gentleman named Richard Robida has been my friend since we were three years old -- some fifty years. I haven't seen him since the mid '70s, but the characterization of our relationship is valid.

None of this, of course, says word one about the work of John Armstrong.

Respectfully,

Charles

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Dec 29 2007, 01:47 PM)
QUOTE(Jack White @ Dec 26 2007, 03:11 PM)
To understand LHO trip to Russia, read Armstrong's Harvery and Lee.

Jack


Jack, in the past I'd been giving you the benefit of the doubt. But this can be construed in no other way but as an attempt to bait me.

Well, jack, I'll take your bait and pull you into the water with it every time.

Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>.

----------------------
JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?
----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.

Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years"

Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her."



Greg,

I hope I don't have to go into detail regarding the high regard in which I hold your research and insight. That being noted for the record, I submit that you've gone a bit overboard on the charges against my friend Jack as noted above.

"Three" interviews can be one man's "many" and another man's "few."

Charles, by definition, "many" is a large but indefinite number. Jack's "many" got amended to "three" after I raised the issue of whether or not his friendship with Kudlaty had been declared in Armstrong's book. It was the start of his attempt to distance himself from Kudlaty and also the extent of his involvement in assisting Armstrong.

"Classmates" in the American idiom may refer to individuals who matriculated at the same institution at the same time, but who may not have taken the same courses in the same class room at the same time.

Fine, but it was Jack who drew the distinction - not me, when he amended his original statement that he "has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate" to "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her." The aim again was to distance himself from Kudlaty, fully aware now that Armstrong should have declared that relationship in his book.


A gentleman named Richard Robida has been my friend since we were three years old -- some fifty years. I haven't seen him since the mid '70s, but the characterization of our relationship is valid.

Great. But presumably you are not currently helping someone write a book in which Mr Robina will be touted as a witness.

None of this, of course, says word one about the work of John Armstrong.

What it says is that Jack was made aware of the lack of ethics Armstrong displayed by not informing his readers that one of his main assistants was a friend of one of his "witnesses", and tried to limit the damage by attempting to minimize his association with Kudlaty.

Respectfully,

Charles

Thanks, Charles, for your lucid defense of me. However, I cannot say the accusations (?) are lucid.

QUOTING, WITH MY REPLIES IN ALL CAPS...

........

Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>.


THESE ARE BLATANTLY FALSE ACCUSATIONS.

I retract including you as having "no ethics" That was poorly worded and unintentional. I stand by the rest. Mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true. I gave you the opportunity previously to clarify them. You declined. And you have only done so now after Charles' attempt to offer some sort of defense on your behalf. Armstrong's lack of ethics is shown in both his dishonest use of evidence, and by his failure to advise his readers of your relationship to one of his new "witnesses"

I HAVE LIED ABOUT NOTHING. ONLY PROVOCATEURS
SEARCH THREADS FROM YEARS AGO FOR INCONGROUS STATEMENTS. I HAVE TOLD NO LIES. I AM
A FOREMOST ADVOCATE OF TRUTH. IF I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE, I AM ANXIOUS TO CORRECT IT.

Oh dear, here we go... Firstly, I'm glad you recognize, however belatedly, that your statements were incongruous. You're the expert on provocateurs, not me. I thought they were involved in inciting illegal activity. I don't recall ever doing that - let alone searching out your statements quoted here. What I did do was repeat the questions I asked, but which you failed to answer on a previous occasion.

----------------------
JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling

Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?


I WAS PRESENT WHEN JOHN INTERVIEWED "MANY WITNESSES". THREE OF THESE WITNESSES
WERE STUDENTS AT STRIPLING WHEN LHO WAS THERE. OTHERS, SUCH AS MYRA BELL, WERE
NEIGHBORS OF MARGUERITE. NITPICKING OVER SEMANTICS ADDS NOTHING TO RESEARCH
AND IS A BLATANT SMEAR TACTIC.

Nothing semantical going on here except Charles' attempt to turn "three" into "many". This latest version makes no sense when placed back in the context of the original thread.

----------------------

JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.


FRANK KUDLATY AND I BOTH ATTENDED TCU 1946-49. HE WAS CAPTAIN OF THE BASKETBALL TEAM.
I WAS EDITOR OF THE UNIVERSITY NEWSPAPER. BOTH OF US WERE IN STUDENT GOVERNMENT. WE
WERE NEVER CLASSMATES IN A COMMON CLASSROOM, BUT KNEW EACH OTHER.

I'm glad you feel comfortable in vouching for the honesty of someone you now seem to be saying you barely knew in any deep sense, and hadn't actually seen since 1949.

JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.


I KNEW KUDLATY'S FIANCEE (LATER WIFE) MARIE (WE CALLED HER RIE) MUCH BETTER THAN I DID
FRANK. RIE AND I WORKED ON THE STUDENT YEARBOOK TOGETHER AND WERE CLASSMATES AND
HAD MUTUAL FRIENDS.

But she is irrelevant to this. You introduced her into it by way of distancing yourself from Kudlaty (to paraphrase: "I barely knew him, honest! I knew his future wife much better!!!")

Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years"


THIS IS CERTAINLY TRUE. AFTER GRADUATION WE WENT OUR SEPARATE WAYS IN 1949. WHEN
JOHN INTERVIEWED FRANK I HAD NOT SEEN HIM IN ABOUT A HALF CENTURY.

... and yet could vouch for his honesty...

Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her."


SINCE FRANK, HIS WIFE AND I WERE ALL IN THE "CLASS OF 1949", WE WERE CLASSMATES. MAYBE
IN YOUR COUNTRY YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND THIS VERNACULAR. IN ANY EVENT THIS IS SEMANTICAL
NONSENSE.

Not at all. You have admirably admitted the incongruous nature of your statements, and taking courage from Charles' attempt at coming to your defense, you have now, not entirely successfully, tried to clarify them.

I AGREE WITH CHARLES. THIS ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JFK CASE.

You discredit yourself, Jack, with your own statements. The JFK case doesn't need the tin foil hat brigade.

YOUR ATTEMPT TO SMEAR JOHN ARMSTRONG ALONG WITH ME IS DESPICABLE.

Uh huh. Reveling in your self-proclaimed martyrdom won't distract one iota from your avoidance of the key issue brought to light: Armstrong's deceit in not advising his readers of your relationship with Kudlaty.
Jack

Greg,

I understand that you do not believe Armstrong's theory, and that's fine.

Kathy, thanks! I had no idea an exemption from the mods was required before one could be a non-believer in bs!

But I think when it gets to the really "fine tuning" to debunk a theory, even to the point of arguments over words like "many", or the amount of time needed to spend with someone to call them "friend" etc., that this may be a case of picking gnat "something" out of pepper.

You are mistaking debunking Armstrong's theory (been there, done that) with a discussion on the ethics of non-disclosure of information pertinent to his readership's ability to make a properly informed judgment - and Jack's attempts to make the question on ethics go away.

btw, what's your position on posters who continually try and change the subject of threads toward their own agenda - despite being asked on numerous occasions to desist? Didn't another poster recently get put on moderation for just this very thing?

btw, what's your position on posters who continually try and change the subject of threads toward their own agenda - despite being asked on numerous occasions to desist? Didn't another poster recently get put on moderation for just this very thing?

What absurdity. As far as I remember, my acquaintance with Kudlaty is not mentioned in Armstrong's book.

There are NO inconsistencies in my statements, nor are they of any significant importance. You do not understand what I said anyway: I was present when when John interviewed "many local witnesses". That is more than one or two. INCLUDED in those many witnesses were THREE Stripling witnesses.

Mr. Parker accuses me of diverting HIS THREADS. I am not aware that anyone OWNS any particular subject.

He was lecturing the forum on activities of Oswald; I suggested that he should acquaint himself with the book of Mr. Armstrong before espousing opinions unrelated to facts revealed therein by actual documentary research.

Greg,



No. that was not the case. Hijacking threads occurs in abundance in this forum.

Not the case, Kathy? Here is the reason Mr Gratz was put on moderation according to John Simkin:

"The reason that Tim Gratz has been put on moderation is an attempt to stop him disrupting threads. It is not about stopping him expressing his views. In fact, I will allow every new thread that he starts to be allowed through. It is only when he posts on other peoples’ threads that moderators will consider if the contribution is appropriate."

Perhaps you should have a word with John since you clearly disagree on the reason.

Jack has tried to divert nearly every thread I've started on Oswald into a discussion on "Harvey & Lee". Since he knows full well I have no interest in that theory and that it has zero relevance to my own research, his continued attempts to use my threads as advertising space for Armstrong's book is nothing more than baiting and an unwarranted, inappropriate disruption.

I was not exempting, as a moderator, your statement about being a non believer in bs.

I know. I thought the smiley would be a clue to the fact that I was joking.

I just thought that if you debunk something, you should be able to do it without being hypercritical with respect to teensy things. If something is incorrect, you shouldn't have to continue to dig through it with tweezers.

You continue to misinterpret what this is about.

And I don't mind a bit if you're catty.

It's catty to ask where you stand on a potential moderation issue?
.

Greg,

After discussion, we have removed an accusation you made in one of your posts which was subsequently quoted many times. Please do NOT make this accusation unless you have undeniable evidence - and in those cases, you should ALWAYS check with a mod (or being such a serious matter, preferably an Admin) before posting the accusation on the Forum.

Please consider this a Formal Warning about the matter.

Please read the PM I am about to send to you.

Greg's earlier responses to Jack are in red.

I retract including you as having "no ethics" That was poorly worded and unintentional. I stand by the rest. Mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true. I gave you the opportunity previously to clarify them. You declined. And you have only done so now after Charles' attempt to offer some sort of defense on your behalf. Armstrong's lack of ethics is shown in both his dishonest use of evidence, and by his failure to advise his readers of your relationship to one of his new "witnesses"

CHARLES DRAGO' COMMENTS IN GREEN:

Greg, you are correct in characterizing my earlier post as a "defense" of Jack White. I was NOT commenting on the merits of John Armstrong's research, about which I remain ... conflicted.

Nothing semantical going on here except Charles' attempt to turn "three" into "many". This latest version makes no sense when placed back in the context of the original thread.

Here, Greg, is where I must take issue with you. The use of "many" is so subjective in many if not most instances that your condemnation of Jack's usage of the word -- even in this context -- is simply "pickin' nat shit out of pepper," to quote Walter Matthau as Russel Long in JFK.

If anyone is guilty of semantic antics, I'm afraid that it's you.

You're bright enough to realize this. And your work is far too important to be sidetracked in such a manner.

You [Jack] have admirably admitted the incongruous nature of your statements, and taking courage from Charles' attempt at coming to your defense, you have now, not entirely successfully, tried to clarify them.

Greg, take it from a monotheist who believes that God didn't act alone in creating the universe, it is overwhelmingly likely that Jack's "unique" use of the mother tongue is as guileless as it is consistent. The problems you have with Armstrong and his most vocal supporters are worthy of respectful consideration. But surely you can do better than quibble over the distinctions between "many" and "three."

To be clear, I was opining that my defense of Jack was not to be confused with an endorsement of Armstrong's research, upon which I'm not even close to being able to comment cogently.

I've edited this post to add a closing comment.

Jack White is my friend (see below), and I respect his integrity and courage without reservations. He doesn't need me to defend him, although I instinctively did so in this exchange. In the fullness of time, Jack's immense contributions to the struggles for truth and justice for JFK will be celebrated.

I have met Jack White on but three occasions. We have not broken bread together, we do not exchange Christmas cards, I have not been to his home, and he has not been to mine.

Jack White is my friend.

Anybody have a problem with that usage?

Charles

Here, Greg, is where I must take issue with you. The use of "many" is so subjective in many if not most instances that your condemnation of Jack's usage of the word -- even in this context -- is simply "pickin' nat shit out of pepper," to quote Walter Matthau as Russel Long in JFK.

If anyone is guilty of semantic antics, I'm afraid that it's you.

You're bright enough to realize this. And your work is far too important to be sidetracked in such a manner.

Greg, take it from a monotheist who believes that God didn't act alone in creating the universe, it is overwhelmingly likely that Jack's "unique" use of the mother tongue is as guileless as it is consistent. The problems you have with Armstrong and his most vocal supporters are worthy of respectful consideration. But surely you can do better than quibble over the distinctions between "many" and "three."

Jack White is my friend (see below), and I respect his integrity and courage without reservations. He doesn't need me to defend him, although I instinctively did so in this exchange.

In the fullness of time, Jack's immense contributions to the struggles for truth and justice for JFK will be celebrated.

I have met Jack White on but three occasions. We have not broken bread together, we do not exchange Christmas cards, I have not been to his home, and he has not been to mine.

Jack White is my friend.

Anybody have a problem with that usage?

If you believed that, you would be taking issue with Jack's continual attempts to hijack my threads with Armstrong's snake oil.

We'll have to agree to disagree on all but the business above.

You surely have the right to choose not to believe me when I write for the record that I respect your mind and its product. Your implicit accusation of disingenuousness on my part when I do so is duly noted -- and just as duly laughed away.

Respectfully,

Charles

Thanks, Charles, for your perceptive comments on what has to be the
most inane and inconsequential JFK thread ever...which somehow got
diverted onto the Political Conspiracies Section.

Nit picking definitions over whether "three" constitutes "many" or a
"subset" of "many"...or whether I am constantly changing and revising
and amending my original story is inane and absurd and ridiculous
(that is three, right? Or is it many?).

My original comment was that I could verify John's research because
I had accompanied him when he interviewed many witnesses years before.
I certainly considered my role inconsequential, and would have taken
notes had I realized that nitpickers would challenge my account 15
years later. I did not keep a list. I do not remember all the details, just
certain ones. A few of the people were not even home when we knocked.
In one case I remember I stayed in the car when he went to talk to a
man in Benbrook where LHO was supposed to have stayed briefly. I stayed
in the car when he knocked on the door of the house where Robert lived.
I went with him to LHO's elementary school, West Benbrook Elementary,
where he sought information regarding a teacher and LHO records.
I stood around in the hall while he talked to the principal. MY ROLE
WAS VERY MINOR. But I did accompany him on "many" interviews.
Perhaps it would have been better to say"several", but that is an
unnecessary "distinction without a difference" in such a trival matter.

Thanks.

Jack

Charles, maybe this is another of those "cultural" things. But then, maybe it's just me. In any case, I like to see action match people's words when an opportunity arises for that to occur. To me, it does not make sense that on the one hand, you can call my work "far too important to be sidetracked" - yet not raise a voice of protest when my threads are hijacked, sidetracked, or used as a sales arena for a book I've made patently clear is a tawdry collection of misused and misquoted evidence.

I have said in the past how much I admire your stance on the assassination and your writing ability. I backed those words up with action when I sent you a PM some time back (Let me add as an aside that neither the fact that nothing eventuated from it, nor your friendship with Jack has tarnished that admiration).

Whether Armstrong's product turns out to be snake oil or water from Lourdes (same thing?), I believe Jack's defense of it is honest and well-intentioned -- and ultimately harm need not accrue.

Anyone that has ever held Armstrong's book in their hand and spent five or ten minutes examining it can easily come to the conclusion that the research contained within is far from snake oil.

It matters little whether or not one agrees with Armstrong's conclusion that there were two Oswalds, the quality of his overall research is evident.

The personal and financial sacrifices Armstrong made in researching and self-publishing Harvey & Lee have been well documented on this Forum.

That such a work could contain minor inaccuracies stands to reason and in no way diminishes the overall value of Armstrong's research.

Jack White's defense of Armstrong's research as a whole is not only honest and well-intentioned, it is 100% correct. Of course Jack has the distinct advantage of being familiar with Armstrong's book.

Anyone that has ever held Armstrong's book in their hand and spent five or ten minutes examining it can easily come to the conclusion that the research contained within is far from snake oil.

I'm sure that's true, Michael. Some people come to the same conclusion reading the WCR. In both cases, it is only when you examine the evidence used, you can be begin to understand the deceit.

It matters little whether or not one agrees with Armstrong's conclusion that there were two Oswalds, the quality of his overall research is evident.

It is only truly evident when you examine the documents cited. I don't need his book to do that. His work is scattered all over the web.

Here is a classic example of Armstrong's handling of evidence: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;st=0&p=12

The personal and financial sacrifices Armstrong made in researching and self-publishing Harvey & Lee have been well documented on this Forum.

So what? How does that equate to quality? I'm sure the WC spent a hell of a lot more. Does that imbue it with credibility?

That such a work could contain minor inaccuracies stands to reason and in no way diminishes the overall value of Armstrong's research.

Lying about what the NYC records say is not a "minor inaccuracy". Nor is the example above an innocent error.

Jack White's defense of Armstrong's research as a whole is not only honest and well-intentioned, it is 100% correct. Of course Jack has the distinct advantage of being familiar with Armstrong's book.

Jack is able to start threads on Armstrong's work any any time he wants. Instead, he deliberately chooses to derail my threads with it. This is not, as has been characterized, about proprietary ownership of threads. It is about being on topic. And if Jack's motive is to defend Armstrong's work, he had the opportunity to do so AND be on topic in the Decker's File thread. His motive in bringing Armstrong's book up in threads where it is NOT the topic is to bait me.

The above faulty analogy and self-serving claim about examining the evidence....

Never mind.

I think I'll decline the bait.

Before this thread continues (WHICH I STARTED REGARDING CHEMTRAILS), I think
Mr.Parker owes it to his readers regarding the validity of HARVEY AND LEE to state
whether or not he has read the book which he demeans so vigorously.

If you don't like the analogy, Mike, we can substitute Case Closed or some other LN book. The end result is the same. What is "self-serving" about examining evidence? A very odd comment on a forum which regularly examines evidence.

Translation: "I have no valid rebuttals."

You can substitute - not we. It will still be a faulty analogy. It is self-serving when you examine evidence selectively and ignore the body of work. The odd comment is from you, Greg - professing to examine the evidence without reading the book and making charges about others that are unfounded.

You certainly haven't shown any [rebuttals].The repetitious use of irrelevant arguments does not make them relevant. Declaring that something is inaccurate does not make it so. Whether an alleged inaccuracy is minor or not is a subjective judgment that I do not trust you to make.

If you choose to focus on minutiae at the expense of the larger picture, that's your business. Your claims of having studied the research of Armstrong without reading his book because it's "scattered all over the internet" doesn't say much for your credibility on this issue.

Your repeated attempts to paint Armstrong's research as deceptive and meaningless are symptomatic of an obsession.

The facile way you use words like liar without adequate evidence to prove it grew tiresome long ago.

Claiming that a few typos and grammatical errors disqualify his book as irrelevant is assinine.

Criticizing it without reading it is illogical in the extreme.

All pitches I make for the book ARE NOT TO BENEFIT SALES, but to assist researchers in learning the truth. Some minds are closed to TRUTH.

You guys think you can bury the facts in a quagmire of outrageous misinformation like the above. You know I've made no such claim. What does it make you when you tell an untruth, Jack?



And Mike wonders why I have to repeat myself? I have critiqued samplings of his work from the web and found most of it misrepresents the evidence he cites. See also my reply to Mike.



Sigh...whatever, Jack. Just don't make your pitches in response to any more of my posts. You're worse than a freakin' Mormon. If you do, I will repay in kind. Ethel is ready and waiting.

That's the thing I stated very early in one of the 'chemtrail' threads; we can't actually positively deny it. The balance of probability will weigh very heavily in favour of a mundane, explainable occurrence... but unless you can take a sample of the vapour behind the aircraft you cannot say it is does not contain any unusual chemicals.

Still, I am not aware of anyone who has ever sampled and analysed one of these 'chemtrails'.

What are "Chemtrails" and why are they a political conspiracy?

Why are they prevalent over Fort Worth?

I think I understand the theory behind contrails. Per Wikipedia: "Contrails or vapor trails are condensation trails and artificial cirrus clouds made by the exhaust of aircraft engines or wingtip vortices which precipitate a stream of tiny ice crystals in moist, frigid upper air."

Can't say I've ever heard of "chemtrails" though.

Click on this for a listing of chemtrail sites and photos:

http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html

For the theories concerning "Chemtrails" to be correct, the substance(s) would eventually reach ground level. Why hasn't (or have they?) anyone sampled the air before and after the spray would have settled out to ground level to see what the substance(s) is?

Click on this for a listing of chemtrail sites and photos:

http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html


For the theories concerning "Chemtrails" to be correct, the substance(s) would eventually reach ground level. Why hasn't (or have they?) anyone sampled the air before and after the spray would have settled out to ground level to see what the substance(s) is?



It is not "theories" that these events occur. Click on the websites. Read. Yes, the substances
have been collected and tested. Various things like aluminum and barium fibres. Read.

Look at CHEMTRAILS OVER LOUISVILLE, which has typical photos.

Jack

I have read and scanned many of the articles on the page you linked. I also did a web search on chemtrails and have read and scanned several articles on the web.

Several articles posit the spraying of microscopic pathogens such as strep and pseudemonous. So far, from what I’ve read, the only circumstances that suggest these pathogens to have been released purposefully. are the presence of pathogens isolated in visible sublimates/stains discovered following the observation of what appeared to be chemtrails. These pathogens are naturally occurring, however, and the observations, while suggesting conspiracy, do not constitute empirical proof. The photos of rashes and descriptions of illnesses experienced are fairly severe.

When I lived in the Fort Worth area in the late 1980’s I experienced severe sinus ailments (collapsed sinuses which, if you have experienced it, is agonizing), but this was diagnosed as an allergic reaction to a dried airborne cedar fungus, which was prevalent in the area.

The articles identifying trace aluminum and barium do not compare these samples in a controlled manner, although it seems clear, from the observer’s notes that the materials followed observation of what are described as “chemtrails”.
Aluminum hydroxide has been used extensively in weather experiments for cloud seeding and precipitation. Other than medical applications I am not familiar with uses of barium, therefore theorizing the use in communications experiments or applications, or some other, low frequency type radiation emission experiments, is possible, I suppose.

As much information is posted on the web concerning this subject, there may be something to it, but for me to read all of the subject matter concerning “chemtrails” would take several weeks, at least. Therefore I likely will not read the bulk of it.

I would like to read of a sampling performed in a controlled situation using a base or control sample group, and a review by a qualified allergist. I may be able to perform chemical analyses for elemental metals, likely aluminum, maybe barium, I’ll see.
The web page “Aerosol Operation” has some interesting information. I’m not buying into it, yet, but it seems worth checking out. Since you seem to know about it you might post a brief explanation (or link to one you have previously posted).

I have read and scanned many of the articles on the page you linked. I also did a web search on chemtrails and have read and scanned several articles on the web.

Several articles posit the spraying of microscopic pathogens such as strep and pseudemonous. So far, from what I’ve read, the only circumstances that suggest these pathogens to have been released purposefully. are the presence of pathogens isolated in visible sublimates/stains discovered following the observation of what appeared to be chemtrails. These pathogens are naturally occurring, however, and the observations, while suggesting conspiracy, do not constitute empirical proof. The photos of rashes and descriptions of illnesses experienced are fairly severe.

When I lived in the Fort Worth area in the late 1980’s I experienced severe sinus ailments (collapsed sinuses which, if you have experienced it, is agonizing), but this was diagnosed as an allergic reaction to a dried airborne cedar fungus, which was prevalent in the area.

The articles identifying trace aluminum and barium do not compare these samples in a controlled manner, although it seems clear, from the observer’s notes that the materials followed observation of what are described as “chemtrails”.
Aluminum hydroxide has been used extensively in weather experiments for cloud seeding and precipitation. Other than medical applications I am not familiar with uses of barium, therefore theorizing the use in communications experiments or applications, or some other, low frequency type radiation emission experiments, is possible, I suppose.

As much information is posted on the web concerning this subject, there may be something to it, but for me to read all of the subject matter concerning “chemtrails” would take several weeks, at least. Therefore I likely will not read the bulk of it.

I would like to read of a sampling performed in a controlled situation using a base or control sample group, and a review by a qualified allergist. I may be able to perform chemical analyses for elemental metals, likely aluminum, maybe barium, I’ll see.
The web page “Aerosol Operation” has some interesting information. I’m not buying into it, yet, but it seems worth checking out. Since you seem to know about it you might post a brief explanation (or link to one you have previously posted).

It did? Maybe you'd like to go back to all those "long ago" times... you know... when it first became "tiresome", dig those words up and repu