Chemtrails, not by Jack White.

[Michael Hogan]

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.

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.

Translation: "I have no valid rebuttals."

You certainly haven't shown any.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 xxxx without adequate evidence to prove it grew tiresome long ago.

[Greg Parker]

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.

Please explain how the analogy is faulty.

I never EVER professed to have examined all of his evidence, Mike. I have said I have examined what I've come across on the web, and in most cases, found the evidence he cites has been misrepresented in the article. The EXACT same phenomena occurs in the WCR, Case Closed... and indeed in a number of CT books.

I have made no unfounded charges about anyone - except inadvertently lumping Jack in with Armstrong as lacking ethics. As soon as I realized how what I said could be read, I withdrew it.

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.

Please point out any irrelevant argument I've made. Not agreeing with them does not make them irrelevant. Any repetition is caused through Jack ignoring my requests to cease replying to my posts with his sales pitches.

The only people who are making declarations without backing them up are Jack and his supporters.

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.

Science doesn't require study of the whole in order to determine the make up of it. Random sampling is sufficient. If the sampling on the web is not indicative of the book, Armstrong should have it removed.

I have never said there is NOTHING worthwhile in it. I'm sure there is, though off the top I can only think of one thing - his mention of Percival Brundage. It is his misuse of the evidence to prop up his theory, and the lack of ethics shown in not advising his readers of the relationship between Jack and Mr Kudlaty I take issue with.

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

I have started one (maybe two?) threads on Armstrong's work. Though it gets raised fairly regularly in various threads, I have never replied when it is - except when Jack uses one of my posts as an excuse to make his sales pitch. My "obsession" is for Jack to cease doing this. Other than that, I'm more than happy for him and the other cultists to discuss it to their hearts content without any disruption from me - as has always been the case.

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

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 republish them here so people can see you're not making this xxxxe up.

And the double standards are amazing. Whether or not you think my evidence is "adequate", at least I have supplied evidence. Jack, on the other hand, has called me a provocateur on more than one occasion without any hint of evidence to support it. But that's just fine with you apparently. If someone makes a point about Jack, their evidence is "inadequate". If Jack says something, it's gospel... no evidence required.

[Jack White]

I make no SALES PITCHES for John's book. At his own expense he personally

produced and printed 2000 copies. Nearly all of the printing is sold out and it will

soon become a rare collector's item. Having proofread it several times (more

than once, some chapters several times), I declare that its evidence is over 99

percent accurate, and its conclusions more than 90 percent accurate in my

opinion. It is too bad so much had to be left out, as some of it was extremely

important, such as all his work on the Ziger family as well as Don Norton. But

he chose not to include information unless it was verified by multiple sources.

He had enough material for an additional thousand pages.

I admit that John is not a polished author, and I had to correct many misspellings

and grammatical errors...but as he went along he learned rapidly. He has

an extremely organized mind, and his separation of the timelines of the two

Oswalds is extraordinary. 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.

Jack

Edited January 4, 2008 by Jack White

[Greg Parker]

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

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?

Criticizing it without reading it is illogical in the extreme.

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.

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.

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.

[Jack White]

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

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?

Criticizing it without reading it is illogical in the extreme.

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.

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.

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.

John's book is more than a thousand pages plus a CD with documents and photos,

and you can judge it by reading a few paragraphs on the internet? That says more

about you than about John.

Jack

[Jack White]

Back to the subject of this thread...CHEMTRAILS...there were a dozen or so planes

criscrossing Fort Worth laying hundreds of chemtrails in odd patterns despite the cold,

windy, cloudy weather.

I have a new mini digital camera which I will soon carry with me regularly when

outside to capture such displays.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

Huh. Cold weather. Persistent contrails are known to be more common in cold weather. Go figure.

Edited January 5, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

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'.

[Peter McKenna]

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.

[Jack White]

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

[Peter McKenna]

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?

[Jack White]

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?

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

[Peter McKenna]

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).

Edited January 5, 2008 by Peter McKenna

[Matthew Lewis]

The only samples that have ever been taken have been on the ground where it is not only possible but highly likely that the samples are contaminated by other sources. Both aluminum and barium are known air pollutants from power plants and various other industrial facilities. To assume they came from a trail 30,000+ feet in the air when collected on the ground when there are other sources on the ground is bad research at best and deceptive at worst. One thing most forget is anything sprayed at altitude may not come down for days or weeks and definitely not in the area they were sprayed.No one has yet taken a sample from a trail in the air. There is no proof that they are government planes. Quite the opposite actually as anyone can grab a pair of binoculars and see normal commercial flights. One can also get the program flight explorer and compare the contrails they see being formed to the scheduled flights in the program.

Persistent contrails are perfectly explained through science. They have existed since planes could fly high enough and pictures exist of them from before WWII. they have become more common lately at planes have updated their engines with newer more powerful and more fuel efficient engines (thus having more water in the exhaust), jet traffic flying higher (Where the air is colder giving more of a chance for contrails to form and persist), and an increase in jet traffic (jet traffic has doubled a few times since the 70s and is projected to double again in less than 10 years) making contrails in general more common and forcing more traffic higher to accomodate (again where the air is colder).

One can even predict the days and areas where they will see persistent contrails (chemtrails as some would like to call them). If you know what to look for in the weather you can tell if an area will have conditions likely for contrails. I have never seen "chemtrails" show up when the weather was not already likely for persistent contrails.

Edited January 5, 2008 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

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).

My interest in Chemtrails does not extend into studies of the composition of the

sprayed materials. I do not know, and don't know how to find out. My interest

is determining government participation, purpose, secrecy and coverup. If this

were to be revealed, then the composition of the spray would be known. I would

like for the public to be aware of these strange events, and know that they are

NOT contrails, which evaporate within minutes; chemtrails persist and spread

for hours. Photos show that the planes used are air force tankers, not passenger

jets.

Jack