Evan Burton

If the words are used in the non-swearing context, I'm sure no-one has any objection. That was not the case, however.

Why did we suddenly appear, a mere 60.000 odd years ago (barely yesterday on the evolutionary timeline) and proceed to destroy the ecological harmony of the planet? Worth it's own thread, imo. The ultimate conspiracy theory.

Mark, I hesitate to mention this because Steve Turner hails from Lowestoft and that, alone, is more than enough of a burden to load on his shoulders.

But the earliest evidence of civilization in the UK (long since evaporated, I know) and, indeed Europe, dates back 700,000 years. This early humanid is known affectionately as "LOWESTOFT MAN".

You see the cause of my concern.

So to summarize, man irrupted in Lowestoft, proceeded to inhabit the planet, killing it with the infection he inherently carried as he went.

If you've ever been to Lowestoft on a saturday night you'll understand...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article764618.ece

David David David, GREAT YARMOUTH. And that, believe it or not, is more than a heavy enough burden.

Looks like a typical night's work by some Jack Tars!

John has made it clear that students read these forums, and he does not want any offensive terms on them.

If John decides that the word/s do NOT fall within the intended policy, I am more than happy to restore them.

If you will recall, I had to change some of my own posts because I used a term which I thought was quite inoffensive was considered swearing in the UK.

Opinions...

Obama successor will become dictator, controlled by establishment.

Jack

And verily I say that ye shall know these things are happening when the sky starts falling.

But Obama will not be elected. He and <expletive deleted>Clinton will split the opposition vote. McCain by a landslide.

The fix is in. Four more years of mismanagement. But at least McCain is not moronic.

Jack

By Mod: Removed offensive word, replaced it with Clinton.

THERE WAS NO EXPLETIVE IN THIS POSTING. Mind your own business, Aussie.

Jack

I removed an offensive word, Jack. The phrase removed was "the *$#@*" and I replaced it with "Clinton".

"*$#@*" in the previous sentance is a swear word, which has one meaning of a female dog.

I love that clip!

The original was actually a Trident SLBM launch. It can be found

In some ways, however, it has a basis in reality.. and more fiction.

If you remember the Gerry Anderson productions series UFO, it had a submarine with a fighter aircraft on the bow - Sky 1. It launched like that.

Also, during WWII the Japanese experimented with having aircraft kept in hangars on submarines. The sub would surface and the aircraft would be catapulted off. Not that successful, and only about 3 of them were built IIRC.

But Jack has photos! All you have are facts and expertise. And photos never lie or convey an incorrect assessment, do they.

Thank you, Jack.

Is it possible to prove the authenticity of those images?

Blah blah Borg blah.

Yes Peter.

Borg blah blah blah Borg blah Borg blah blah.

Yes Peter.

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

Moderator Moderate Thy Self!

Why? Am I not allowed an opinion? Peter continues to tag various members as "Borg". I've used that in a sarcastic post. If he wants me to stop using it, then he should stop referring to people who disagree with him as Borg.

Borg blah blah blah Borg blah Borg blah blah.

Yes Peter.

blah, blah, blah - Yes Peter.

Probably no better example will be found as to why this discussion forum rapidly lost its appeal. No substance, simply demeaning in a churlish way. Surely you can do better, Evan. No matter though. No breath held. You are as you are.

Richard,

I already made my reply - the opinions are very much against the mainstream, not supported by their peers. Even so, I would support a thorough reinvestigation by QUALIFED individuals and undergoing some type of peer review process. Peter finds this objectionable in some way, and so from long experience I know it is simply better to ignore his rants.

Yes Peter - whatever you say.

blah, blah, blah - Yes Peter.

I'm interested to see what Len has to say, because it has been proven in the past that many of the engineering experts proclaiming siding with the 9/11 CT side have actually not been experts at all.

Even if all 14 persons are qualified to speak authoritative on the matter, I would like to see more from them on their specific objections. There have been calls of "I support Dr Jones", which are quite fair - but they must also accept that the vast majority of their peers not only do not agree with them, but they reject the analysis of Dr Jones.

If for no other reason than to put this matter to rest, I would support a review of the circumstances by a panel of qualified personnel, all of which have been approved / endorsed by a body of professional engineers.

No Myra - I do NOT agree with your assessment. Both of you deserved your heads-up (warning). If you care to disregard it, then you may do so - it will not affect any Moderator actions if you do cross the line.

Well guess what Evan, another moderator clearly disagrees with you.

And they told me that Daniel's post was "over the top" in a private PM just prior to removing it from this thread.

Sorry if that gives you a hitch in your giddyup. I know how much you like to swagger around playing deputy dog on the forum--the very personification of Barney Fife.

You don't seem to understand Myra. I don't agree with your assessment. The fact that another Moderator has set the post to invisible does not mean that the remarks I made to both you and Daniel were not correct. The comments stand. I guess you'll just have to deal with it in your own way.

No Myra - I do NOT agree with your assessment. Both of you deserved your heads-up (warning). If you care to disregard it, then you may do so - it will not affect any Moderator actions if you do cross the line.

MET 101

The amount of water vapour present in the air depends upon the amount of evaporation, which will be greater over wet surfaces such as oceans and flooded ground than over a desert or continent. The actual amount of water vapour in the air, known as humidity, is not in itself important; what matters is whether the air can support that amount of water vapour or not. When a parcel of air is supporting as much water vapour as it can, it is said to be saturated and have a relative humidity (RH) of 100%. Air supporting less than its full capacity of water vapour is said to be unsaturated, and will have a relative humidity of less than 100%. In cloud and fog, the relative humidity is 100% and the air is saturated. Over a desert, relative humidity by day might be as low as 10%.

How much water vapour a particular parcel of air can support depends upon the air temperature. Warm air is able to support more water vapour than cold air. If the temperature of the air falls, it is capable of holding less water vapour, and so will be closer to being saturated; that is, its relative humidity will rise. So relative humidity increases with a decrease in temperature for the same water vapour content. The temperature at which the relative humidity reaches 100% is known as the dewpoint temperature.

Once air has become saturated with respect to water, provided sufficient suitable solid particles are available in the air, condensation will take place on them to produce water droplets. Such particles include microscopic pieces of dust, smoke, sea salt, bacteria, pollens etc. These are known as condensation nuclei and vary greatly in their affinity for water.

The condensation process may be delayed if there are insufficient condensation nuclei in the air, or conversely, certain types of condensation nuclei may induce condensation shortly before the 100% relative humidity is reached. Sea salt, for example, has a strong affinity for water and fosters condensation; such particles are called hygroscopic nuclei.

Clouds form only when the water vapour actually condenses.

If saturation of free air occurs at temperatures less than 0°C, supercooled water droplets are formed initially in temperatures down to near -40°C. In temperatures lower than -40°C and in the presence of particular types of nuclei, known as ice nuclei, ice crystals will form. These ice crystals may form in the same environment as supercooled water droplets, but at very low temperatures, ice crystals are more likely to form alone.

All clouds are grouped into one of three levels (étages) according to the height of the base of the cloud. By convention, high-level clouds are those above 20,000 ft and consist of cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus. Middle-level clouds have bases between 7,500 ft and 20,000 ft, consisting of altocumulus, altostratus and nimbostratus. Low-level clouds have bases generally below 7,500 ft, consisting of stratocumulus, stratus, cumulus and cumulonimbus. Nimbostratus is almost always found as middle-level cloud, but it can extend upwards as high-level cloud, and downwards as low-level cloud. Cumulus and cumulonimbus nearly always have their bases as low-level cloud, but their great vertical extent means that the tops will invariably reach into the middle-level and high-level cloud layers.

Chris,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

It's used sometimes as an equivilent to 'sheeple', i.e. a person who does not think for themselves but merely follows the 'party line' without question; someone who does not question what any authority figure might say.

Daniel,

Please don't question the motives of posters (i.e. Myra).

Myra,

Some of what you have said might be considered to be personal attacks. Just make sure you don't accidentally wander into that area.

Thanks, people.

Ah! Here we go:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=47076

I remember, quite some time ago, I suggested to Jack (IIRC but it may have been another member) that he record the locations & directions of what he assumes are "chemtrails"®, then crosscheck that information with local / area ATC services to see if they match up with known air routes and flights.

I've never heard anything more on the subject, so I assume the person did not check on it.

Notice Jack didn't answer your question Matt?

Some have suggested that I have defamed Mr. Lewis by asking whether his

air force job is connected with chemtrail operations. He explained what his

job consists of, and I accepted that explanation. I do not understand how asking

whether someone is participating in a "legal" government operation is defamatory.

Jack

Jack:

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party? It is a legal political party in the US, and you guys have to nominate a party when you register to vote, so I don't see how the question might be defamatory.

Sorry you're in denial [treatable!] and that the country that really runs your military - your current posting demonstrates my point - could ever have been involved in such a horror....

I'm sorry Peter, but you know very little about my country - especially the military.

Events would seem to prove you wrong, anyway. We had John Howard - a Bush supporter, and obvious "NWO" member... yet he was "overthrown" at the last election by Kevin Rudd, who is withdrawing us from Iraq, who signed the Kyoto Protocol, who said 'sorry'.... why wasn't he "toppled" before he arrived?

Once again, facts do not support your proposition.