Matthew Lewis

How do you know they were these mythical "chemtrails" when persistent contrails have all of the same characteristics and have been known about and observed since before WWII?

I see plenty of persistent contrails. Where are these "chemtrails" you mentioned?

Just a few things that are obviously wrong. I'm sure there may be more but I've only skimmed it because for the most part I just don't care. I've see this before and seen what the website said before it was changed on the internet archive. It did not say that Andrews had planes "on alert" but rather combat ready as in ready to deploy for a military action meaning they were fully trained and could be recalled in a short amount of time to deploy jets and personell to a forward location if needed. The aircraft I fly on (E-8C JSTARS) it also combat ready (less so now that we already have multiple planes and people deployed in theater) but there is no way we could be considered on alert. It takes time to get up to speed, must be done at altitude, and before 911 they were not permitted to fly supersonic over populated areas. Supersonic travel is also not used continuously as it uses a lot more fuel, and greatly increases the temperature of the engines. It would do no good to use up all their fuel getting to where they need to go only to have turn around and go home again because they constantly used their afterburners getting there. I've yet to see any evidence that the Pentagon has missiles protecting it aside from a few quotes taken out of context. No pictures exist showing these mythical missiles. It is hard to say how they would be used anyway as there are planes flying over it all day long as the Pentagon is directly in the approach path of a major airport.

Let's be clear about a couple of things. Very few of my posts that you dug up were insults and nothing recent. Early on in your tirade about the "constant flame baiting", which you have yet to prove by the way, you mentioned attacks in the chemtrail thread towards Jack. There were none. I made the mistake, as I'm sure other would have as well, of assuming you were still thinking about that thread or something recent. Still, I apologized and a mature person would then let it go, move on and not bring it up less than 12 hours later. Your refusal to let it go speaks volumes. I wouldn't say a comment about projection was flame baiting anyway. Especially since the majority of comments about projection have come from you, it is more just a valid response to things you have said.

The difference between you and me is that I never claimed that I didn't post any insults .... You did . I believe at first I didn't claim to have NEVER posted any insults. You said both of these about me "constant flame baiting attacks" and "...I rarely read any of your posts here where you just post information ... Instead, they contain attacks on those you disagree with .." Both of which are untrue as most of my posts contain nothing more than information I asked "where did I attack", a valid question as I had not remembered some of the stuff in the long distant past which you have dredged up, to which you responded not with an answer but instead by reporting my post. Hardly. The only thing that shows why I joined this one is what it says in my Biography. Why Duane, you wouldn't be calling me a xxxx here now would you? As you can see, I have taken back those which are insults. Will you take back what you said about the attacks being "constant" or "rarely having information but rather attacks" as I'm sure you can see by researching my posts that the majority of them have information?

Had to dig pretty deep to find stuff didn't you? None of these appear recent and your highlighting of a banned word is definitely from before the ban. Not an insult. Definitely fact if I remember the situation correctly. Not an insult or an attack. There is no way that you could know what I will or won't believe unless you are psychic or making an invalid assumption. This was long before the word was forbidden and neither of these are insults or attacks. Actually, Jack was attacking me. The constant request for a picture at a time when the picture was not required, was harassment. A comment made in jest as he responded to somebody else's comment with a different name. I don't see how this is an attack. But I apologize anyway. A valid question, as Jack had responded to a thread with nothing but namecalling and nothing of substance. Maybe I should report him? Dear me, a little sarcasm. I'm deeply sorry Jack. A valid question that if I remember correctly went unanswered. Seems like a valid question. Perhaps it was a little harsh. I apologize. I stand by the opinion that thinking that anybody that doesn't agree with a person must be a "provocateur" is deluded. It is clearly a false assumption. But again, this was in response to insults from Jack. Should he have been reported? Why are you not jumping on his case? So I see three here and all directed towards Jack. I have apologized. Happy?

The insults that you post on Jay Windley's Apollo Hoax forum apply to how you feel about ALL hoax believers in general , does it not ? ... Would you also be willing to take any of those back ? "As long as there is paranoia and schizophrenia, there will be HBs." And then there are these insults about Jack and me . "On the education forum it was shown rather well that the rectangular imprint was in fact a partial bootprint. It was shown from previous photos that the astronaut stepped in that exact location with his toe. He did not appear to rest his weight on that foot hence the partial footprint. Jack of course ignored it and his lapdog Duane insulted those that supported the boot print theory." "Duane is more of the same but he doesn't ever come up with his own stuff. He just repeats other's hoax nonsense no matter how bad it is." Then there are these insults directed to a CT called 'Rocky" "true. In most cases it can be said he doesn't but he still manages to dress and feed himself right? With all that paranoia, why does he ever go outside? " "Funny how that list also describes the conspiracy theorists and pretty much any other person that posts on the internet! Got any more crap you want to throw at the wall Rocky?" "How is this related to Apollo? Oh that's right. It isn't. If Jay chooses to only answer about Apollo then that is fine. This issue is completely unrelated and proves nothing but the fact that you are trying stupid tricks that would get you laughed out of any debate the same as everyone is laughing at you here." "If the numbers of those seeing a hoax are really getting so large then where is all the support for Rocky? How come no one came out of the woodwork to support his views? If somehow, as I'm sure he thinks, their posts and memberships were being suppressed then why would he even be allowed to post here? Sadly he is not the most close-minded individual I have seen posting on the net but he does come close. His level of paranoia is astounding." And then there is this one where you insulted this very forum . "I'm not sure I'll be replying any more on that forum. It is just not worth it. I found another thread on "chemtrails" and one person's picture had an orb/lens flare that he said he knew were alien craft that used electromanetic pulses to spread the chemtrails out into clouds. Some of the people their are more out of touch with reality than GLP regulars. It just isn't worth my time to hang out there." And this one to some poor CT, I assume Rocy, who had the audacity to post on Jay's forum of pro Apollo fanatics . " Which viewers? You mean all the ones that already spoke up saying you were full of it and we did in fact go to the moon and the evidence proves it? Or the imaginary ones that only you seems to think exists?" And another . "As usual Rocky, you are agood for laugh. Not much else though. At least you're keeping everybody cool with all the handwaving though." "And for the record, I have shown your rantings to two others that are not regulars of this board and they think you're nuts too." " Keep posting Rocky. You provide endless hours of humor when you do. " And I could go on and on but I think everyone will get the point as to what kind of person you really are . As for your insulting posts to Jack and me on this forum, I will take a look and see what else I can find. I've told you before that if you have an issue with another forum then you should bring it up on that forum. Your objections that you would be treated unfairly on other forums seems to hold no merit as there are plenty of hoax believers that have been treated fairly and lasted quite a long time. Some are still there. Others were only banned after they repeatedly broke known rules. But you know all this right? Or is your research there only to find something to take offense at? Most of those are not insults. I see one about you calling you a "lapdog". Perhaps I should have said "supporter". One to Rocky where I said others think he is nuts but I don't see him complaining nor did he at the time and it was much tamer than anything he was throwing around. He had a much thicker skin than many though and wouldn't cry to the moderator at the drop of a hat. The one you say is directed to this forum was about the David Icke forum. I maintain my stance that many there are out of touch with reality. I'm sure many would agree. So two and one about a forum in general? And none so far on this forum which is the only place it counts? I'm sure you've never said anything disparaging about any of us outside this forum have you? What is it they say about glass houses Duane? I will admit that I have made some comments about others on other forums. I have never denied this. But who hasn't? The issue here is whether I have attacked you or Jack here. You seem to be confusing the issue here. Oh, and it is not Jay Windley's forum. He has no stake in ownership and never has.

I admit that I rarely read any of your posts, as they hold no interest for me.... Whereas you appear to hang on every misspelled word I post here. Hardly. I'm sure there are plenty of misspelled words that I have missed or not commented on. However, when you misspell something so badly that it loses all meaning, you are corrected once and still do it, it becomes more significant. Your admittance that you rarely read any of other's posts further proves that you are not really hear to learn but just to try to be right. But that's not really a surprise to many I'm sure. I'm still waiting on some proof of how I attacked you or Jack. As I said before, I would be glad to take back any comments if you can prove your assertion.

It looks like you're wrong about that statement ... If it had no substance , then a moderator wouldn't have removed it and replaced it with this ... "BY MODERATOR: Matt - the phrase you used is expressly forbidden by the Forum rules. Do NOT use it again. First and only warning. " Oh, and thanks for correcting my spelling of "ad hominem" ... A term I never even knew existed until I started "discussing " the Moon hoax on discussion forums with people like you. The word was removed as it is not allowed on the forum. Your claim that I attacked you or Jack is still baseless as you have yet to show it. As I said in an earlier post, If you can show this, I would be glad to take any comments back. You could have handled this civilly Duane as I would have been glad to take my comments back if shown to be wrong. You still could and I would be happy to apologize. You would however have to show where I attacked you or Jack and I'm afraid that will be hard for you. As for your misspelling of ad hominem, it just shows that you don't really read the posts with opposing viewpoints as I corrected you just a few posts back. But that's not really a surprise for anyone here now is it? It would be nice though if you actually read the posts in the forum as we all do for you.

So is calling me a xxxx ... Your post has been reported . Not sure what an "ad homium" is as it doesn't exist. I would think you would know that as you have been corrected before. No matter though for I know what you mean. As for an ad hominem, how exactly? Jack did not comment on the facts, he still hasn't. He instead chose to insult those who opposed him. If anyone is guilty of an ad hominem attack it would be him. So you still have yet to prove that I have attacked him or you. If you can show this, I would be glad to take any comments back. Go ahead with your report. You and I both know it has no substance. Look who's really tellng tall tales here .... Haise's back is to the camera and his arm is down by his side in NO POSITION TO BE HOLDING THE CAMERA BACKWARDS AT THE EXACT SAME TIME SWIGGERT IS SEEN IN THE FRAME ..... Time stamp :34 .... Do I need to post a frame grab of that scene to show this fact , or are you capable of stopping the film at that point to see the truth about your "heros" ? There is absolutely NO WAY that Haise was filming that STAGED "HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM " SCENE. 34 seconds right here I've also uploaded the image to the forum in case photobucket is not working for anyone. His back is definitely not toward the camera (as you can see his front) and his arm is extended toward it. Or are you going for the feeling up the mythical fourth person option? Why are you so vehemently opposed to people having different opinions than you?

How did I attack him? I posted this Nothing but facts there. Jack does call many who are in opposition to him "disinfo agents" and has yet to show any proof. Without any proof that one is a professional disinfo agent then the accusation is nothing more than a thinly disguised insult and flame-baiting. He has avoided any facts that have been presented about persistent contrails and how they have been described and photographed since planes could fly high enough to form them. He instead resorts to attacking the messenger (name calling of disinfo agents and the like) rather than rationally discussing facts. So, where did I attack him? You only know that he has his back to them when he is shown. How is he positioned before that? If it is obvious that he is doing the filming in other parts, why is it not logical to assume he is here as well, especially as his arm is extended toward the camera? Or is he feeling up this mythical fourth person?

Where have I attacked? I have posted a lot of information, mostly on contralis. I typically lurk on the Moon hoax threads. <DELETED BY MOD>. I already offered my opinion. It looks like the third guy is holding the camera. He has his arm extended toward it. You didn't consider it. Instead you insult those with a different opinion than you by saying their opinion is not reasonable. And you continue to play the martyr. What about the rest of that video? Surely there is more than the few seconds shown over and over on the youtube video. What was happening before or after? What are they saying? Those few seconds are painfully out of context and I think it likely seeing more of the video would explain exactly what is going on with the camera and how it is being held by one of the only three men there. BY MODERATOR: Matt - the phrase you used is expressly forbidden by the Forum rules. Do NOT use it again. First and only warning.

Oh sorry Matthew ... I didn't notice your post before and I know how it feels to have your posts either completely ignored or constantly ridiculed. I'm not sure why you have such a personal dislike for Jack and me, but it's obvious from reading your constant flame baiting attacks to both of us, that you feel a lot of animosity towards us . What I don't understand however, is your constant accusation that Jack and I are the one's doing the insulting on this forum ... I understand that this "projection" tactic is used quite often on discussion forums in hopes of angering your opponent ... but after I pointed out the fact that both of us only bite back after being continuously insulted by certain members here, I thought you would have gotten the message .... So why is it okay for you and your friends to ridicule and insult Jack and me, yet it's not okay for us to respond in our own defense ? .... If you answer that question honestly, then I think you will understand why I called you a hypocrite . Honestly? I've seen plenty of times when you and Jack do the biting first. Also, if you were completely innocent you would not "bite back". Take your martyr act to somebody who cares.

That was my first thought as well. I just didn't bother to say anything because what's the point? Duane and/or Jack will show up later, insult anyone with a different opinion and never listen to any opposing points of view anyway.

Evan, I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP). Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions. The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth. Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements. When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits. If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" controllers. SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES. THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY. THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT. Accordingly: WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals. Charles Drago Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"? Because such a misreading is the best you can offer. By the by, it's "inflammatory." And it's a term, not a "phrase." Oh no! A spelling mistake! How ever will I survive? And it is both a term and a phrase.

Evan, I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP). Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions. The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth. Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements. When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits. If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" controllers. SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES. THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY. THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT. Accordingly: WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals. Charles Drago Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"?

Impossible to say from that picture as you can't see more than a few hundred yards behind the airplane. But they are contrails and there is no reason to assume they can't be persistent given the right conditions.

Like Jack said ... "THE GREATER THE OPPOSITION ... " I'm sorry but can you please show in Jack's post where your name was mentioned ? .... I'm sure he doesn't even give you a thought much less bother to reply to your attacks on every word he ever posted here . Try not to be such a hypocrite Matthew ... I have read your ad homium attacks on the Apollo Hoax forum , where you do mention names ... Like his and mine . Comparing Apollo Hoax CT's to Flat Earthers is an ad homium attack... but apparently it's okay for you to insult the people you disagree with . Jack and you have called me and others disinfo agents in the past. I am one of the opposition on this thread. It doesn't much to put the two together. Apparently that easy connection just went right over your head. I have not attacked him, just stated facts. He has shown he doesn't like to deal with those. What's an "ad homium" attack? If you have a problem with me on a different forum, then register on that forum and bring it up there. When did I compare Apollo Hoax CT's to Flat Earthers? Oh, that's right, I didn't. You might want to check your facts too. The Flat Earther's was just an example to show that the rule of thumb of Jack's doesn't always apply. One can also find great oppostion against things that are just wrong. But apparently that went right over your head just like Jack's insinuation about disinfo agents.

Ah Jack. Always seeing professional "disinfo agents" when your ideas are challenged. Any proof that I or others are disinfo agents or should I just assume that is your usual ad hominem? Can't comment on the facts then? Incidentally, the idea that the world is flat is opposed rather greatly. Does that mean the flat Earthers are correct? Or does it mean your rule of thumb really doesn't hold well. I notice you never commented on the multitude of evidence I posted in the other thread showing that not only can contrails persist as shown by science and facts but there is evidence of persistent contrails dating back to before WWII. Of course you'd rather attack the messenger than debate on facts right Jack?

I don't see where the German Air Force says that all persistent trails were caused by their experiments. In fact they seem to say just the opposite. Seems like a lot of assumptions made on the part of the author's.

I see some persistent contrails. How would you know if they contained any chemicals other than normal jet exhaust and water vapor? Have you tested them? Has anybody?

I didn't say that the film magazine came in direct contact with the surface itself, but rather that the astronots were allegedly on the surface while exposing the film magazine to the conditions of bright sunlight , intense heat and lunar radiation. If the magazine never came into contact with the surface then it was never sujected to the intense heat of the surface, was it? Hot enough to render the film either damged or completely useless . Any figures for this? Or are you just going to handwave it? Surely it wouldn't be at its max temperature yet. Not that it matters as you've admitted the film magazines never came in direct contact of the surface anyway.

When did the magazines ever come into contact with the lunar surface? And how hot was the surface noting that it takes time to get up to max temp and they landed in lunar morning?

All of which take time. And since the cameras weren't just sitting immobile in direct sunlight but rathermoved around and moving frequently from sun to shade and back again, it would take even longer.

I would say not much since it is equal to 7 C or about 44 F.