Matthew Lewis

This proves your "persistant contrails" excuse is wrong.

This video shows two planes flying at the same altitude.. One is leaving a short contrail behind it, while the other is spraying a long chemtrail.

How did they prove they were at the same altitude? Oh that's right, they didn't. Even if they were, are they the same type of plane with the same engines at the same power setting? All those have a lesser effect on contrail formation. Also worth noting the sky is full of cirrus clouds showing the conditions are right for persistent contrail formation. I'd say the short contrail plane is likely just slightly lower than the other. Even a 5,000 foot difference wouldn't be visible to the naked eye.

Forgetting to post a text in quotes does not equate to stealing informtion .. I checked several of the links and they worked fine .. I don't know how they could be copied wrong since they were all part of one large text.

There's no need to be so petty about who originally wrote a certain text, or a few links not workling, just because you can't prove your case.

The information I post here is NO JOKE.. So there's no reason for you to pretend it is.

Chemtrails are a FACT, and anyone who has either seen them, or bothered to research them, knows that.. Deal with it.

I said nothing about quotes. I don't care if you put it in quotes or not. Giving credit to the author is necessary though.

Most forum software truncates the visible link to avoid having long links cluttering up the forum. When one copies it directly the copy-paste action only gets what is visible. Out of 14 total links, 9 were either broken or didn't lead to anything about "chemtrails". How does YOUR sloppiness prove your case exactly?

Can't prove my case? YOU are the one that posted a disjointed post of which much of it didn't even apply to the subject. YOU are the one that has yet to prove there is anything in these "chemtrails" besides normal exhaust and water vapor. Faulty tests collected on the ground don't do that. The house bill claiming "chemtrails" are a space based weapon put forward by UFO enthusiasts certainly is a joke unless you believe all that too.

Wow, you'd think you would have learned your lesson the last time you had multiple broken links from copying from another site. Guess not. Were you going to credit the original author you stole all this from?

I didn't steal any information .. Anyone who bothered to click onto the YouTube video I posted here could read the text that went with it for themselves.. It's not unusual for a few links to be broken .. Web sites go down all the time.

I suspect your reason for being so confrontational about this subject stems from frustration over your obvious inability to prove that chemtrails are just "persistant contrails".

Sorry, but all of the evidence proves differently.

When you copy and paste something en masse without any credit to where it comes from that is essentially stealing. You made it appear that it was all your own words.

Most of the links weren't broken because the website was down, they were broken because YOU didn't copy them correctly.

What evidence? Certainly not in this latest post. A faulty testing on the ground is NOT evidence. A proposal to spray to combat global warming is NOT evidence that it is being done or even can be.

Confrontational? How? How exactly is pointing out that you couldn't copy a link correctly and that much of it didn't apply to the subject confrontational? I was just pointing out FACTS.

I see your posts more as humor, especially when you post things like the house bill written by people trying to combat UFOs and claiming "chemtrails" are in space.

I am continually baffled that some people continue to believe the LIE that contrails can't persist against all logic and science.

6/4/08

Becks new song "Chemtrails"

http://tinyurl.com/3vp3zk

Chemtrails - Beck

And? So what?

Yet another update:(many may find of interest) 3/21/08

Breaking the Nuremberg Code: The US Military Human-Testing Part 1 of Heather Wokusch discussing "Breaking the Nuremberg Code."

Covers Edgewood Arsenal, Project 112/SHAD and Stratton VA.

Also, here is her website:

http://www.heatherwokusch.com/index.p...

Not even about "chemtrails" and yet another broken link.

Update: 3/18/08

A Doctor Speaks Out About Chemtrails four scenarios

http://www.americanchronicle.com/arti...

Also, some may want to change the scary term "chemtrails" to..."cloud seeding." Just read Senate Bill 517.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billt...

More broken links

Update:

Germany Admits to Clandestine Chemtrail Ops.

http://www.chycho.com/?q=Chemtrails

Not a broken link but nothing on the site about "chemtrails". Also, Germany NEVER admitted to "chemtrails" as some like to claim. They admitted to using chaff, just like every other military on the planet. The german word for chaff was (deliberately?) mistranslated.

SHREVEPORT, LA

CHEMTRAILS: Is U.S. Gov't. Secretly Testing Americans 'Again'?

Posted: Nov 9, 2007 07:46 PM EST

Could a strange substance found by an Ark-La-Tex man be part of secret government testing program? That's the question at the heart of a phenomenon called "Chemtrails." In a KSLA News 12 investigation, Reporter Jeff Ferrell shows us the results of testing we had done about what's in our skies.

story by Jeff Ferrell

http://www.ksla.com/

Left side, sixth video down, watch it before they take it down...

No "chemtrail" video on the site. But it refers to the same faulty testing already discussed in this thread.

More info here

http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/

Also see, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/ent...

Finally, PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM" "The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies." "The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States]." -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.

broken link and a reference with no link and no proof that what is described is even happening.

Again with the faulty KLSA testing.

Wow, you'd think you would have learned your lesson the last time you had multiple broken links from copying from another site. Guess not. Were you going to credit the original author you stole all this from?

On any other site a disjointed, self-repetitive post like this would be the mark of a xxxxx. Of course since you just copied and pasted it without checking any of it you aren't the xxxxx and it isn't really your fault, kind of.

Anyway, most of the links are broken. Is this an attempt to throw as much crap against the wall and see if it sticks? Most of the content has been brought up here already and some is repeated in the same post.

Weather Control - A Research Paper Presented To Air Force 2025: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/shado...

How old is this stolen post? Geocities was shut down over a year ago. Broken link but it looks like it is referring to the hypothetical, student paper part of the much larger 2025 student project. The whole thing is a really interesting read. It assumes an unlimited budget and proposes many things that are not only not possible but quite humorous.

Info by Nasa about consistent 'contrails':

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html

Some good info about contrails. Refreshing that the original author wanted their readers to look at both sides unlike many of the "chemtrailers" here. Too bad they couldn't get the wording right (did they even read their own link?), it is persistent, not consistent contrails.

Finally a reporter checked out a guy's complaint and took the samples he collected and had them tested. The result from a Dr. perspective: Barium will cause our Immune System to weaken. So maybe we won't survive the sudden "pandemic" of Swine Flu or other rare strands of Flu that keep emerging???? The constant exposure is NOT good for us, he says.

And? Seems like there is something missing here.

google:

- Welsbach Patent 5003186

- "weather as a force multiplier: owning the weather in 2025"

OK, we have a patent for reducing global warming. Any proof it has been used, is being used, or is even possible?

Again with the 2025 project? Did the original author have ADD?

research:

AEROSOL OPERATION CRIMES & COVER-UP

http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm

Rep. Kucinich's HR 2977 Names Chemtrails As An 'Exotic Weapon' http://www.rense.com/general19/ex.htm

Kucinich did NOT write the bill. It was written by UFO enthusiasts that wanted to

1.Nullify a vast conspiracy by the military-industrial complex

2.Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy

3.Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens.

It also included "chemtrails" with space based weapons. I thought the claim was they were too low, not too high?

More info here

http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/

Its also been brought up before in this thread.

CHEMTRAILS TO BE BANNED BY CONGRESS?

http://www.mnmufon.org/chemt1.htm

See above. Again with Kucinich and again with the ADD.

Chemtrail Central Forum

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/F...

broken link

3/30/09 Update:

Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere

http://cryptogon.com/?p=7709

I dont think anyone has the complete story on exactly what chemtrails are. I dont doubt that weather modification is a part of it, but take your pick on the rest. There's almost certainly a biological component to some of the spraying.

A proposal to do something, especially when the proposal is unproven and not universally accepted does not prove something IS happening.

Commercial planes are marked for easy identification. Military planes are not.

Jack

Is this a military aircraft?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/3/2/1801234.jpg

Is this a military aircraft?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/8/6/3/1791368.jpg

Is this a military aircraft?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/2/7/1757724.jpg

Is this a military aircraft?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/3/2/0540231.jpg

Is this a military aircraft

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/7/3/0071374.jpg

Excellent examples Evan. They illustrate perfectly the fact that commercial planes require less overall markings than military.

How far away are you from DFW?

15 miles. All planes flying west when wind is from south follow interstate 30 at low level till they reach Fort Worth.

At downtown FW, they make the turns toward their destination and start gaining altitude.

Highly doubtful the plane was at 2,000 feet 15 miles after takeoff. Not only would they be at greater risk of collision with buildings, towers, and slower private general aviation traffic from the multiple airports in the area, the airlines would also constantly be getting noise complaints from the residents in the area. Climbing faster is also desired for airliners as they operate much more efficiently at higher altitudes.

From some quick research, a typical climb out from an airport is usually around a 15 to 20 degree climb to at least 10,000 feet or at the least around 2500 feet per minute with some climbs as much as 4,000 feet per minute.

Even being conservative with a 10 degree climb would put an airliner at over 13,000 feet by the time it was 15 miles from the airport.

I looked up the departure procedures for DFW and found nothing about having to stay low.

It is worth noting that as your "chemtrails" became cirrus clouds they were likely above 25,000 feet anyway (the altitude for cirrus cloud formation). I'd be willing to bet the conditions were right in your area at the time for persistent contrail formation and I'd lay another bet that you never bothered to check if that were so.

If the plane was unmarked (which I doubt), how did you know it was military?

The planes taking off over my house fly relatively low, then begin rising when they reach downtown. I have been on flights

such as this and the pilot usually gets on the speaker and says IF YOU LOOK OUT THE WINDOWS ON THE LEFT, YOU WILL

SEE DOWNTOWN FORT WORTH. My guess of 2000 feet is nearly a half mile. It could be 3000 or 4000...but it is less than

a mile. I base my estimate on having seen airliners in the air many times at about a mile distant.

Planes leaving DFW seldom make a steep climb immediately (flights I have been on). They take off, level off and follow

a freeway westward before climbing steeply.

Attached is a photo I took directly overhead over my driveway. The big plane is about the size I saw with my eye.

I estimate it is 3000 to 4000 feet away, base on my experience. It was flying level, but I was holding the camera

overhead, making it appear to be climbing. At this height the noise is deafening, once the point of Doppler effect

is passed. As they approach, no noise is heard. The larger plane is actually in a landing pattern, traveling toward

the airport, indicating a north wind for landing. The chemplane is at a much higher altitude.

Again, highly doubtful for the multiple reasons I already posted.

Commercial planes are marked for easy identification. Military planes are not.

Jack

Every military plane is required to be marked by international law. I doubt you can make out the markings enough from the ground and from below the aircraft to tell if something is military or commercial. There is also the fact that you've in the past claimed they are tankers and there are no 757 tankers in the US military.

I tried twice to upload an image, and got a message that no image was selected, so no image appeared.

I tried a third time, and got three images. Not my fault. Live with it.

Why so testy here Jack? I personally don't care if you have three images or none. It proves nothing except the "chemtrail" plane is accompanied by cirrus clouds showing the conditions were good for persistent contrail formation. There is no way to prove it is a military jet either. One can NOT estimate the height of the other plane as there is no reference. The focal length is also unknown. If I had to guess and assumed there was no distortion from focal length then I'd say they were at 6000 to 7000 feet.

Of course you would have had no problems if you'd used an external hosting site. Then of course your posts wouldn't be crippled now for those not logged in or not members or in the future for all others when you decide to remove the pics to post something else. But ultimately it is your choice whether you want to restrict the number of people who can see your research.

How far away are you from DFW?

15 miles. All planes flying west when wind is from south follow interstate 30 at low level till they reach Fort Worth.

At downtown FW, they make the turns toward their destination and start gaining altitude.

Highly doubtful the plane was at 2,000 feet 15 miles after takeoff. Not only would they be at greater risk of collision with buildings, towers, and slower private general aviation traffic from the multiple airports in the area, the airlines would also constantly be getting noise complaints from the residents in the area. Climbing faster is also desired for airliners as they operate much more efficiently at higher altitudes.

From some quick research, a typical climb out from an airport is usually around a 15 to 20 degree climb to at least 10,000 feet or at the least around 2500 feet per minute with some climbs as much as 4,000 feet per minute.

Even being conservative with a 10 degree climb would put an airliner at over 13,000 feet by the time it was 15 miles from the airport.

I looked up the departure procedures for DFW and found nothing about having to stay low.

It is worth noting that as your "chemtrails" became cirrus clouds they were likely above 25,000 feet anyway (the altitude for cirrus cloud formation). I'd be willing to bet the conditions were right in your area at the time for persistent contrail formation and I'd lay another bet that you never bothered to check if that were so.

If the plane was unmarked (which I doubt), how did you know it was military?

How far away are you from DFW?

Lewis...was that a correct quote from you on another forum:

PERHAPS BURTON IS MORE EVIL THAN WE THOUGHT...?

Or did I misread it?

Thanks.

Jack

Its called sarcasm Jack. I realize you probably don't understand it.

It's perfectly understandable why Jack wouldn't think you were being sarcastic...

Because he doesn't understand it, like I said. Perfectly understandable at his age. My grandparents had trouble with sarcasm too. What's your excuse?

Edit to add: I would like to note that the above is not intended as an ad hominem. Jack IS older, he didn't seem to understand the obvious sarcasm in my post, and I HAVE known older people (most notably my grandparents) who had trouble with sarcasm.

Mention of my age is irrelevant and obviously an ad hom. I am in complete control of all my mental abilities. I wish

I could say the same for my arthritis. I know sarcasm when I see it, and Lewis does not.

Jack

I don't buy it Jack. If you know sarcasm when you see it then why ask about my post? The only other reason is so you could post an attack on a member here without it being attributed to you as it was just a quote. So which is it? Did you not get that it was sarcasm or did you just want to post an attack?

I never said you weren't in complete control of all your mental abilities. From my experience, the understanding of sarcasm seems to be a generational characteristic.

Lewis...was that a correct quote from you on another forum:

PERHAPS BURTON IS MORE EVIL THAN WE THOUGHT...?

Or did I misread it?

Thanks.

Jack

Its called sarcasm Jack. I realize you probably don't understand it.

It's perfectly understandable why Jack wouldn't think you were being sarcastic...

Because he doesn't understand it, like I said. Perfectly understandable at his age. My grandparents had trouble with sarcasm too. What's your excuse?

Edit to add: I would like to note that the above is not intended as an ad hominem. Jack IS older, he didn't seem to understand the obvious sarcasm in my post, and I HAVE known older people (most notably my grandparents) who had trouble with sarcasm.

Lewis...was that a correct quote from you on another forum:

PERHAPS BURTON IS MORE EVIL THAN WE THOUGHT...?

Or did I misread it?

Thanks.

Jack

Its called sarcasm Jack. I realize you probably don't understand it.

The evidence I've presented on this thread speaks for itself, regardless of what kind of games are being played by certain members of this forum to attempt to suppress that evidence.

*edited for typos

Yes your "evidence" does speak...and loudly...

It's says, I'm very silly and can mislead the wary and intellectually challenged.

No one wants to 'surpress" anything. The opposite is true. Your "evidence" only hurts you, it sure does not help. Those who are nto worldview challenged see right through it.

As usual, all you have to offer is ridicule, with no proof of your silly claims that chemtrails don't exist, or cause harm to humans.

Not only do they exist but the toxins sprayed from the chemtrail planes have been tested .. Some of the most alarming results found are extremely high levels of aluminum and barium, both which cause immune system disorders.

More faulty results (claims of 6.8 parts per million when it is actually 68 parts per BILLION, which is in the normal range by the way) from yet another collection on the ground. Proves absolutely nothing ESPECIALLY because the bowl used to collect was left out for a MONTH already making it more concentrated than nomal rainwater. Hilarious.

http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/

More faulty logic and "debunking" by a member of the US Air Force.. The same Air Force that denies the existance of Chemtrails, even though that "top secret" program is no longer a secret.. Hilarious.

What exactly did I post that is faulty? Please share. They DID claim 6.8 parts per million when the results were actually 68 parts per billion. They DID get their sample from a bowl they left outside which would make anything collected more concentrated. They did NOT prove anything.

Did you miss this in my signature?

No matter what some here may think, I am NOT paid or in any way compensated for posting here or anywhere else. Any insinuation or accusation otherwise is completely unfounded and likely a violation of forum rules.

Your post tries to make a connection between my occupation and my posting here.

I have yet to see proof of the existence of ANY program. So far all we have is conjecture, faulty testing, a gross misunderstanding of weather, and a very hefty dose of paranoia.

The evidence I've presented on this thread speaks for itself, regardless of what kind of games are being played by certain members of this forum to attempt to suppress that evidence.

*edited for typos

Yes your "evidence" does speak...and loudly...

It's says, I'm very silly and can mislead the wary and intellectually challenged.

No one wants to 'surpress" anything. The opposite is true. Your "evidence" only hurts you, it sure does not help. Those who are nto worldview challenged see right through it.

As usual, all you have to offer is ridicule, with no proof of your silly claims that chemtrails don't exist, or cause harm to humans.

Not only do they exist but the toxins sprayed from the chemtrail planes have been tested .. Some of the most alarming results found are extremely high levels of aluminum and barium, both which cause immune system disorders.

More faulty results (claims of 6.8 parts per million when it is actually 68 parts per BILLION, which is in the normal range by the way) from yet another collection on the ground. Proves absolutely nothing ESPECIALLY because the bowl used to collect was left out for a MONTH already making it more concentrated than nomal rainwater. Hilarious.

http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/

Who are you saying is being deceptive?

Why are you avoiding questions again?

Matthew, I have one question for you: Would you not agree that deception is the essence of lying?

Nobody really knows what was given, if anything. He could have been given the petrified wood but as the card DOES NOT IDENTIFY what it was with and it was in a private collection for decades it is possible if not very likely that the card became separated from the original gift. As I already said the former Prime Minister likely misunderstood what he had. He may have thought it was a Moon rock and somebody from the art museum may have thought that but there is nothing identifying it as such. And of course NASA had not given out ANY rocks at that time, nor would they for another year.

There are no "stories" nor "plausible deniability" nor "elaborate attempts to explain it away". I reported the facts. The only "stories" are coming from your side.

I notice you have ignored these questions.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

Have you seriously not considered the FACTS that I brought up? Do the facts mean nothing to you?

So what precisely was being given to the former Prime Minister? And why was it placed on public display and

identified as a "moon rock"? I love the stories that go into implementing "plausible deniability" when these

things go wrong. It's worth reading your post for the elaborate attempts to "explain it away"! Excellent!

and some of the so-called Moon rocks, like the Dutch sample, appear to be

petrified wood from the desert in Arizona.

The Dutch "sample" was never claimed by NASA to be a Moon rock. Here are the FACTS. It was recieved in 1969, a year BEFORE anybody else got any samples. It was far larger than any other sample given out. It is not encased in plastic as other goodwill samples are. The card with it does not identify it as a Moon rock. It was given by an ambassador to a former Prime Minister, otherwise known as a private citizen which was also never done, when the royal family of the same country did not get a sample (protocol would never have allowed that to happen). There is no evidence the astronauts were even present when it was given. Since it remained unseen in a private collection (also very rare) for decades it is also unclear if the petrified wood was what was originally associated with the card. It was later given to an art museum and the VERY FIRST time it was seen by somebody remotely familiar with geology it was realized for what it was. The Prime Minister's family said at the time (1969) he was old and hard of hearing. It is far more likely that the former Prime Minister misunderstood what it was, if that is even what he was given at all.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

Nobody really knows what was given, if anything. He could have been given the petrified wood but as the card DOES NOT IDENTIFY what it was with and it was in a private collection for decades it is possible if not very likely that the card became separated from the original gift. As I already said the former Prime Minister likely misunderstood what he had. He may have thought it was a Moon rock and somebody from the art museum may have thought that but there is nothing identifying it as such. And of course NASA had not given out ANY rocks at that time, nor would they for another year.

There are no "stories" nor "plausible deniability" nor "elaborate attempts to explain it away". I reported the facts. The only "stories" are coming from your side.

I notice you have ignored these questions.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

Have you seriously not considered the FACTS that I brought up? Do the facts mean nothing to you?

So what precisely was being given to the former Prime Minister? And why was it placed on public display and

identified as a "moon rock"? I love the stories that go into implementing "plausible deniability" when these

things go wrong. It's worth reading your post for the elaborate attempts to "explain it away"! Excellent!

and some of the so-called Moon rocks, like the Dutch sample, appear to be

petrified wood from the desert in Arizona.

The Dutch "sample" was never claimed by NASA to be a Moon rock. Here are the FACTS. It was recieved in 1969, a year BEFORE anybody else got any samples. It was far larger than any other sample given out. It is not encased in plastic as other goodwill samples are. The card with it does not identify it as a Moon rock. It was given by an ambassador to a former Prime Minister, otherwise known as a private citizen which was also never done, when the royal family of the same country did not get a sample (protocol would never have allowed that to happen). There is no evidence the astronauts were even present when it was given. Since it remained unseen in a private collection (also very rare) for decades it is also unclear if the petrified wood was what was originally associated with the card. It was later given to an art museum and the VERY FIRST time it was seen by somebody remotely familiar with geology it was realized for what it was. The Prime Minister's family said at the time (1969) he was old and hard of hearing. It is far more likely that the former Prime Minister misunderstood what it was, if that is even what he was given at all.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

and some of the so-called Moon rocks, like the Dutch sample, appear to be

petrified wood from the desert in Arizona.

The Dutch "sample" was never claimed by NASA to be a Moon rock. Here are the FACTS. It was recieved in 1969, a year BEFORE anybody else got any samples. It was far larger than any other sample given out. It is not encased in plastic as other goodwill samples are. The card with it does not identify it as a Moon rock. It was given by an ambassador to a former Prime Minister, otherwise known as a private citizen which was also never done, when the royal family of the same country did not get a sample (protocol would never have allowed that to happen). There is no evidence the astronauts were even present when it was given. Since it remained unseen in a private collection (also very rare) for decades it is also unclear if the petrified wood was what was originally associated with the card. It was later given to an art museum and the VERY FIRST time it was seen by somebody remotely familiar with geology it was realized for what it was. The Prime Minister's family said at the time (1969) he was old and hard of hearing. It is far more likely that the former Prime Minister misunderstood what it was, if that is even what he was given at all.

If you still insist that it was intentionally given to him as a Moon rock then you need to explain, why was it given to a private citizen? Why give it to him and not give one to the royal family of the same country? Why is it far bigger than any other sample given out (which would be a significant fraction of the small amount of rocks they had at the time)? Why does it look different from every other sample? Why is it not identified on the card? Why was it given out a full year before any other samples were given?

Not nearly as predictable as yours.

Still have yet to see proof of ANY toxins being sprayed or anything being sprayed period. A faulty study conducted on the ground does neither.

Would also be nice to see proof of any games being played.

I take it from your post then that you CAN'T show where they accounted for the volume of air that they took the dust from? I figure you would have mentioned it if you could.

Then they tested the DUST in the air, NOT the air itself, no matter what they called it. Any logical person should be able to see that.

Yes, it was an AIR grab.

What they tested were the TOXINS in the air, beneath where the chemtrail planes had sprayed, no matter what disingenuous spin you attempt to put on it .. Any logical person should be able to see that.

Sure Duane. Then of course you can show where they either submitted a multi-ton sample of all the air from 28 days, 8 hours a day, or accounted for the volume of air passing through the filter. Right? Or how about how they modified a FILTER that collect dust to somehow collect and store massive amounts of air? How about how they ruled out other contamination sources? Just because they called it an air grab doesn't mean it was, nor does it magically make up for their faulty methodology.

We've discussed this before .. It's was proven that your source is the one who has the faulty methodology.

The Arizonia test was an AIR GRAB.. Call it dust if you must , but the atmosphere was tested after chemtrail planes had covered the area with toxins from above.

You must have a different definition of "proven".

Just because they called it an air grab doesn't mean it was. IF they actually grabbed all the air from a filter running 8 hours a day for 28 days they would have a multiton sample. They did NOT. They instead only sampled what the filter collected. That would be DUST. They did NOT account for the volume of air the dust came from. If you think otherwise then you need to show where. They simply tested the dust. Their results were well within the normal range for dust.

This "top secret" spraying project is no longer a secret.. Which means there's no reason for you to keep pretending it doesn't exist.

I'm pretending nothing. The way you say I am makes me think you're questioning my motivation to post here. But you wouldn't do that would you Duane?

Then they tested the DUST in the air, NOT the air itself, no matter what they called it. Any logical person should be able to see that.

Yes, it was an AIR grab.

What they tested were the TOXINS in the air, beneath where the chemtrail planes had sprayed, no matter what disingenuous spin you attempt to put on it .. Any logical person should be able to see that.

Sure Duane. Then of course you can show where they either submitted a multi-ton sample of all the air from 28 days, 8 hours a day, or accounted for the volume of air passing through the filter. Right? Or how about how they modified a FILTER that collect dust to somehow collect and store massive amounts of air? How about how they ruled out other contamination sources? Just because they called it an air grab doesn't mean it was, nor does it magically make up for their faulty methodology.

You still think that was an air grab? Since when does ANY Hepa filter "grab" air? What does a air filter grab? Did they turn in a multi-ton sample of all the air that passed through the filter? No? Did they account in any way for the amount of air their dust was filtered from? No? Then they tested the DUST in the air, NOT the air itself, no matter what they called it. Any logical person should be able to see that.

and that test was still performed ON THE GROUND. They did NOT rule out local pollution or other possible contamination sources.

Numerous examples of CFIT or controlled flight into terrain, most of which involving experienced crew caused by pilot error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Flight_Into_Terrain

Interesting idea but why build it on the Moon as opposed to low earth orbit? It is harder and more expensive to build it there, you have the light speed delay if the beam drifts, and no one receiving station will always be in view. On the other hand in low Earth orbit it should be easier and cheaper to build (but still not that easy) and while no single receiving station would always be in view, if the beam drifts a signal could quickly be sent to shut it down or adjust it. Or in geostationary orbit, it would be harder and more expensive than low Earth but still far easier than the Moon, no problems with light speed delay and no having to switch receiving stations. Plus if built on the Moon, the only place it could be built to get contanst solar power would be at one of the poles. Any other place and it would provide power for two weeks at a time with two weeks off. Seems like a neat idea but seems like a waste to build it on the Moon.

Lewis needs to brush up on his "Greek mythology". Wikipedia says in part:

So what? Does it change the POINT that more would know of that name than some obscure code name? I looked briefly at the Wiki entry and saw the word Greek first. Again doesn't change my POINT.