Matthew Lewis

John talks about the creation of that website in this video: It's also worth reviewing this post from John: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14334 Whilst we are talking about Spartacus references, I would think this describes why it might be called that: "Spartacus' struggle, often seen as oppressed people fighting for their freedom against a slave-owning aristocracy, has found new meaning for modern writers since the 19th century." Giving people an information source, to enable debate and dissent, is a wonderful tool to battle those who would oppress. It could explain why John is so passionate about allowing all viewpoints to be expressed on the EF, even those he vehemently disagrees with. Thank you Evan for providing the info about which website that Jack did not. Last I checked, this website was named "The Education Forum". Good to know that my memory wasn't failing me. Although I'm still at a loss to see how someone might think the Spartacus reference is to an obscure code name rather than the much older and more well known ancient story.

In a nut shell and in my own words, the majority of the responses on that web site were wrong because they agreed with the "debunker Uncinus", who also claims that chemtrails don't exist.. He also used bogus numbers that he just pulled out of the air to pretend to debunk the Arizona air grab test. They were wrong because they agreed with him and because they agreed with him they were wrong. How nicely circular. He had to provide some numbers because the “study” neglected to. The numbers he provided were based on reality which he explained in his post from 16 October 2008. He was GENEROUS in the numbers he provided. You have yet to show how they were actually WRONG. Further, the POINT is this from his post on 17 October 2008 But again, what exactly is disinformation? A disagreeing OPINION does not make for disinformation. What FACTS has he presented that are wrong?

Watch the video again then .. At time stamp 1:06 the narrator says he sees the chemtrails at about 4,000 feet.. The video also shows x's and grids that are NOT cirrus clouds, nor are they "persistent contrails..They are CHEMTRAILS. So one anonymous guy (he is not the narrator, it is a comment recorded off the radio) says 4,000 feet once, offers nothing to back it up, and nothing to say how he determined the altitude and the video at that time doesn’t pertain to what he is saying. So no actual proof of low altitude spraying was presented. This is your VIDEO proof of low altitude spraying? This is what fulfills your standard of research? And it took your 4 pages to come back with that? I disagree that there are not cirrus clouds. I’d ask where in the video you are seeing trails that are not accompanied by cirrus clouds and not persistent contrails but I’m afraid I’d have to wait another 4 pages to find out. You should call them chemtrail researchers because that's what they are .. They are not "chemtrailers".. Like I said before, that's just a condescending term used by people who refuse to accept the fact that chemtrails are real and hope to influence other people into having the same opinions as their's, by using condescending ridicule. That is your opinion that it is a condescending term. I disagree. I have not seen any others using it. I use it because I feel it describes their position and is far easier and shorter to write than the alternative. Where exactly has the Air Force EVER said anything about them being an “Internet Myth”? I noticed one person saying that on GLP and happen to agree so I have used it. I have not seen anyone else say that and certainly NOT the Air Force. Saying that the Air Force says that when you have only seen me say it seems like you’re implying I post here as part of a job. True. False and opinion. 70+ years of science says they can last any length of time and they have been observed to do so. Unproven (so far) opinion. Still waiting on a video showing it or someone who can actually explain how they determined the altitude of the aircraft. Just like normal air traffic flies, go figure Still have yet to see circling back for grids or x’s. Have seen a few photographs showing ovals but as explained before can be accounted for by holding patterns and/or training orbits. http://contrailscience.com/racetrack-contrails/

The video I posted not only showed low altitude spraying but the eyewitnesses stated the plane looked to be at around 4,000 feet.. Did you watch the wrong video? You tell me. I watched the video YOU posted in post 201. When they showed "chemtrails" they either showed them with cirrus clouds showing them to be high up or zoomed in without any visual cues. I don't remember them talking about low spraying at all and since I've now asked where in the video that was and asked if it was the right video and you haven't answered I can only assume it is not in there. Calling the researchers "chemtrailers" is as condescending as calling 911 researchers "truthers"... Also, putting "chemtrails" in quotes is a way to persuade the reader into believing they don't really exist, when all the evidence proves they really do. Here you go with the old "persistent contrails" thing again.. Please give it a rest..Repeating this constantly is not a rebuttal to the existence of chemtrails. What else should I call them? They are people who promote "chemtrails". As for the quotes, I don't believe in "chemtrails". I don't see why I should write it as a normal word when as far as I can tell it is only an internet myth. In your rant about me saying persistent contrails you missed the questions I asked. "Then say how exactly they are not the same thing." "If it is not true then how do you identify a "chemtrail"?" Tony8 was NOT wrong, he was just in the minority on that disinfo site.. No replys from the brainwashed masses showed him to be wrong either. So what about their responses was wrong in your own words? What about the original post showing the study to be wrong is wrong in your own words? Why not actually address the claims? There you go with the "chemtrailers" thing again.. Chemtrail researchers like Will Thomas, Carnicom, and Rense are not the ones falling for the disinformation and the faked videos, nor are they the ones promoting the disiformation and faked videos.. "Debunkers" like "Uncinus" are the ones promoting the disinformation.. He proved that by pretending to debunk all of Caricom's evidence, along with legitimate chemtrail videos. Of course I read that site .. That's how I know it's disformation .. I even read all of the comments there.. That's how I know Tony8 was right and that the "debunker Uncinus", who presents all the garbage on that web site, is wrong. They put these "obvious video hoaxes" on their own sites. Often they are the first to bring them up after which others respond to them. How is that NOT promoting them? Again, WHAT on that site is disinformation?

IF someone from a base visited the site, it means only someone from the base visited the site. Last I checked, individual people were still free to believe what they wanted to. How does that prove anything? What were the mindsets of those visiting? Do they believe in "chemtrails"? Do they not? What was the percentage of visits from military locations compared to overall? We don't know any of those so we don't know if the visits are significant.

Then, again, if you've lied in the past then you must be doing so now. Same logical fallacy. I'll bet you still won't see it. I've already provided that proof through eyewitness testimonies and video recordings of the chemtrail planes conducting their spraying operations.. You just choose not to believe that evidence. What part of "the video you posted as proof did not show low altitude spraying nor did they talk about it" do you not understand? Did you post the wrong video? Then say how exactly they are not the same thing. They show up in conditions conducive for contrail formation. They look exactly as contrails are known to look. The vast majority of "chemtrailers" say that the way to identify them is contrails never persist but "chemtrails" do. Jack says that. You've posted links and videos saying that. Every "chemtrailer" I've ever conversed with says that. YOU are the only one I've seen admit that contrails can persist. Saying they can not persist is UNTRUE about contrails. If it is not true then how do you identify a "chemtrail"? So one reply agrees with you and he's automatically right? Why not actually address the claims before dismissing them? What about the replies to him showing he was wrong? Looks to me like TonyB was wrong. Obvious video hoaxes? They're the ones being widely promoted by the "chemtrailers"! If they're so "obvious" then why do the likes of Will Thomas, Carnicom, and Rense fall for them and promote them? You sound like you haven't actually read the site. What has been presented that is "obvious disinformation"?

You consider 1,000 feet to be about the same as ground level? .. Your world view really does cloud your judgement then. What the military released 50 years ago might not have been the same thing as today's chemtrails, but the toxins were just as dangerous to people's health. But STILL proved nothing about what they may or may not be doing today. It's not all that difficult to tell when aircraft are flying below 30,000 feet .. You keep harping on that high altitude because the altitude needed to form contrails is usually over 25,000 feet.. but as I have said many times now, CHEMTRAILS ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS CONTRAILS. Except they look exactly the same and show up in the same conditions. Still waiting for proof of low altitude spraying. There is no "ignorant misconception" about contrails .. All of the chemtrail researchers know exactly what normal contrails are and at what altitudes they form.. Again, chemtrails are not the same thing as contrails.. So if anyone has any "ignorant misconceptions" about this subject it would be you, since you obviously don't understand the difference between contrails and chemtrails. I know that "chemtrailers" CLAIM that contrails can't persist and/or grow. That is wrong. Your arguments are ridiculous .. Nobody is "afraid of clouds" .. They are afraid of the toxic chemicals that have been found in the fallout from chemtrails.. "Chemtrails - Lab Report On Air Grab Thru HEPA Filter Bridget Conroy ArizonaSkyWatch.com 6-8-8 This is the final Lab Report RE: air material analysis. This was a 28 day collection via HEPA filter, 8 hours per day collection. Please note the extremely high Aluminum reading 12,800,000 ppb. The actual lab report is below." http://www.rense.com/general82/chemm.htm Already mentioned in post 215 Here it is again. http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-non-science/ The test was faulty.

If you didn't miss it, then why did you claim that the toxins were only released at ground level? .. It looks like you weren't being very honest with that claim, especially since you had already seen the evidence that the chemical releases were done from an aircraft. I consider under 1,000 feet to be about the same as ground level as at that height they could actually aim/track it. What do you NOT understand about the difference between what you claim are "chemtrails" and a release done below 1,000 feet over 50 years ago that looked nothing like a "chemtrail" (I guarantee anything sprayed was thickest at the nozzle and spread out unlike your "chemtrails")? I've alrady posted the claims of eyewitness to the low altitude chemtrail spraying, plus the video evidence showing that the chemtrail jets are well below the 30,000 feet altitude you keep incorrectly claiming they are flying at. Eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate, especially as they have no way to judge an aircraft's altitude from the ground with the naked eye. The video you posted said nothing and showed nothing regarding low altitude spraying. I watched it and specifically asked where in the video the claim was supposed to be. You haven't answered. Once again your claim is not only absurd, but it's not true .. Nobody has claimed that normal cirrus clouds don't exist.. What they claim is that chemtrails are NOT persistent contrails, and that the chemical trails are NOT normal cirrus clouds.. You need to stop twisting other people's words around to suit your particular agenda. Of course they haven't claimed that cirrus clouds don't exist. That is my point! They instead claim that contrails can't persist and grow JUST LIKE cirrus clouds. The ignorant misconception about contrails is the problem. By claiming that contrails can't persist and/or grow they might as well be claiming that cirrus clouds can't exist. Contrails are cirrus clouds! Where is the proof that there is a way to collect samples from a trail? .. Where is the proof that chemtrail researchers know how to collect samples from a trail, but have chosen not to collect them in this manner? Regardless of your incorrect beliefs about this subject (and you have plenty of them), samples collected on the ground prove what just fell to the ground from the chemtrails above.. Eyewitnesses have seen the chemtrail planes.. They have seen the fallout haze in the air from what these planes are spraying.. They have even witnessed sticky spider web like stuff on many occasions, which collects on the ground from the chemical haze.. So you need to stop pretending that ground samples "prove nothing", when they actually prove what toxins are in the chemtrails. Maybe you should be asking why "chemtrail researchers" have promised samples, taken money and never did anything? There are planes that exist to collect air samples. It is entirely possible to charter a plane and take a sample. They repeatedly fail to ever do so. You want something more specific? Find it yourself. I won't do your work for you. I'm not the one afraid of clouds. Samples collected on the ground only prove that something is on the ground. They have NOT ruled out other contamination sources, pollution, etc. You can not prove the existence of something in one place by collecting something in another.

Maybe you missed the fact that the toxins were released from a jet, not at ground level. "Dew II involved the release of fluorescent particles and Lycopodium spores from an aircraft." Didn't miss it. I've seen it before. Release was done BELOW 1,000 feet, exactly where you would expect if you actually wanted to aim, track, and/or have any effect at all. Of course the site you quoted didn't give the details. No, you want everyone to believe that chemtrails are only persistent contrails that are seen at 30,000 feet.. but that is NOT TRUE .. Not only are chemtrails nothing like contrails, they have been observed being sprayed at much lower altitudes.. Some as low as a few thousand feet .. People on the ground have also reported that the chemicals being sprayed are reaching the ground in a matter of a few minites, at some locations. I asked before for proof of low altitude spraying and your video failed at that. Any actual proof? Nobody is denying the fact the contrails exist, or that cirrus clouds exist .. What an absurd accusation to make..It's almost as absurd as denying the existance of chemtrails .. but I guess you have your reasons for that denial. Those who deny that contrails can persist and grow are doing EXACTLY that. They ARE denying that cirrus clouds can exist. Actually air samples have been taken while the chemtrail toxins have been seen falling to the ground in the form of a haze.. I'm sure it would be quite difficult, if not impossible, to retrieve any samples directly from a trail.. I asked you before if you knew a way to that, then by all means contact the people and scientists who are researching the chemtrail toxins, to let them know how this can be accomplished. I will produce the test results for the toxic chemtrail air samples in my next post. I already answered that not only is there a way to do so but the "chemtrailers" promised exactly that. The "researchers" already know how to collect it. They choose not to. Samples collected on the ground prove NOTHING about something supposedly sprayed in the air.

Just because something has been done in the past does not in any way prove it is being done now or will be done. Otherwise I could say "you have lied in the past so you are lying now". Both conclusions are absurd. I note that the releases of bio weapons were done at ground level. That makes sense. Anything released at altitude is impossible to aim and will never remain concentrated. "Chemtrailers" want you to believe they are getting sick from something released at 30,000+ feet. "Chemtrailers" often say the way they can distinguish a contrail from a "chemtrail" is that a contrail is always thin and dissipates quickly. That they can not persist or grow. In truth, contrails can look exactly the same as what are described as "chemtrails". IF it were true that contrails always "dissipate and disappear within seconds to a few minutes" then cirrus clouds could never exist. The conditions that allow the formation of cirrus clouds, which do persist and can grow, are the same conditions that are conducive to persistent contrail formation. By denying a feature of contrails that has been observed since planes could fly high enough, "chemtrailers" are denying that cirrus clouds can exist or indeed ever have existed. Evidence for a history of persistence and the science behind contrail formation can be seen in post 105 of this thread and here www.contrailscience.com The single best evidence "chemtrail" proponents could get would be a sample directly from a trail. If that ever happens I would be one of the biggest supporters. Let me know if they ever get around to it.

IF it were true that contrails always "dissipate and disappear within seconds to a few minutes" then cirrus clouds could never exist. The conditions that allow the formation of cirrus clouds, which do persist and can grow, are the same conditions that are conducive to persistent contrail formation. By denying a feature of contrails that has been observed since planes could fly high enough, "chemtrailers" are denying that cirrus clouds can exist or indeed ever have existed. Evidence for a history of persistence and the science behind contrail formation can be seen in post 105 of this thread and here www.contrailscience.com Some interesting info about faulty “chemtrail” testing. Carnicoms test: http://contrailscience.com/chemical-analysis-of-contrails/ The KSLA test: http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/ The Arizona Skywatch test: http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-non-science/ The single best evidence "chemtrail" proponents could get would be a sample directly from a trail. If that ever happens I would be one of the biggest supporters. Let me know if they ever get around to it.

OK, you were capable lying in the past, you are doing so now. Both conclusions are equally absurd. The majority of planes photographed and videotaped are of types the Air Force doesn’t even have. How does that prove the majority is being done by Air Force tankers? You haven’t explained either how they would have enough aircraft to do what you propose anyway. The redesign of jet engines was BOTH to cut noise and save fuel. It has nothing to do with flight paths they may later take or that may be imposed on them by ATC. “Chemtrails” look EXACTLY like contrails. 70+ years of science says they do. I’ve posted proof in this thread and others. So in other words you CAN’T explain why your supposed spraying looks NOTHING like any other spraying and everything like contrails growing from moisture already in the air exactly as science says they can do. Mentioned above. Just because you can’t figure it out doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. Of course if you’d rather settle for samples collected on the ground then you’ll just have “evidence” which means nothing and proves nothing except the ineptness of those collecting. The single best evidence "chemtrail" proponents could get would be a sample directly from a trail. If that ever happens I would be one of the biggest supporters. Let me know if they ever get around to it.

That’s EXACTLY what they should do! Charter a plane, preferably one set up to take air samples (there are plenty out there, at least one was claimed to be a sprayer by “chemtrailers” even though all of its equipment is clearly designed for COLLECTION) fly through a trail and collect samples! Then have the samples tested blindly at multiple labs. This is what they proposed while collecting money and then never delivering. You know, the FRAUD that you and others are perfectly OK with. Of course for some reason “chemtrail” proponents don’t want to get the best evidence they could possibly get. Still doesn’t change the FACT that they have not proven their illnesses were caused by “chemtrails”. At best they have a correlation. Correlation does not prove causation. Not according to the 70+ years of science behind contrails. You even admitted before that contrails could persist. Now you are saying they don’t. Which is it? Wrong. They have been collected on the ground because those involved don’t want to bother getting actual evidence. Did you miss where I said “video”? Plus I already explained the picture. Would these eyewitnesses actually recognize a holding pattern? How does that look different from any other plane turning in a circle?

Yet again you ignore context. Typical. So just the fact that one couple is murdered is now proof? Now youre ignoring context in the extreme. It is really quite absurd. I have delivered no character assassinations, unlike you or Jack. I have tried to only mention his work and not him. Whether building 6 burned or not was NOT the question. What was the question was whether his still frame captured an explosion. The video evidence which he has repeatedly ignored and which I linked to shows it did not. As for a fire, I dont know nor do I care. It appears Jack may be changing horses. If I had to comment, I would say at first glance it looks like a trick of lighting but Ill defer to other experts here. Again, it is off topic. If Jack or others want to discuss the photo, they can start another thread to do so. Not meant as ridicule at all. I'm sorry if you saw it that way. Just trying to understand where youre coming from. If I wanted to call you a "hoaxhead", or "a wild eyed conspiracy theorist", or "a tin foil hat wearer", I would have. I did not. So again, you are saying the context doesnt matter? Absurd. I made a logical assumption based on the available information. I doubt I was the only one. If you say you werent accusing anyone here, then fine, you werent. I withdraw any and all accusations and apologize. I do think it is hilarious that you cant just take responsibility for your own actions but I expected nothing less. Or maybe they are just normal contrails and the lack of them is explained by the lack of commercial traffic. Where in the video does it prove the low altitude spraying? I see lots of contrails, most often with cirrus clouds showing they were both high altitude and that the conditions were right for contrail formation. 2:30 in and they show an airplane flying through nonuniform air of varying temperature and/or moisture content. Followed by more contrails and cirrus. Still nothing showing spraying at low altitude and certainly nothing that I saw at 4,000 feet.

(For those who can't see the picture because you are not a member or in a few weeks after Jack has removed it, it shows two contrails, one thick and one thin, with arrows identifying the thin short one as a contrail and the thicker one as a "chemtrail". There is again cirrus clouds visible in the image) To Jack: Both look like contrails. Both are easily explained through the 70+ year old science behind contrail formation. The planes that left the contrails were very likely at different altitudes accounting for the difference in persistence. (for the newcomers, Jack believes in the lie that contrails can not persist even though they have been observed to do so since planes could fly high enough and plenty of proof has been posted in this very thread) Of course we see again some cirrus clouds with the trails again showing that the conditions were right for contrail formation. Thanks again for illustrating my point! When are you going to post something that doesn't look like a contrail?

(For those who can't see the picture because you are not a member or in a few weeks after Jack has removed it, it shows multiple overlapping contrails amongst cirrus clouds.) To Jack: Do you have a point or is this just pretty picture post time? Most people actually discuss things on a discussion forum. I see some textbook examples of persistent contrails as well as some regular cirrus clouds with the trails again showing that the conditions were right for contrail formation. Thanks again for illustrating my point!

(For those who can't see the picture because you are not a member or in a few weeks after Jack has removed it, it shows some oval contrail paths again with accompnaying cirrus clouds, likely from a command and control aircraft flying an orbit. It could also be from an aircraft in a holding pattern. ) To Jack: And? See what I said above about holding patterns and training orbits. This is exactly what that would look like. It does NOT however look like a systematic plane to "spray" or cover and area. Coverage would be spotty. There are some thicker areas with overlaps and others where there was no lasting persistence at all. A child could design a better pattern to evenly cover an area. An adult would be fired if that was the plan. It is also possible, though unlikely, that the trails could have been created by multiple aircraft. Since it is a photograph taken after the fact and nobody bothered to video it while happening it is impossible to say for sure. I do notice that it shows some regular cirrus clouds with the trails though showing that the conditions were right for contrail formation. Thanks again for illustrating my point!

(For those who can't see the pic because you are not a member or in a few weeks after Jack has removed it, it shows some crossing contrails at sunset with some accompanying cirrus clouds. Quite pretty actually. I may make it my desktop.) To Jack: Nice pic of contrails at sunset Jack. I especially like how you can see cirrus clouds accompanying the trails showing that the conditions were right for contrail formation. Thanks for helping to illustrate my point!

People may have become ill but they have not proven it is from “chemtrails” At best they have coincidence and confirmation bias. Everything videotaped looks just like contrails. All samples have been collected on the ground. There is no proof that they came from a trail in the sky. I have yet to see a video showing a plane turning around to “spray” the same area. I’ve seen people claim it but they never follow the plane for the whole time. They fail at proving it is the same plane. Do you have an adequate example? Still, loops or circles can be created by jets in a holding pattern or military planes (command and control or tankers) flying orbits for training. X’s, letter patterns, and grids can be explained by normal everyday traffic. Should flight paths never cross? How would people get anywhere if they didn’t? Just because something was sprayed before doesn’t mean it happens now. You (or anybody really) has at some point in their life told a lie (likely many). Does that mean you always tell lies? Does that mean you are telling lies right now? Of course not. Please post proof that US Air Force tankers are spraying anything. Especially as the majority of pics and videos show commercial aircraft, or types that the Air Force does not have. How do you propose that the Air Force with its limited and aging fleet of tankers does all this spraying? At any given time more than 1/3 of the tankers in the inventory are deployed delivering fuel in theater supporting the wars. Another 1/3 are down for maintenance. That leaves at most 1/3 (likely less) that still need to accomplish training in the states (unless you think the first time a pilot should do an aerial refuel is in a wartime situation). Not what I said, don’t put words in my mouth. They see something that looks exactly like a contrail and they find on the Internet that they should be afraid of it. I don’t doubt people are becoming ill but I have yet to see any definitive proof (something that would hold up in court, not something designed to sway the average Internet surfer) that it was caused by something sprayed in the sky. Everything I’ve seen described as a “chemtrail” can be explained with the long known science of contrails. It has nothing to do with a world view. So deliberate fakes perpetrated by well known “chemtrail” proponents are disinformation? Even if you claim that somebody else did the fake and they just fell for it, why would they continue to push it after the fake was proven? Look for a picture of a crop spraying aircraft. The spray comes out thick right by the nozzle and quickly spreads out and disappears. Contrails or "chemtrails" are the opposite. They often form many feet behind the nozzle and grow as they condense and pull moisture from the air. If “chemtrails” are a spray, how come they look different from every other sprayed chemical and exactly like contrails? If they look exactly like contrails, how is one supposed to identify them? Again, as I’ve mentioned before and bolded within the quote above, The single best evidence "chemtrail" proponents could get would be a sample directly from a trail. If that ever happens I would be one of the biggest supporters. Let me know if they ever get around to it.

What I think doesn’t matter. I already said it was suspicious. Can it be proven? Would a court of law say “yep, that was definitely the reason they were murdered”? From what I've seen his "research" is filled with ignorance, and a misunderstanding of perspective. Even though the vast majority of it has been explained or debunked he ignores all criticisms in the hopes that they'll just go away. Then he'll repost them later as if nothing ever happened. The above is just one example. It is also the last I'll say in this thread as it is off topic. It doesn't change my original point though that I don't believe exactly what the government said. Mostly though I don't care. How is that an insult? It is a valid question. How about what I’ve already mentioned multiple times. How many microbiologist, virologists, etc. are there in the world? What is the normal death rate of these people? Is the amount dead greater or lower than normal? If somebody says that x number of people in a particular field were killed, but neglects to mention that the time period in question covered 20 years and because of that the overall rate is lower than normal, that is context that is needed to say if the deaths are significant or not. You had a problem posting on this forum and when the broken links were mentioned you said “it only proves how hard some people are working to suppress the truth of chemtrails”. How should one assume you weren't implying it happened on this forum caused by forum members here? It is a logical assumption based on what you posted. How is that an insult? Everywhere? There are not contrails, persistent or not, nor “chemtrails” at any altitude in my location. Due to the multiple military airspaces around Panama City, most commercial traffic is routed around here. If there really was some program so spray everybody, why not here? Military traffic is allowed all the time (consists mostly of fighter traffic) but most often avoids contrail formation altitudes (they can be predicted) because a contrail of any length can be visually acquired at a much greater distance than the airplane itself. Commercial traffic is NOT prohibited, just usually routed around whether the airspaces are active or not as a matter of habit. Result: no contrails or “chemtrails”. Most days are clear. Please post a video you say proves low altitude spraying. Again, EVERY one I’ve seen they either have no way of judging altitude or are clearly higher than they say they are. I never said they couldn’t be but unless you collect from directly within a trail, a sample collected on the ground is not only possible to be contaminated by local sources but likely. There is never any control nor effort to rule out local contamination sources.

I didn't ever say anything about the source being anonymous. It is still a coincidence that the murder was the next day. There is no proven connection. Does it look suspicious? Sure. Is it related to "chemtrails"? No. Jack still believes in an explosion in Building 6. Twice on this forum video evidence has been posted showing that his still which he thinks shows an explosion is in fact a dust cloud from a collapse. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5594&st=855 There is no proof, nor evidence of such an explosion. That IS a fantasy. It is also NOT related to "chemtrails". Is there any conspiracy you don't believe in? Again, you are ignoring CONTEXT. No obsession here. Just trying to get YOU to own up to YOUR mistakes. I have no problem with you believing that there are people working to suppress whatever truth you believe in. The problem is YOU are accusing those on this forum of covering something up simply because YOU didn't copy links correctly. I have seen no proof of low altitude spraying. I've seen plenty of pics and videos posted by many people on many forums claiming low altitude spraying but in none of them do they actually prove it. They all appear to be among cirrus clouds which are a high altitude phenomenon. Just waiting a few days does NOT rule out local contamination. Thinking such is absurd. Not all have "conducted their experiments a few days after seeing chemtrail planes spraying overhead". Many take their samples while the trails are in the air. Many, including yourself claim ill effects while trails are still in the air. If you accept that particulates would take at least a few days to reach the ground then you should also realize that they wold not fall directly below where the trail was. They would be hundreds of miles away and dissipated to such minute concentration to be virtually undetectable. "Chemtrails" are an internet myth perpetuated by ignorance and outright lies. Not according to news reports from WWII and the decades following. See post 105 and/or www.contrailscience.com for details. Only one I saw on there was sprayed by jets. Release does not equal spraying. Again, I guarantee if sprayed they did it from less than 1,000 feet. You can't aim at all otherwise. Some others did not mention the method of delivery. I have posted proof that contrails have persisted, spread, and formed a cloud layer in many decades before the 90's. The reason it "became widespread" is due to an increase in jet traffic, a redesign of jet engines to cut noise and save fuel, and higher jet traffic due to increased traffic and more efficient engines. People don't KNOW that spraying is taking place. They THINK it is because somebody on the internet said so, said that it never used to happen, and says that contrails can't persist. At least two of those are lies. I've posted proof of that and you've agreed. Everything I've seen can be explained by contrails. The single best evidence "chemtrail" proponents could get would be a sample directly from a trail. If that ever happens I would be one of the biggest supporters. Seriously. So far though all that has happened is people proming it, collecting money and then never delivering. That is fraud. Many of the same people have produced deliberately faked pictures and videos. Why would I want to be associated with frauds and liars?

I NEVER said he wasn't murdered. But whether he had a conversation with a journalist the day before or not is still just a cloincidence without actual PROOF. JFK is irrelevant but I guarantee that you don't know my opinion on it so don't act like you do. 911 is also irrelevant. I don't believe exacly what the government said but I don't subscribe to Jack's fantasies either. Without the CONTEXT of how many total microbiologist, virologists, etc. there are in the world and what the normal death and murder rate is, kinowing that 100 of them were killed is as good as meaningless. Not all of them were murdered. Is that you actually taking responsibility then? Because the PROBLEM was that you were accusing others of "working to suppress the truth of chemtrails" based on YOUR inability to correctly copy links from a different forum. Are you withdrawing that accusation? EVERY video or photo I've seen of them shows them among cirrus clouds (not surprising as contrails are in effect cirrus clouds themselves) which places them much higher. It is nearly impossible to tell altitude of a plane from the ground with the naked eye and the inability of "chemtrail" proponents to do so is longstanding. Perhaps you could post some of this "proof"? Bolded part is all that's necessary. Thanks. I haven't sidestepped anything. EVERY sample taken has been collected on the ground. There has not been any steps taken to rule out local contamination. Most samples are taken while the trails are still in the air! You have even admitted that if the trail was as low as "6,000 to 10,000" feet it would takes days to fall to the ground. IF spraying is actually happening anyway. MOST (including Jack White) say that contrails do not persist. So you say, but the existence of spraying from the ground (one of your tests was from a ship (you omitted that part), one mentioned a bomblet, and another mentioned jets. I guarantee they all were below 1,000 feet. You can't guarantee ANY effect unless you are lower than that.) says nothing about spraying from 30,000+ feet in the air especially when it looks the same as a contrail. Look for a picture of a crop spraying aircraft. The spray comes out thick right by the nozzle and quickly spreads out and disappears. Contrails or "chemtrails" are the opposite. They often form many feet behind the nozzle and grow as they pull moisture from the air. MOST "chemtrail" proponent say they were never seen before the late 90's. You take away that distinguishing characteristic and the lie that contrails never persist and you have no way to claim anything looks different now than it used to. You have no reason to think any spraying is happening. So are you responding for Jack now? We all know he won't. Of course there was that one post of his that looked more like it came from you.

Pretty. So? Here's another one. Looks pretty similar. Except mine was taken in 1967, a full 30 years before "chemtrail" people say "chemtrails" were EVER seen before.

What PROOF did this website you got this from have that this conversation actually happened? Plus the last time I checked, so far that is just coincidence and not proof. Did you just believe because they said so and it happens to fit your world view? You also still ignored this part "Any proof that the numbered murdered is more than should be expected for that period of time? Just how many are in the world?" Some of them in that list worked on AIDS research too. Why should we believe you that all the deaths are related to "chemtrails"? Seriously? You can't just own up to the FACT that YOU screwed up the links? <removed by moderator> There is no PROOF that ANYTHING collected on the ground came from a trail 30,000+ feet in the air hence no proof that anything is being sprayed. Especially when the trail is still in the air (how can you still not realize that it can't be in two places at once?). Especially when one of your OWN LINKS said that aerosols could take WEEKS to fall to the ground. Any proof that Operation Clover Leaf or Raindance are even real? So you sidestep the question which was "Why aren't you upset that they have promised samples that would actually prove something but they never do it?" with yet another promise that evidence is forthcoming. I don't have to debunk anything. Carnicom debunks himself. He's had multiple fake stories, photos and videos on his site. His standard of research is abyssmal. And he also can't agree on what the "chemtrails" are supposed to be for. I notice you didn't comment on that. So which is it Duane? Are they to control the weather, block the sun, enhance radar, make people sick, aid in satellite tracking, or assist in satellite mind control or whatever the current flavor of the week is? And they ARE LYING. The majority of them claim that contrails can't persist. YOU have said yourself that they can. Here's a site fore you http://contrailscience.com/

So you say. Any PROOF that they were murdered over "top secret, black ops, inside information"? Any proof that the numbered murdered is more than should be expected for that period of time? Just how many are in the world? You posted 12 links. NINE of them are broken. It is UNTRUE that most work. They are broken because you likely copied them from another forum post which truncated them and YOU didn't notice and fix them. It happened because YOU screwed up. There is no proof that ANYBODY is trying to suppress the truth. Especially when YOU haven't been clear what the truth supposedly is anyway. You and Jack have posted links saying that "chemtrails" are to control the weather, block the sun, enhance radar, make people sick, aid in satellite tracking, or assist in satellite mind control. I'm sure I probably missed a few. Which is it supposed to be? As I've mentioned before and posted proof on this and other threads, persistent contrails have been observed since planes could fly high enough. EVERYTHING that has been attributed to "chemtrails" can be explained with contrails, INCLUDING "on/off spraying". Air is not always uniform and a plane traveling through air of varying moisture content can and will produce contrails that turn on and off. Not much proof, lots of supposition and ignorance. And of course more tests of samples COLLECTED ON THE GROUND. Why aren't you upset that they have promised samples that would actually prove something but they never do it? Why are you content with them lying to you?