Matthew Lewis

I presume what Jack is talking about is this website:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/

of which John Simkin is an administrator. Both websites being to do with education and research, IMO naturally John promotes the Spartacus website on this Forum and they have many links to each other.

John talks about it briefly on the Spartacus website:

...In September, 1997 I established the Spartacus Educational website and over the next six years I produced online material for the Electronic Telegraph, the European Virtual School and the Guardian's educational website, Learn.

In 2003 I joined Andy Walker in establishing the International Education Forum....

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.

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?

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

The bottom line here is that Arizon Skywatch measured the wrong thing. They measured the concentration of the metals in dust, and not in air. Their results were within the normal range for those metals in dust.

Now I then attempted to give a ballpark estimate of how wrong they were. This meant I had to estimate A. How much air was sampled, and B. The weight of the particulate matter in the filters.

It’s not possible to give anything more than an estimate here – which is what I did. Turns out I was overly generous on the amount of particulates – which makes their result even more wrong, but perhaps 50% off on the volume of air.

But any way you work the figures, their answers are incredibly wrong – as you said, if they were correct then everyone would be dead.

Again, the Unicnus site is disiformation, for the simple reason that the blogger denies the fact that chemtrails are real.

But again, what exactly is disinformation? A disagreeing OPINION does not make for disinformation. What FACTS has he presented that are wrong?

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.

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.

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"?"

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.

The US Air Force denies the existence of chemtrails .. They also promote the disinformation that chemtrails are just an "internet myth" .. <DELETED BY MODERATOR>

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.

Persistent contrails mostly occur between 25,000 to 30,000 feet..

True.

They usually dissipate sooner than chemtrails,

False and opinion. 70+ years of science says they can last any length of time and they have been observed to do so.

which are often sprayed at lower altitudes

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.

and are usually seen as x's, or patterns or grids..

Just like normal air traffic flies, go figure

Planes displaying persistent contrails usualy fly in a straight line and don't circle back to cover a particular area with these grids, x's etc..

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/

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?

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.

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"?

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"?"

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.

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?

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"?

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.

WRONG! .. The fact that the military conducted several secret chemical tests on unsuspecting populations years ago, only proves they are capable of doing the same thing today.. Obviously people are expendable experiments to the military's agenda, since many of the people they've made ill, have also died from their toxic chemical operations.. In the past and also today.

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.

Except they look exactly the same and show up in the same conditions. Still waiting for proof of low altitude spraying.

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?

It doesn't matter what some people claim .. It also doesn't matter that some contrails can persist because it has been proven repeatedly that they are NOT the same thing as chemtrials.

You obviously can't debunk the reality of chemtrails, so you just keep repeating the same lame "persistent contrail" excuse over and over again.. It's really getting boring having to reply to the same nonsense repeatedly.. Maybe you should try to find some new "debunking" material.

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"?

No, what's faulty is your "debunker's" analysis.. Like I mentioned before, there are certain people working very hard to suppress the truth about the chemtrail spraying operations taking place today.

Here's a reply to your source's faulty analysis of that Arizona chemical air grab test. (snip)

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.

The trick with "debunkers" like "Uncinus", is the fact that he takes obvious video hoaxes, along with obvious disinformation, and then mixes the fake stuff together with real evidence and real tests.. He then rolls all of this "debunking evidence" up into one big ball and then pretends to debunk all of the evidence.. It's one of the oldest (not to mention most transparent) disinfo tricks in the book!

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"?

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")?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 asked before for proof of low altitude spraying and your video failed at that. Any actual proof?

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.

Those who deny that contrails can persist and grow are doing EXACTLY that. They ARE denying that cirrus clouds can exist.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Chemtrailers" want you to believe they are getting sick from something released at 30,000+ feet.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Here are examples of chemtrail operations that were conducted by the US military during the 1950's.

Operation Dew

Operation Dew refers to two separate field trials conducted by the United States in the 1950s. The tests were designed to study the behavior of aerosol-released biological agents.

General description

Operation Dew took place from 1951-1952 off the southeast coast of the United States, including near Georgia, and North and South Carolina.[1][2] Operation Dew consisted of two sets of trials, Dew I and Dew II.[2] The tests involved the release of 250 pounds (110 kg) of fluorescent particles from a minesweeper off the coast.[1] Operation Dew I was described in a U.S. Army report known as "Dugway Special Report 162", dated August 1, 1952.[2] The purpose of Operation Dew was to study the behavior of aerosol-released biological agents.[1]

Dew I

Operation Dew I consisted of five separate trials from March 26, 1952 until April 21, 1952 that were designed to test the feasibility of maintaining a large aerosol cloud released offshore until it drifted over land, achieving a large area coverage.[2] The tests released zinc cadmium sulfide along a 100-to-150-nautical-mile (190 to 280 km) line approximately 5 to 10 nautical miles (10 to 20 km) off the coast of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.[2] Two of the trials dispersed clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide over large areas of all three U.S. states. The tests affected over 60,000 square miles (150,000 km²) of populated coastal region in the U.S. southeast.[3] The Dew I releases were from a Navy minesweeper, the USS Tercel.[2]

Dew II

Dew II involved the release of fluorescent particles and Lycopodium spores from an aircraft.[2] Dew II was described in a 1953 Army report which remained classified at the time of a 1997 report by the U.S. National Research Council concerning the U.S. Army's zinc cadmium sulfide dispersion program of the 1950s.[2]

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

Here's a history of the US Biological Weapons program, which still exists and continues today, though it was allegedly made illegal in 1972 during the Biological Weapons Convention.

Testing on unwitting civilians

Medical experiments were conducted on a large scale on civilians who had not consented to participate. Often, these experiments took place in urban areas in order to test dispersion methods. Questions were raised about detrimental health effects after experiments in San Francisco, California, were followed by a spike in hospital visits; however, in 1977 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that there was no association between the testing and the occurrence of pneumonia or influenza.[55] The San Francisco test involved a U.S. Navy ship that sprayed Serratia marcescens from the bay; it traveled more than 30 miles.[55] One dispersion test involved laboratory personnel disguised as passengers spraying harmless bacteria in Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.[55]

Scientists tested biological pathogens, including Bacillus globigii, which were thought to be harmless, at public places such as subways. A light bulb containing Bacillus globigii was dropped on New York City's subway system; the result was strong enough to affect people prone to illness (also known as Subway Experiment).[56] Based on the circulation measurements, thousands of people would have been killed if a dangerous microbe was released in the same manner.[55]

A jet aircraft released material over Victoria, Texas, that was monitored in the Florida Keys.[55]

GAO Report

In February, 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released report GAO-08-366 titled, "Chemical and Biological Defense, DOD and VA Need to Improve Efforts to Identify and Notify Individuals Potentially Exposed during Chemical and Biological Tests." The report stated that tens of thousands of military personnel and civilians may have been exposed to biological and chemical substances through DOD tests. In 2003, the DOD reported it had identified 5,842 military personnel and estimated 350 civilians as being potentially exposed during the testing, known as Project 112.[57]

The GAO scolded the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) 2003 decision to stop searching for people affected by the tests was premature.[54] The GAO report also found that the DoD made no effort to inform civilians of exposure, and that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is failing to use available resources to inform veterans of possible exposure or to determine if they were deceased. After the DoD halted efforts to find those who may have been affected by the tests, veteran health activisits and others identified approximately 600 additional individuals who were potentially exposed during Project 112.[57] Some of the individuals were identified after the GAO reviewed records stored at the Dugway Proving Ground, others were identified by the Institute of Medicine.[58] Many of the newly identified suffer from long term illnesses that may have been caused by the biological or chemical testing.[59]

Read about other US military bio weapons experiments here..

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

These tests prove that the US military is capable of any atrocity.. Today's chemtrail spraying operations are very real, despite concerted efforts by certain parties to cover up that fact.. They want people to believe that chemtrails are just another "conspiracy theory" invented by the "lunatic fringe".

Wake up people.. We are being sprayed on a global scale!

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.

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.

Nice try again, but if the US military was guilty of this type of bio warfare testing and chemical spraying of unsuspecting populations in the past, then they are capable of doing the same thing now.

OK, you were capable lying in the past, you are doing so now. Both conclusions are equally absurd.

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).

I've already posted the proof that the majority of the chemtrail spraying is being done by Air Force tankers .. People who can identify these types of jets, have done so, repeatedly.

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.

Not what I said, don’t put words in my mouth.

This is what you said .. "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.

I replied .. "You think the way to "save fuel" is to CIRCLE BACK REPEATEDLY TO MAKE LOOPS, X'S, LETTERS, AND GRID PATTERNS OVER CERTAIN AREAS???" .. The words "save fuel" was one of your many excuses.. So I didn't put any words in your mouth.

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.

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.

Chemtrails look NOTHING like contrails, so why keep pretending they do? .. People who are ill aren't worrying about proving how they got sick in a court of law .. They just want the US military to admit to what they are spraying in the atmosphere that is making them so ill, and then STOP IT.

“Chemtrails” look EXACTLY like contrails. 70+ years of science says they do. I’ve posted proof in this thread and others.

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.

Once again, chemtrails look nothing like contrails .. Just because the tanker jets don't spray chemtrails using the same method crop duster planes do, doesn't mean they aren't spraying anything, because they obviously are.

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.

If you know of a way to retrieve a chemical sample from a trail in the air, then by all means let the people who are researching this crime know how to do that .. If you don't know how to do that, then the ground samples will have to 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.

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'm not sure how you expect anyone to obtain a sample from a trail in the air, unless they follow one of the Air Force tanker jets and figure out how to collect some of the toxins while hanging out of their plane.. I've never heard of anything so ridiculous! .. But thanks for the laugh.

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.

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.

The people who have become ill believe it was caused by chemtrails for the simple reason that chemtrails were seen criss crossing the sky above their homes, several days before they became ill .. In several cases, strange sticky stuff has fallen from the sky that resembles spider webs, but when touched, disolved into people's skin, creating sores.. Some of those people now have what is known as morgellons disease.

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.

Everything video taped looks nothing like normal contrails, which form very thin lines that dissipate behind the aircraft .. Cemtrails are much wider in appearance and linger for many hours.

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?

The chemtrail toxins have been recovered from the ground because there is no way to collect them from the air.

Wrong. They have been collected on the ground because those involved don’t want to bother getting actual evidence.

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?

The picture that Jack posted here shows the trails of planes that have turned around.

Did you miss where I said “video”? Plus I already explained the picture.

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?

True, but the eye witness haven't seen any planes in "holding patterns", nor have they witnessed any "normal traffic" .. They usually see and describe one or two planes that are deliberately turning around to criss cross the sky with wide, lingering CHEMTRAILS patterns.

Would these eyewitnesses actually recognize a holding pattern? How does that look different from any other plane turning in a circle?

What I think doesnt matter.

I couldn't agree more.

Yet again you ignore context. Typical.

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?

When people are brutally murdered, it's more than just suspicious.. Even though it can't be proven in a court of law that the conversation took place, I don't see why the person involved would risk his own life by claiming it did, if it didn't.. Just the fact that Trias and his wife were murdered is enough proof that they were involved in something that certain parties decided needed to remain a secret.

So just the fact that one couple is murdered is now proof? Now youre ignoring context in the extreme. It is really quite absurd.

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.

You're entitled to your closed mnded opinion about Jack's work, but I haven't seen anything in his research that deserves the type of character assassinations that you and your pals dish out.. Everyone makes mistakes, but it looks like the fact that building 6 burned before the tower came down, is not one of them.

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.

How is that an insult? It is a valid question.

Asking someone you're debating .. "is there a conspiracy you don't believe in?".. is equivalent to calling them a "hoaxhead", or "a wild eyed conspiracy theorist", or "a tin foil hat wearer" .. It's just another form of ridicule that's always used by people with your particular mind set, or world view.

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.

How about what Ive 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.

It doesn't matter how many micro biologists there are in the world .. What matters is that many of these scientists didn't die from old age or natural causes .. They were BRUTALLY MURDERED and it's a fact that people are usually BRUTALLY MURDERED for a reason.

So again, you are saying the context doesnt matter? Absurd.

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?

Sorry, but that is not a logical assumption to make .. Yes, certain people are working very hard to suppress the truth abut chemtrails, but I never accused anyone on this forum of corrupting those links .. It obviously happened before I posted them here .. Now please stop wasting my time by making false accusations against me..Talk about beating a dead horse!

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.

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.

If there are never any chemtrails being sprayed at your location, then you're very lucky.. Since you live near military airspace, that might be the reason you don't see them... Maybe the Air Force doesn't spray their own with chemical toxins.

Or maybe they are just normal contrails and the lack of them is explained by the lack of commercial traffic.

Please post a video you say proves low altitude spraying. Again, EVERY one Ive seen they either have no way of judging altitude or are clearly higher than they say they are.

Here's a video showing low altitude spraying at about 4,000 feet.

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!

" "Chemtrails" are an internet myth perpetuated by ignorance and outright lies."

That has to be the most absurd accusation you've made so far .. Chemtrails are a frightening reality .. They are not only being observed and video taped by people all over the world, but finally some scientists are taking them seriously enough to conduct tests of the toxons involved, and also the ill effects these toxins are havng on people all over the world.. Just because the internet is used to expose this top secret program doesn't make it an "internet myth", or a "lie" .. The people who have become ill from the chemtrails have no reason to lie, nor do the people conducting studies on the toxic samples, nor do the people who are working so hard to get this evidence and information out to the general public.. The only people who have reason to lie are the ones trying to suppress the truth of the chemtrail operations.. So why do you choose to believe their lies, instead of the truth that chemtrails are real?

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.

"Not according to news reports from WWII and the decades following. See post 105 and/or www.contrailscience.com for details."

It doesn't matter if SOME contrails persist, because chemtrails are NOT the same thing contrails.. Contrails usually take place at much higher altitudes, like around 30,000 feet .. Chemtrails are being seen and recorded at much lower altitudes.. People have also observed the chemtrails planes that turn around to spray the same area.. There would be no reason for a normal flight, displaying contrails, to turn around to create loops, x's, patterns that resemble letters, or grids that look like a tic tac toe grid .. These are CHEMTRAIL jets making these patterns in the sky .. They are NOT normal contrails.

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?

"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."

It doesn't matter that only one was sprayed by jets .. What matters is the PROOF that the US military was spraying ( among other methods) the American population with bio weapon toxins during the 1940's, 50's and 60's, are are still spraying them today in the form of CHEMTRAILS.. Most of which are delivered by US Air Force tanker jets.

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).

"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."

You think the way to "save fuel" is to CIRCLE BACK REPEATEDLY TO MAKE LOOPS, X'S, LETTERS, AND GRID PATTERNS OVER CERTAIN AREAS??? ..

Not what I said, don’t put words in my mouth.

People don't think chemtrails are taking place.. They KNOW they are taking place .. They also KNOW that many people have become very ill because of them.. The only connetion chemtrails have with the internet, is that the internet is the best way to get the word out that, for whatever reason, the US Air Force is spraying the population with chemtrail toxins.

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 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?"

Contrails don't do what chemtrails do .. So I guess your would view won't even allow you to see them, or if you do see them, you want to believe they are just normal contrails .. Sorry, but the evidence is overwhelming that not only do chemtrails exist, but that the toxins they spray are making people ill all over the world.

Of course there are some faked videos and fruad involved with the subject of chemtrails .. It's called DISINFORMATION.. All conspiracies and cover ups, whether they be JFK, Apollo, 911 etc., are riddled with all kinds of disinformation.. Unfortunately that's just the way it is.

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.

"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."

You think the scientist and his wife being brutally murdered the day before revealing the fact that he was involved in working on top secrt black programs, was just a coincidence??? .. Again, it must be your particular would view that's clouding your judgement.

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”?

"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://educationforu...pic=5594&st=855

There is no proof, nor evidence of such an explosion. That IS a fantasy."

I don't know enough about that subject to make a comment, but if Jack is incorrect about one aspect of the 911 attacks, that still doesn't make all of his research "fantasies", as you would like everyone to believe.

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.

"Is there any conspiracy you don't believe in?"

Is there any typical insult you don't use while pretending to debunk every word I post here?

How is that an insult? It is a valid question.

"Again, you are ignoring CONTEXT."

The CONTEXT is they were brutally murdered to assure their silence... What more CONTEXT do you need?

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.

"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 already said it was my fault for not checking ALL of those links.. Did you perhaps miss that? .. There most definately are people working hard to suppress the truth of chemtrails, along with many other conspiracies.. but my believing in certain conspiracies has nothing to do with that.

Nice try at slinging even more insults, but I NEVER accused anyone on this forum of having anything to do with the broken links that I posted here.. Your obsession with a few broken links has now become absurd.

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?

"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."

If you haven't seen any proof of low altitude spraying then you haven't looked up at the sky recently, because it's taking place everywhere... The videos taken by people have also proven the low altitude spraying is taking place.. You should watch some of the videos that prove this is happening, instead of refusing to admit the truth.

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.

"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."

Nice try, but the toxic samples collected on the ground are directly related to the toxins that have been sprayed from the chemtrail planes above, regardless of how long the contamination took to reach the ground.. This is also a fact, whether you choose to beleive it or not.

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.

"INEVER 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."

Only the murdered scientist's journalist friend could provide the actual proof of that conversation.. But considering the fact that his friends were MURDERED the day after their meeting, it's understandable why he chooses to remain anonymous.. Or does your world view not even allow you to undertand that?

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.

"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."

None of those subjects are irrelevant.. You made them all very relevant when you played the old "world view" card.. Your world view obviously being very different from mine, or from Jack's.. Speaking of which, he's not the only person in the world who believes the official government version of 911 is a lie .. The evidence that is was some type of false flag operation is also overwhelming.. So you calling them "fantasies" is not only an insult, but also pretty immature.

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?

"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."

No, not all of them were murdered, but enough of those scientists were brutally murdered, in ways which leaves no doubt they were all killed to assure their silence.. It's not only the number of them murdered that's alarming, but also the way in which they were all murdered. If you refuse to see that, then it must be your world view that's clouding your judgement on this issue as well.

Again, you are ignoring CONTEXT.

"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?"

Your obsession with a few broken links is ridiculous.. When I copied the text, along with that chemtrail video, I didn't check every single link, so that was my fault.. The few I did check were working fine when I made that post.. Do I withdraw my claim that people are working hard to suppress the truth of chemtrails? .. Absolutely not .. That's quite obvious.

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.

"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"?"

I've already posted the proof that chemtrails are being sprayed at much lower altitudes than the 30,000 feet you keep claiming only "persistent contrails" are seen.. The proof of their lower altitude spraying is in every video that both Jack and I have posted here.

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.

"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."

According to what I've read, it takes two to three days for the chemtrails toxins to fall to the ground.. Local ground contamination has already been ruled out, since all of the eye witnesses and researchers involved have conducted their experiments a few days after seeing chemtrail planes spraying overhead.

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.

"IF spraying is actually happening anyway."

There's no "IF" about it .. Chemtrails are a proven fact .. It's just the reasons why they are being sprayed by the military, that remains a mystery.

"Chemtrails" are an internet myth perpetuated by ignorance and outright lies.

"MOST (including Jack White) say that contrails do not persist."

And some claim they do, including me .. But like I said before, there's a vast difference between lingering contrails and chemtrails.. Even persistent contrails eventually dissipate, unlike chemtrails that cover large portions of the sky, long after the planes are gone.

Not according to news reports from WWII and the decades following. See post 105 and/or www.contrailscience.com for details.

"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 only copied the parts that were relevent to the discussion, which are toxins being sprayed from planes, not toxins being spread from ships, etc.

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.

"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."

I doubt that most people studying chemtrail spraying today are even aware of the fact that US military black programs were spraying chemicals on the population during the 1940's, 50's and 60's .. Plus, the spraying during that time period was not as obvious or as widepread as it became in the 1990's, through today.

People all over the planet are very aware that the skies look very different than they used to .. This is not a question of thinking the spraying s taking place.. We KNOW it's taking place.. We just don't know the exact reasons why.

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?

"What PROOF did this website you got this from have that this conversation actually happened?"

What proof do you have that it didn't? .. It was proven that Trias and his wife were murdered .. The fact that the journalist's name was witheld only shows that he didn't want to be next on list.

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.

"Did you just believe because they said so and it happens to fit your world view?"

I can't believe you're playing the "world view" card, considering what your obvious world view is.

You believe that JFK was murdered by lone nutter Lee Harvey Oswald, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary .. You believe that the official Apollo record has absolutely no anomalies or inconsistancies in it, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.. You believe that 911 happended exactly as the US goverment said it did, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.. So of course it comes as no surprise that you deny the existance and reality of chemtrails.

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.

"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"? "

I have no idea how many micro biologists are in the world, but the murder of over 100 of them is proof enough that they were deliberately silenced, regardless of which black programs they were involved with.

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.

"Seriously? You can't just own up to the FACT that YOU screwed up the links?"

Seriously? .. What is your obsession with a few broken links? .. It happens .. Get over it.

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?

"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."

Actually it's been proven that most of the chemtrail spraying is taking place at much lower altitudes than 30,000 feet.. They've been spotted as low as 6,000 to 10,000 feet, which takes the chemical fallout only two to three days to fall to the ground.

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"?

"Any proof that Operation Clover Leaf or Raindance are even real?"

Many researchers think those programs are real ..

Bolded part is all that's necessary. Thanks.

"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."

Why do you keep sidesteping the data which has already been presented, by claiming it doesn't exist, when it cleary does?.. I've already provided the evidence of exactly what toxins have been found on the ground, beneath where chemtrails have been seen criss crossing the sky above.

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.

"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?"

There's a vast difference between debunking one's own evidence and research and not know exactly WHY these poisons are being spread via chemtrails.. Therefore there's a number of different theories as to why this is taking place.. Obviously the only people who have the correct answer to WHY, are the people who order the spraying.

IF spraying is actually happening anyway.

"And they ARE LYING. The majority of them claim that contrails can't persist. YOU have said yourself that they can."

Like I said before, they are not the one's who are lying .. In fact, some of these investigators have commented that some contrails do persist, but have discovered that there is a vast difference between persistant contrails and toxic chemtrails.

MOST (including Jack White) say that contrails do not persist.

"Looks pretty similar. Except mine was taken in 1967, a full 30 years before "chemtrail" people say "chemtrails" were EVER seen before."

I didn't see any proof that the picture was taken in 1967, but even if it was it doesn't matter, since chemtrails ( along with similar top secret government programs) have been around as far back as the 1940's.

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.

"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?"

Here's proof that this scientist was murdered because of his involvement with black ops projects .. Many of the other scientists were working on black projects also, though it's difficult to get that information, for obvious reasons.

Jose Trias, Died: May 19, 1994. Trias and his wife were murdered in their Chevy Chase, Maryland home. They met with a friend of theirs, a journalist, before the day of their murder and told him of their plan to expose HHMI (Howard Hughes Medical Institute) funding of "special ops" research. Grant money that goes to HHMI is actually diverted to special black ops research projects.

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"?

"You posted 12 links. NINE of them are broken. It is UNTRUE that most work."

I didn't count that many as being broken, but if you say so, then it only proves how hard some people are working to suppress the truth of chemtrails.<removed by moderator>

Seriously? You can't just own up to the FACT that YOU screwed up the links? <removed by moderator>

"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."

No not "EVERYTHING". Contrails (even persistent ones) don't spray toxins in the air that fall to the ground, which make people ill... CHEMTRAILS do.

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.

Chemtrails are no longer a secret .. In fact, Operation Clover Leaf and Operation Raindance are no longer top secret programs, since so many people now know about them .. So it looks like no matter how hard you try to suppress the truth of chemtrail spraying, you're fighting a losing battle.

Any proof that Operation Clover Leaf or Raindance are even real?

"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?"

No, it's not a lot of proof yet, but considering the fact that many people have been murdered over exposing black op programs like Project Clover Leaf etc., it's surprising there's any publicly known evidence at all.. But I have no doubt that more evidence will be forthcoming as more of the world's population are made aware of what type of toxins are being sprayed in the skies above us.

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.

"Why are you content with them lying to you?"

The people who are working hard to expose the truth of chemtrail poisoning are not the one's who are lying.

Here's another interesting web site about chemtrails, with lots of information from unbroken links, for you to pretend to debunk.

AEROSOL CRIMES & COVER UP

http://www.carnicom.com/

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/

"Again, multiple "chemtrail" proponents have promised samples collected directly from a trail as long as 10 years ago. Some collected money towards collecting those samples. NO samples have appeared. Why ignore what could be the single best piece of actual evidence you could get?"

Considering how many scientists and micro biologists have been brutally murdered over top secret, black ops, inside information, it's understandable why there isn't much lab test data available.

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?

Most of the links I posted work.. Just a couple are broken, which happens a lot when certain people are working hard to suppress the truth of certain subjects.

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?

Your persistence that persistent contrails are the same thing as chemtrails is not only not true, its absurd, considering the amount of evidence available.. Evidence which includes people from all over the world video recording the air craft involved with the on / off chemical spraying technique.. This fact has been repeatedly proven.

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.

Here is another web site, proving that harmful chemtrails are not contrails, where all the links are working fine.

http://www.chemtrails911.com/

This site also includes a link to some lab test results taken in Phoenix, Arizona, though for the protection of the people involved, remains anonymous.

http://www.rense.com/general82/chemit.htm

Other lab test results can be found here..

http://www.carnicom.com/lab1.htm

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000036.html

"The most powerful weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed..." - Steve Biko

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?