Matthew Lewis

Most of your links are broken. Of the few that work there was one claiming mind control by satellites. I wish I was making this up. Then of course the usual lie about contrails always disipating quickly and the odd acceptance of samples collected on the ground as if that somehow proves something about a trail 30,000+ feet in the air. 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? Still EVERYTHING I've seen can be explained by contrails.

And you ignored this "Is 100 more than would be expected for this group in that period of time or is it the result of seeing a number and ascribing a meaning to it? How many microbiologists, chemists and virologists are there in the world? How many die each year?" Also, how do you know this is all related to "chemtrails"?

Other conspiracies claim the "murdered" microbiologists as their own. Why should we assume it is related to "chemtrails"? These people have died over 8 years. Could some be attributed to natural causes (yes) and for those that can't is it proven they were all in fact murdered (no)? Is 100 more than would be expected for this group in that period of time or is it the result of seeing a number and ascribing a meaning to it? How many microbiologists, chemists and virologists are there in the world? How many die each year?

Hilarious. I encourage everybody to listen to these. Not only in none of it verifiable but it also gets into scalar weapons, weather control (not our, apparently Russia steered Katrina), and mind control. The first two videos are pretty boring, but they get entertaining on the third. Supposedly there are pre-positioned atomic weapons in the US by Russia and Israel. They also mention Kucinich and HR 2977. Here's a repost from post 146 about that nonsense. So let's throw aliens in there too. Claims of radar enhancement without addressing that mass spraying of barium would make radar worse. Also no proof it is being used to "create a battlefield picture". I've been in the CAOC (combined air operations center) in the middle East. A comprehensive picture of the battlefield would be awesome IF it existed. But sadly it doesn't. Challenger and Columbia and the Thresher submarine from 1963 (no that's not a typo) brought down by Russian scalar weapons? The same ones that steer hurricanes and erupt volcanoes and of course they control your mind too. I couldn't make this up. Seriously, EVERYBODY should listen to this. Part 5 he says Israel has protected us from Russia's scalar weapons. "God Bless Israel" he says. The same Israel that has pre-positioned nukes in the US? Missile protection systems are really Tesla scalar domes. Francis Gary Powers U2 actually brought down by these scalar systems. Nevermind that the SA-2 actually exists, that it has been seen fired and it it perfectly capable of bringing down the U-2 as it did Major Rudolf Anderson's U-2 over Cuba. Of course we should believe every word because he's got a top secret clearance. All of this is over lots of pretty contrail pics, some deliberately misinterpreted pics of weight and balance aircraft and at least one faked pic (shows 2 767s in close formation, one of them is a dupicate via photoshop of the other). Why is it that "chemtrail" proponents have to make up "evidence"?

Just the same ignorance as ever. Contrails must evaporate quickly, flight paths shouldn't cross, contrails never did this before, etc. During much of the video the sound has nothing to do with the video (radio program?). Lots of pretty pictures but no actual evidence. I'd refer Jack to post 105 for evidence that this has in fact been happening since aircraft could fly high enough (it is just more common now for a variety of reasons) but we all know he won't look at it.

I never said you were required to do anything. I have however seen posts in this very thread only a few months old that have already had pics removed. See page 2 and 3 with posts from June (less than 4 months old) for an example, so it is not only the oldest you have removed. Others reading the thread later though will only see your few comments. Seems more like your problem as you choose to have your own argument disabled by removing old pics. There is also the FACT that your argument is immediately not available for anybody who is not a member or not logged in, but again, that is YOUR problem. YOU chose to have it this way. But hey, it is only your argument that is hurt, so why should you care?

Why the confusion Jack? You have admitted that you can't be bothered to use a public hosting site and because of that you have to remove old pictures later to post new ones. This CRIPPLES your posts as most of your content is in the picture. Of course for some your posts are already crippled. I have been told that images hosted by the forum are not visible to non-members or those not logged in. I've also heard that new member registrations are suspended for some reason. But if you want the majority of people to not see your argument, I guess that's your choice.

For those viewing later after Jack has crippled the post, it shows multiple crossing persistent contrails reportedly over Green Valley, NV. To Jack: And? I know you've shown your ignorance about how airspace works before but are you really interested in doing so again? Even the most congested Class B airspace usually tops out at 10,000 feet. That wouldn't affect ANY traffic above it. It doesn't matter how congested you think the airspace is, commercial traffic can still fly over in Class A airspace. In fact, I would expect more traffic over that area due to the multiple restricted airspaces north of there due to the Nellis range.

Since Jack can't be bothered to use a public photo hosting site the picture won't show up in the response nor will it be in his post in a few weeks when he decides to remove it. Apparently he prefers to cripple his posts over time? For those viewing this post later it shows two persistent contrails and a plane leaving a non-persistent contrail that he claims is higher. He of course didn't bother to make a point and explain why he thinks it is significant. To Jack: How can you tell the altitude from the photo? Is it entirely possible that the short contrail is above or below the persistent ones. EITHER could explain the difference in persistence as conditions vary with altitude. So what's your point?

Did you see the planes yourself? Could there be another explanation?

Yes, CHEMISTRY. What's your point? You weren't embarrassed enough about it on the other forum that you decided to bring it back here? It is a coincidental title. It could also have been called Pathways in Chemistry and have had the same intent. Notice it contained the same subjects any other Freshman level Chemistry class would study. I notice you didn't even bother to credit that I was the one that provided those images to you. Here are the images I provided on a public hosting site so ALL can see them.

Numerous videos show contrails CLAIMED as "chemtrails" often just because they don't understand what they are seeing. When you can actually PROVE that a trail in the sky is making anybody ill then let me know. So far all you have is coincidence. You and others seem to be satisfied with the leap of logic that something that is still in the sky is somehow affecting you on the ground AT THE SAME TIME. You don't seem to realize that if you wanted to make somebody ill you would spray at ground level and certainly never above 1,000 feet. Yet you don't bat an eye at the illogical assumption that something at 30,000 plus feet is a spray to affect people. Spraying anything at altitude to affect a population is absurd. Local sources have never been ruled out and actual direct sampling never accomplished (though money to accomplish it has been collected without any actual attempt, why "chemtrail" theorists are happy having their money taken away from them with no result is beyond me). Everything that has been observed can be explained with contrails, so why ASSUME that they are something different? They look like contrails, they act like contrails, they are observed on ALL types of high altitude jet traffic and have been since planes could fly high enough. They ARE more common now but that has an explanation. Meanwhile "chemtrail" supporters have to resort to "anonymous" sources, faked pictures and videos, and outright lies while ignoring the copious evidence that contrails have exhibited this behavior since WWII. At least you have agreed that contrails can persist sometimes. That is more than Jack can do. You still have yet to PROVE that anything I've said is untrue. Claiming it is without actually showing what and how is tantamount to calling me a xxxx which is not allowed on this forum.

You have yet to prove ANY disinformation. I have already posted some about the 70+ years of science behind contrail formation as well as multiple examples of persistent contrails dating back to the beginning of jet aviation, long before "chemtrail" proponents say they started. As for being at work, again, it is none of your business but am I not allowed to have a lunch break?

Yet more disinfo from Duane based on the LIE that contrails can't persist. EVERYTHING I've posted is based on facts. Again, In the end, you've got your "sources", I've got 70+ years of science. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree. This constant back and forth is a waste of both our time. And frankly I'm sick of your insinuations that I'm involved in some coverup. I post what I do based on personal research. Any proof otherwise? No? Then drop it.

It is absolutely absurd to think that something sprayed at 30,000+ feet would affect someone on the ground especially while still visible in the sky. EVERY study conducted on airborne aerosols shows they take days if not weeks to reach the ground. After that much time the concentration of any substance would be so low as to be virtually undetectable. Anything organic would have long since been destroyed by the prolonged exposure to UV rays. Ignorant word salad about radar and HAARP from anonymous sources. Not surprising that you eat it up. Lots of claims, no actual proof. Yet the conspiracy theorists treat it as fact. I've already mentioned "Owning the Weather". Actually quite a humorous STUDENT project. Hilarious that people take it serious. Of course they've probably never actually read the whole thing. And Kucinich's Space Preservation Act? Read this, http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/ It was NOT written by Kucinich, and it described "chemtrails" as a SPACE based weapon. This is at odds with everything you've tried to present. It was written by UFO enthusiasts who wanted to 1.Nullify a vast conspiracy by the “military-industrial complex” 2.Allow the use of suppressed alien technology for free energy 3.Avoid accidentally shooting down (or scaring away) visiting aliens. Are those really the type of people you want to throw your hat in with? In the end, you've got your "sources", I've got 70+ years of science. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That is a provable false statement as your own source AGREES with some of what I've said. Right here your own source says that contrails can persist for many hours. I've posted evidence showing contrails can indeed spread out, grow and cover the sky. It has been observed since airplanes could fly high enough. Your source is ignorant. YOU obviously haven't bothered to even check the evidence I've posted. Not surprising as it contradicts your predefined conclusions. Just how do you think rainbows are formed? They occur when light is refracted through a substance. This can happen with water, ice, or oil. It IS possbile with contrails and is even observed with normal clouds. Analysis of something collected ON THE GROUND is useless for determining the content of something 30,000+ feet in the air. Of course "chemtrail" theorists have said they will collect samples from within a trail for years now but never seem to actually do so. They just collect the money and run. EVERY photo or video I've seen showing trails not coming from the engines looks just like an aerodynamic contrail and EVERY one neglects to show whether it is persisting or not. Aerodynamic contrails DO sometimes form in straight and level flight. Their formation depends on temperature and humidity. Your source is lying to you and you are eating it up without question. Contrail formation as you should know depends on temperature and humidity. All air is NOT uniform. It is entirely possible that a plane traveling through masses of air with varying humidity will have contrails that start and stop. This is simple science that has been known for 70 years. All total BS. I have looked and looked for evidence of ANY aircraft traveling back and forth creating trails and have found none. Many claim it but none ever get video proof. Yes airways travel in straight lines but they do intersect. Common sense would tell you they HAVE to at some time. Airliners that appear to be in close formation are likely separated in altitude. Only 1,000 feet of vertical separation is required. It is IMPOSSIBLE to tell the altitude of an aircraft from the ground with the naked eye. Also BS that persistent contrail aircraft don't come close to other aircraft as there are video on Youtube (your favorite pseudo-source) that show exactly that. I have personally checked the aircraft I've seen emitting persistent contrails with online tracking programs like Flight Aware and Flight Explorer. As I work with radar I've also checked them on the current radar picture. The comment about military exercises reminds me of the area I currently live in. Due to the multiple military owned airspaces over water and land around Panama City the vast majority of commercial traffic is routed around this area. As a result, there are very few contrails, persistent or not. If there is really a program designed to spray for what ever the reason of the week is, why not spray here? There is no restriction of military traffic. It wouldn't even be questioned. Even the occasional commercial traffic does come through. What is seen however, is when the military airspace is not active and more commercial traffic is traversing the area, persistent contrails, or "chemtrails", are only seen when the atmospheric conditions are conducive to contrail formation. Go figure.

What did I post that was "nonsense"? Proof please. What is supposed to be wrong with that picture? It looks exactly as one would expect from persistent contrails formed from crossing flight paths over time.

The narrator was mentioning the 2025 project. A STUDENT project written from the standpoint of IF we had an unlimited budget and IF we had some extra technology that we don't have, here is what we could do. The "Owning the Weather" section is but a small part of the entire project. You should really read all of it sometime. Part of it (including parts of Owning the Weather) are quite humorous. There is a lot in there that is not possible and even more that is not feasible even if it were possible. It is ALL speculation. And? Is it impossible for a contrail to start and stop? Is the air all completely uniform? No. The easiest example of this is that clouds have edges. Contrails, which are essentially cirrus clouds, form and persist depending primarily on air temperature and moisture content. An aircraft passing through air of varying temperature and/or moisture content can have contrails that start and stop. Documentary? I think you might be confused with the difference between a documentary and entertainment. It starts with claims and theories but no actual evidence. And of course Will Thomas quoting an anonymous source. Weather control, of which the Air Force maintains a small research flight of C-130s (note: prop engines, not jets) is attempted (not always successfully) via cloud seeding, which happens within established clouds. Contrails or "chemtrails" if you must, happen outside of clouds or occasionally near cirrus clouds which are not capable of rain. This video does get a little into that but note this is NOT what is usually described as "chemtrails". Cloud seeding happens WITHIN CLOUDS at low altitudes. "Chemtrails" are observed creating clouds, cirrus clouds that are not capable of rain. Of course normal contrails do the same thing.

The very first jet is NOT military. Its trails are coming from the engines as you'd expect from contrails. Second jet is the same, not military (thanks for providing evidence against your assumption by the way), not even a type the Air Force owns. The center trail appears to be a short lived aerodynamic contrail likely forming off the vertical stabilizer. Aerodynamic contrails are often short lived and formed at wing tips and on lifting surfaces. The third jet is the same without the contrails from the engines. The fourth jet at 1:43 appears to be the same footage at the second jet or at least shows the same thing. Again, engine contrails and an intermittent aerodynamic contrail. Same thing again with the fifth jet at 2:03. It goes on and on. The majority of the video shows either aerodynamic contrails or intermittent contrails due to non-uniform air. The floating dust after nine minutes is pretty but doesn't prove anything. The last scene shows a vortex or wake turbulence study. There are smoke generators on the wingtips to make the wake turbulence visible. Everything in this video can be explained by contrails. Ultimate proof? Only proof that planes can travel at different altitudes, traveling through air of different temperatures and moisture contents and thus have different types of contrails. Also proof that you can't tell the difference in altitude by the naked eye. No proof that the trails came from the wing. Even if they did, so what? They are obviously unaware of aerodynamic contrails. No proof the plane is at 6,000 feet. They make the claim that the clouds the plane is traveling through are at 6,000 feet max but they misidentified the clouds. The clouds shown in the video are cirrus clouds. Those typically form above 25,000 feet.  

It is NOT a proven fact that the Air Force is spraying "chemtrails" or that "chemtrails" even exist. Again, the majority of trails come from commercial aircraft. The majority of trails come from aircraft the Air Force doesn't even have. Again, read post 105 I said it USUALLY does not let me post form work. I was on lunch, not that it is any of your business.  

BS. "Chemtrails" depend on a LIE that contrails can not persist. Proponents have only tested samples collected on the ground. Their evidence is lacking. I have been researching this for more than 10 years. EVERYTHING I've seen, in person, pictures or video, can be explained by contrails. Neither, I mean what I said, that he doesn't make it clear he is referring to himself. If the phrase "An Air Force veteran, who while on active duty was attached to the nation's top secret National Security Agency (NSA), " is supposed to refer to the author, it is in third person and at best is badly written. It appears he is writing about someone else that is unnamed. I don't post nonsense. You haven't yet bothered to address what I've written. You just spam more youtube videos. Stating the Air Force is involved in spraying (which is unproven), stating I'm in the Air Force, and making the point that I "monitor this forum day and night to make sure you post immediately after anyone posts any evidence of chemtrails." (also unproven and untrue) is meant to imply I post here for a job. I maintain it is an accusation.

I HAVE looked at the "evidence". I have found it lacking. YOU have not. It is obvious that you haven't yet looked at post 105. The idea that contrails can not persist is a lie, propogated by those who have no understanding of weather. The article is written by Mike Blair but it doesn't really make it clear that he is referring to himself. Nor does he offer any actual evidence other than his say so. Your research standard is approaching Jack's. I post immediately? Care to actually check those times? You know that is BS. Most of the time I have to wait until I get home because I can't usually post from work. The network prevents me from doing so. Even for the times I do, so what? With immediate nitification via email is it really a big deal? Which brings up another point, I am NOT a pilot nor am I paid to post here or anywhere. If your research had bothered to bring you to my signature, biography, or the forum rules, you would know that and you would know you aren't allowed to make that accusation anyway.

An anonymous guy says so? Great source. Of course it repeats the lie that contrails can't persist and always disperse. If you had bothered to look at post 105 you'd know that isn't so and never has been.

Allegedly. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that "chemtrails" are simply persistent contrails. See post #105 of this thread for a start. Will Thomas was one of the first, if not the very first to collect money towards collecting a sample directly from a trail. This was more than 10 years ago. Why do he and others still rely on collections made at ground level? I notice you've ignored direct questions. You truly are a Jack White disciple aren't you? If they are persisting and still in the air then how are they affect you on the ground at the same time miles away? If it was a virus or bacteria that affected you, those take time to incubate. Why assume the source came immediately before symptoms? You mention military, what about all the pictures and videos that show commercial craft leaving these trails? Or the programs like FlightAware or Flight Explorer that show they are commercial flights? What about the thousands of trails left by types of aircraft the military doesn't have? There's no "allegedly" about it. "Chemtrails is the term widely used to describe the brilliant white trails laid down by U.S. Air Force tanker planes photo-identified over North America and a dozen other allied nations in a process the U.S. Air Force calls aerial obscuration. "A Jack White desciple"? .. LOL .. You really are desperate now, aren't you? .. So when you can't even pretend to debunk evidence you don't like, just sling some insults instead.. You really are a desciple of the apollohoax.net cesspit. I ignored your questions because I was busy finding the proof that the Air Force is spraying chemtrail poisons. I have no idea how long the chemtrails were in the skies over my home .. All I know is that both my friend and I got very ill after being underneath them for several hours.. So did many other people in my home town .. There was not only an epidemic of vertigo and the "flu" at that time, but also shingles. Yes, allegedly. You believe everything Will Thomas writes? Calling you a Jack White disciple is not an insult, just an observation. You ignore inconvenient info just like he does. Haven't bothered to check out post 105 yet have you? You ignored the questions because they are inconvenient for you. Can't bother with the truth that the majority of your trails come from commercial aircraft.

Allegedly. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that "chemtrails" are simply persistent contrails. See post #105 of this thread for a start. Will Thomas was one of the first, if not the very first to collect money towards collecting a sample directly from a trail. This was more than 10 years ago. Why do he and others still rely on collections made at ground level? I notice you've ignored direct questions. You truly are a Jack White disciple aren't you? If they are persisting and still in the air then how are they affect you on the ground at the same time miles away? If it was a virus or bacteria that affected you, those take time to incubate. Why assume the source came immediately before symptoms? You mention military, what about all the pictures and videos that show commercial craft leaving these trails? Or the programs like FlightAware or Flight Explorer that show they are commercial flights? What about the thousands of trails left by types of aircraft the military doesn't have?