Matthew Lewis

And? So what? Are you expecting to see these mythical trails everyday?

Wind can do funny things to clouds. How do you know how high they are? There is nothing to compare them to. Are you aware it is nearly impossible to judge the height of something in the air from the ground with the naked eye?

I would like to add that I view it as a personal attack every time Jack accuses or implies that I post here because I am paid to do so.

Is that your answer to the direct question you were asked multiple times? How does that reconcile with the FACT that contrails can do the SAME THING given the right conditions? That they have been observed to do so for well over 70 years? Even regular clouds can do the same thing. How do you think clouds are formed? I would also note that cirrus clouds are visible in the same picture and not part of any trail, con or mythical "chem". The conditions that cirrus clouds form and thrive in are often the same that persistent contrails (what some people call "chemtrails") form, persist and even grow in.

I agree completely but I think it goes deeper than that. I don't think Jack is able to admit he might be wrong about something. That would fit well with his seeming paranoia that all those who post opposing viewpoints must be paid to do so. Apparently nobody is able to examine the research and come to a different opinion. I consider this a personal attack and request that the moderators take appropriate action. Jack Everything I wrote is my honest OPINION based on what I see not an intentional attack (although I will abide by any moderator's decisions). If you would make an effort to address the opposing viewpoints that are brought up instead of ignoring them and accusing those who post them of being disinformation agents who are paid to post without any evidence then it would go a long way towards changing my opinion of you.

I agree completely but I think it goes deeper than that. I don't think Jack is able to admit he might be wrong about something. That would fit well with his seeming paranoia that all those who post opposing viewpoints must be paid to do so. Apparently nobody is able to examine the research and come to a different opinion.

Personally, I don't think it is Oswald in the pic but I have met others who are convinced it is. I think it would have been more relevant if Oswald had been allowed to go to trial. Depending on the jury, the picture may be enough to give some a reasonable doubt on Oswald's guilt.

Go figure, the conditions an area has before a front moves through (before it rains) are usually the same conditions that make it conducive to the formation of persistent contrails. But that's just more of that pesky inconvenient science. Jack, how do you know that the trails are "chemtrails" given the FACT that contrails can and do persist given the right conditions?

Same question I've asked you multiple times in multiple threads that you've inored multiple times Jack, how do you know that the trails are "chemtrails" given the FACT that contrails can and do persist given the right conditions? I don't really expect that you'll answer (I doubt you can), I just want to point out that you've multiple times ignored direct questions and as a result seem willfully ignorant of the science behind contrail formation.

Temperature and humidity content always vary with altitude. Differences in contrail persistence would be expected. Jack, how do you know that the lower trails are "chemtrails" given the FACT that contrails can and do persist given the right conditions?

Of course he isn't. Just like he also isn't running any kind of tests to determine if there are ANY chemicals in the trails or if they are just persistent contrails. He probably thinks if they persist at all then they must be those big bad "chemtrails", right Jack?

So the conditions were not conducive to persistent contrail formation. I'd be willing to bet there were no cirrus clouds either.

And your point is? Do you think the conditions 30,000+ feet up are static?

Shows what Burton knows! 1. That is not DALLAS airspace. 2. It is Fort Worth airspace. 3. It is centered on Meacham Field, the city's municipal airport. 4. Meacham Field has no scheduled major airline carriers...only private, industrial and charter. 5. The lines seem not to represent different flight routes, but distances between Meacham and other airports, mostly smaller cities. Now don't tell me that airlines plan routes to fly over Meacham Field as a hub! You gotta do better than this to fool folks. Jack It DOES show Dallas airspace (as well as others). The green symbols denote airports. The black symbols show navigational beacons. It is not centered on Meacham Field. It IS centered on the black symbol in the center which is the symbol for a VORTAC and is left or west of the green symbol labeled Dallas Fort Worth Intl (DFW). Meacham is represented with the green symbol southwest of that symbol. The black lines with labels starting with J denote high altitude jet routes. What's the problem Jack? You seriously think DFW is the center of the universe and nobody can fly over without stopping?

The aircraft over my house DID NOT STOP FLYING FOR NEARLY A YEAR. In fact, flights from the US 2nd busiest airport, DFW, fly over my house on the same schedule about every five minutes every day. The chemplanes fly at a much higher altitude and fly chriscross patterns. Jack Flights to and from DFW would not be expected to leave contrails, persistent or not, as they are still too close to the ground. The "chemplanes", or rather the aircraft that Jack assumes are releasing chemicals but has no proof of, would of course be aircraft traveling from and to other cities that happen to be passing over the area without stopping. Higher altitude and crossing patterns would both be completely expected for enroute aircraft at cruising altitudes.

Like all the "evidence" you've posted before and every other "chemtrail" video I've ever seen, the video on that site makes a lot of claims and allegations and provides absolutely zero in the way of proof. As usual, the only things ever tested have been collected on the ground! This proves NOTHING about something supposedly being sprayed at 30,000+ feet in the air. And of course, they are asking for money. Is this typical of your standard of research? Anything sprayed from aircraft should be visible immediately after being sprayed. It would look to be connected to the jet. It would also become less visible as it spreads out. What people say are "chemtrails" though do the opposite. They are often not visible until as much as a plane's length behind the jet and grow thicker and more dense as they spread. The only phenomenon know to do that is the condensation of aircraft exhaust. "Chemtrail" supporters avoid this fact and love to spread the falsehood that contrails always dissipate and can never persist.

How do you know they are "chemtrails" when persistent contrails look exactly the same?

You certainly did not ask that that Matt get back to you regarding the image you posted; do you presume him psychic? The number of threads where you have failed to answer direct question put to you are quite numerous. To me, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It was also a thread that I hadn't previously replied to before yesterday. AFAIK, I hadn't seen it before.

And? So what? Looks like persistent contrails to me. How do you KNOW they aren't? They could very well be from an airliner in a holding pattern, or an AWACS or other air surveillance plane on a training mission, or a tanker on a refueling anchor. Any of those could fly a pattern as shown. What Jack has NOT shown is that there is any proof the trails are anything other than a normal contrail.

IF I saw it, I'm sure I would have replied to it. I'm not omniscient Jack, nor am I paid to post here no matter how many times you accuse me of that without evidence. As persistent as you may be, you RARELY if EVER respond to the answers I (or others) give you anyway. This is OFF TOPIC here. Perhaps you could link the actual thread you're referring to? Edit to add: Found it and replied in the thread. It was a post with just a picture, few words and no questions. How is ANYBODY supposed to know they should reply to it?

Accusation of paid posting noted and reported. General nasty attitude also noted. Any proof I'm paid to post here? What video? If no location is given how do you KNOW it is even in New York? Forgive me if I won't just take your word for it. Do you enjoy playing games Jack? That's what you seem to be doing by avoiding the question I asked. So AGAIN, why don't you skip the games and just tell us what you THINK happened? You see, I really don't know what caused it. I'm just interested in you ACTUALLY GETTING TO THE POINT and telling us what YOU think since it is your pic and post after all.

True to form you have not listed where the photo was obtained, where it was taken or when. Likely you think none of those matter. Forgive me if I don't agree. However, I would bet that you could get a few reasonable answers and reject them out of hand simply because they don't agree with the predefined conclusions you've already made. So why don't you skip the games and just tell us what you THINK happened?

Persistent contrails, sure. Pollution from engine emissions, fine, although you'd be hard pressed to actually find anything measurable at ground level from flights 30,000 feet in the air. But around an airport, sure. Airliners still emit far less pollution per passenger mile than cars or buses though. Making the illogical jump to the myth of "chemtrails"? You're reaching Jack.

You could always just turn off sounds in the browser you're using or install an adblocker. Or you could just realize it is just an ad and get over it.

It is an ad. It is definitely NOT hacking.