Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chemtrails, not by Jack White.


Jack White

Recommended Posts

My interest in Chemtrails does not extend into studies of the composition of the

sprayed materials. I do not know, and don't know how to find out. My interest

is determining government participation, purpose, secrecy and coverup. If this

were to be revealed, then the composition of the spray would be known. I would

like for the public to be aware of these strange events, and know that they are

NOT contrails, which evaporate within minutes; chemtrails persist and spread

for hours. Photos show that the planes used are air force tankers, not passenger

jets.

Jack

It is a proven fact that contrails can and do persist given the right conditions so it is wrong to say that they evaporate withing minutes. Depending on the conditions, contrails can evaporate quickly or persist, covering all times in between. Even if it were true that only these mythical "chemtrails" were the onnes persisting, then where is the dividing line? If it dissipates quickly within minutes then it is a contrail, what about if it takes 20 minutes? What about 30, what about 60, 2hours, 3 hours, etc? The science behind it perfectly explains the differences. I've seen studies where they observed contrails lasting all times short and long with no clear dividing line.

There are plenty of photos showing regular commercial jets leaving persistent contrails too. Further, the program flight explorer that I mentioned previously can tell you what many of the flights you see in the air are in near real time. There is also a problem of scale with assuming it is government tankers. The Air Force has what seems like a lot of tankers but many of them are suffering from periodic maintenance issues as most of the fleet was built in the 60's. At any given time, 1/3 to 1/2 the available tankers are deployed and helping with OIF and OEF. Millions of pounds of fuel are delivered by air through these tankers every day. Back home at least 1/3 of the jets are being repaired or overhauled. This leaves 1/3 to 1/6 the total left and they are kept busy providing training to pilots in the states. Pilots need to air refueling practice every month to keep current and more often if they expect to keep their skills up. You would hardly expect a pilot to refuel by air for the first time while deployed in a war zone. To spread "chemtrails" on the scale suggested by some just in the US not to mention worldwide would require hundreds if not thousands more planes that just don't exist in the miltary tanker fleet.

The return of contrails from ice/moisture (the visible cloudlike trails are actually either water mist or ice) to a gas (water vapor) would require the addition of the latent heat of vaporization. The latent heat would exceed 1000 btu/lb of water. Significant visible formations of contrails therefore will not typically disppear in minutes as there is insufficient heat available to cause the phase change. In fact ice crystals will seed additional sublimation/formation of moisture.

It is incorrect to assume that contrails will disappear in minutes. This could occur but would be atypical.

My house is situated between three of the world's largest airfields. I see dozens of flights

daily. I see many CONTRAILS. They disappear within thirty seconds. I see many CHEMTRAILS.

They do not disappear at all, but spread out to form large cirrus cloud cover. I DO NOT ASSUME

THAT CONTRAILS DISAPPEAR WITHIN SECONDS. I OBSERVE IT FREQUENTLY. I have seen

chemtrails and contails in the sky at the same time. I speak from observation, not theorizing

Jack

I didn't say that contrails cannot disappear within minutes (as you identified previously; not in seconds), but that this is atypical due to the physics involved. To categorically state that you observe contrails which disappear in seconds and chemtrails which do not disapear at all (and imply that you subsequently observe the difference between the two) is not a sound conclusion. I have read no scientific rationale for this. For any addition/change to the atmosphere which is sufficiently bouyant to remain aloft (without descending quickly) implies that it is not a release intended for the population below, as it would be extremely diluted if and when it finally did descend (due to the time element) and the results would be unpredictable. Therefore I challange the hypothesis that you can differentiate bewteen chemtrails and contrails based on your stated observations.

Edited by Peter McKenna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My interest in Chemtrails does not extend into studies of the composition of the

sprayed materials. I do not know, and don't know how to find out. My interest

is determining government participation, purpose, secrecy and coverup. If this

were to be revealed, then the composition of the spray would be known. I would

like for the public to be aware of these strange events, and know that they are

NOT contrails, which evaporate within minutes; chemtrails persist and spread

for hours. Photos show that the planes used are air force tankers, not passenger

jets.

Jack

It is a proven fact that contrails can and do persist given the right conditions so it is wrong to say that they evaporate withing minutes. Depending on the conditions, contrails can evaporate quickly or persist, covering all times in between. Even if it were true that only these mythical "chemtrails" were the onnes persisting, then where is the dividing line? If it dissipates quickly within minutes then it is a contrail, what about if it takes 20 minutes? What about 30, what about 60, 2hours, 3 hours, etc? The science behind it perfectly explains the differences. I've seen studies where they observed contrails lasting all times short and long with no clear dividing line.

There are plenty of photos showing regular commercial jets leaving persistent contrails too. Further, the program flight explorer that I mentioned previously can tell you what many of the flights you see in the air are in near real time. There is also a problem of scale with assuming it is government tankers. The Air Force has what seems like a lot of tankers but many of them are suffering from periodic maintenance issues as most of the fleet was built in the 60's. At any given time, 1/3 to 1/2 the available tankers are deployed and helping with OIF and OEF. Millions of pounds of fuel are delivered by air through these tankers every day. Back home at least 1/3 of the jets are being repaired or overhauled. This leaves 1/3 to 1/6 the total left and they are kept busy providing training to pilots in the states. Pilots need to air refueling practice every month to keep current and more often if they expect to keep their skills up. You would hardly expect a pilot to refuel by air for the first time while deployed in a war zone. To spread "chemtrails" on the scale suggested by some just in the US not to mention worldwide would require hundreds if not thousands more planes that just don't exist in the miltary tanker fleet.

The return of contrails from ice/moisture (the visible cloudlike trails are actually either water mist or ice) to a gas (water vapor) would require the addition of the latent heat of vaporization. The latent heat would exceed 1000 btu/lb of water. Significant visible formations of contrails therefore will not typically disppear in minutes as there is insufficient heat available to cause the phase change. In fact ice crystals will seed additional sublimation/formation of moisture.

It is incorrect to assume that contrails will disappear in minutes. This could occur but would be atypical.

My house is situated between three of the world's largest airfields. I see dozens of flights

daily. I see many CONTRAILS. They disappear within thirty seconds. I see many CHEMTRAILS.

They do not disappear at all, but spread out to form large cirrus cloud cover. I DO NOT ASSUME

THAT CONTRAILS DISAPPEAR WITHIN SECONDS. I OBSERVE IT FREQUENTLY. I have seen

chemtrails and contails in the sky at the same time. I speak from observation, not theorizing

Jack

I didn't say that contrails cannot disappear within minutes (as you identified previously; not in seconds), but that this is atypical due to the physics involved. To categorically state that you observe contrails which disappear in seconds and chemtrails which do not disapear at all (and imply that you subsequently observe the difference between the two) is not a sound conclusion. I have read no scientific rationale for this. For any addition/change to the atmosphere which is sufficiently bouyant to remain aloft (without descending quickly) implies that it is not a release intended for the population below, as it would be extremely diluted if and when it finally did descend (due to the time element) and the results would be unpredictable. Therefore I challange the hypothesis that you can differentiate bewteen chemtrails and contrails based on your stated observations.

I offered NO HYPOTHESIS. I offered my FREQUENT OBSERVATIONS OF CONTRAILS DISAPPEARING

WITHIN SECONDS, USUALLY LESS THAN TWENTY SECONDS. Therefore you are challenging my veracity.

I believe that this is against forum rules.

By disappearing I mean the trails do not persist in the sky after the passage of the plane; they can be

seen evaporating as the plane traverses the sky, and usually are no more than two plane lengths long.

CHEMTRAILS, however, can last for hours, depending on winds aloft.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My interest in Chemtrails does not extend into studies of the composition of the

sprayed materials. I do not know, and don't know how to find out. My interest

is determining government participation, purpose, secrecy and coverup. If this

were to be revealed, then the composition of the spray would be known. I would

like for the public to be aware of these strange events, and know that they are

NOT contrails, which evaporate within minutes; chemtrails persist and spread

for hours. Photos show that the planes used are air force tankers, not passenger

jets.

Jack

It is a proven fact that contrails can and do persist given the right conditions so it is wrong to say that they evaporate withing minutes. Depending on the conditions, contrails can evaporate quickly or persist, covering all times in between. Even if it were true that only these mythical "chemtrails" were the onnes persisting, then where is the dividing line? If it dissipates quickly within minutes then it is a contrail, what about if it takes 20 minutes? What about 30, what about 60, 2hours, 3 hours, etc? The science behind it perfectly explains the differences. I've seen studies where they observed contrails lasting all times short and long with no clear dividing line.

There are plenty of photos showing regular commercial jets leaving persistent contrails too. Further, the program flight explorer that I mentioned previously can tell you what many of the flights you see in the air are in near real time. There is also a problem of scale with assuming it is government tankers. The Air Force has what seems like a lot of tankers but many of them are suffering from periodic maintenance issues as most of the fleet was built in the 60's. At any given time, 1/3 to 1/2 the available tankers are deployed and helping with OIF and OEF. Millions of pounds of fuel are delivered by air through these tankers every day. Back home at least 1/3 of the jets are being repaired or overhauled. This leaves 1/3 to 1/6 the total left and they are kept busy providing training to pilots in the states. Pilots need to air refueling practice every month to keep current and more often if they expect to keep their skills up. You would hardly expect a pilot to refuel by air for the first time while deployed in a war zone. To spread "chemtrails" on the scale suggested by some just in the US not to mention worldwide would require hundreds if not thousands more planes that just don't exist in the miltary tanker fleet.

The return of contrails from ice/moisture (the visible cloudlike trails are actually either water mist or ice) to a gas (water vapor) would require the addition of the latent heat of vaporization. The latent heat would exceed 1000 btu/lb of water. Significant visible formations of contrails therefore will not typically disppear in minutes as there is insufficient heat available to cause the phase change. In fact ice crystals will seed additional sublimation/formation of moisture.

It is incorrect to assume that contrails will disappear in minutes. This could occur but would be atypical.

My house is situated between three of the world's largest airfields. I see dozens of flights

daily. I see many CONTRAILS. They disappear within thirty seconds. I see many CHEMTRAILS.

They do not disappear at all, but spread out to form large cirrus cloud cover. I DO NOT ASSUME

THAT CONTRAILS DISAPPEAR WITHIN SECONDS. I OBSERVE IT FREQUENTLY. I have seen

chemtrails and contails in the sky at the same time. I speak from observation, not theorizing

Jack

I didn't say that contrails cannot disappear within minutes (as you identified previously; not in seconds), but that this is atypical due to the physics involved. To categorically state that you observe contrails which disappear in seconds and chemtrails which do not disapear at all (and imply that you subsequently observe the difference between the two) is not a sound conclusion. I have read no scientific rationale for this. For any addition/change to the atmosphere which is sufficiently bouyant to remain aloft (without descending quickly) implies that it is not a release intended for the population below, as it would be extremely diluted if and when it finally did descend (due to the time element) and the results would be unpredictable. Therefore I challange the hypothesis that you can differentiate bewteen chemtrails and contrails based on your stated observations.

I offered NO HYPOTHESIS. I offered my FREQUENT OBSERVATIONS OF CONTRAILS DISAPPEARING

WITHIN SECONDS, USUALLY LESS THAN TWENTY SECONDS. Therefore you are challenging my veracity.

I believe that this is against forum rules.

By disappearing I mean the trails do not persist in the sky after the passage of the plane; they can be

seen evaporating as the plane traverses the sky, and usually are no more than two plane lengths long.

CHEMTRAILS, however, can last for hours, depending on winds aloft.

Jack

First of all if you wish to posture yourself as a dissenter to the mainstream and/or official views of issues and events it is extremely bad form to complain of those who dissent against your view of events. Dissent almost by definition is a challenge to the veracity of those whom are being dissented against, and yes, I am challenging your veracity. Get over it and get on to defending your views, something you seem to be prone to avoid.

You take on the mantle of a contrarian, a role which I believe to be essential in our society. People should question everything and challenge all which may be challenged (within certain limits, there are other priorities in life). So don’t act all offended Jack, you put yourself in this position, and you relish it.

I find your impromptu running for moderation at the first sign of a challenge to your so called veracity to be childish and an insult to great dissenters of history. You want to be a dissenter? Then stand up for yourself.

Now the challenge I make is in that you can differentiate, purely by observation, between contrails and chemtrails when observing these trails. In reading the information you tagged and linked to your posts, there is no conclusive evidence that chemical releases are occurring via the aircraft. There is circumstantial evidence, and suspicious (some very suspicious) accounts of materials being found and observed seemingly constituent of these “Chemtrails”.

But even conceding that “Chemtrails” do exist, there is no evidence allowing for the visual identification and differentiation of “Chemtrails” from contrails, and you have offered no criteria or qualification to justify that you have the ability to visually differentiate between the two.

So I just don’t believe it. Prove it. If you take this is a de facto insult, too bad. If that is the case you have no business assuming the role of a dissenter.

Now are you going to defend this challenge or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article comparing CONTRAILS and CHEMTRAILS:

.......

  Contrails or chemtrails and freak weather

Tenerife has recently again been hit by terrible weather, which has been explained as a symptom of climate change, but what everyone seems to have missed out on is that “chemtrails” were in the skies of the island just before the storms started, and chemtrails are being used for weather modification.

For the last decade, people all over the world have been watching aircraft leaving behind long white trails in the skies, often in patterns that weave and crisscross or appear in parallel lines and grid formations. Unlike the jet contrails we used to observe, which lasted only minutes, these new formations can last for hours and spread out to form clouds. Researchers of the phenomena call them “chemtrails” but the authorities, if they make any comment at all, say they are harmless “contrails.”

Despite the fact that the Google search engine will turn up over 800,000 entries for chemtrails, and that both Google and YouTube have many chemtrail videos, the mainstream media is suspiciously silent about the matter, which adds more fuel to what is being said by many concerned people - that these formations pose a danger to the environment and our health.

The Discovery Channel, however, was willing to break this silence and has covered the matter in their Best Evidence series in an episode entitled “Chemical Contrails.” The Discovery Channel website poses this question:  “Across the planet, millions of people have seen them - jet aircraft vapour trails lingering in the sky.  Are these just regular “contrails” - the carbon and water vapour exhaust from commercial planes - or are they potentially toxic “chemical trails” emitted intentionally as part of secret geo-engineering experiments or weather-weaponization tests?”

According to award-winning Canadian journalist William Thomas, back in August 1997, the late Dr. Edward Teller presented a paper prepared by the US government’s National Academy of Sciences to the 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies in Sicily, in which he suggested that: “Increases in average world-wide temperature of the magnitude currently predicted can be cancelled by preventing about 1% of incoming solar radiation from reaching the Earth. The total cost of such an enhanced scattering operation would probably be at most $1 billion per year.”

Dr Teller proposed that aluminium oxide could be added to jet fuel as a “sunscreen,” and it appears that this is what is now being done, because aluminium is a metal that has been found in far higher than normal concentrations in areas that have had a lot of chemtrail activity overhead.

Aluminium is toxic to the human and mammalian body and has been linked with Alzheimer’s disease, but if this wasn’t bad enough, barium, which is also poisonous to us, is also found in the mixture that is reportedly being used in chemtrails. It has been found that very many people become sick in the wake of chemtrails being sprayed overhead and illnesses and symptoms reported include asthma, allergies, a long-lasting flu-like illness, respiratory problems, nosebleeds, fatigue, dizziness, tinnitus and hearing problems, skin rashes, high blood pressure, arthritis and pneumonia.

In her article A Doctor Speaks Out About Chemtrails, Victoria Hardy, writing in American Chronicle tells how Dr. Stephen D. McKay had been contacted by the BBC and Channel 4 in the UK to work on two television documentaries about weather modification and geo-engineering projects, including chemtrails.

Dr. McKay says there are four ongoing projects that explain why the chemtrails are in our skies: The first project is an attempt to block the sun’s rays, which as already explained, was an idea proposed by Edward Keller.

The second project to create these trails is the United States Navy’s Radio Frequency Mission Planner (RFMP) military program – this is a computer program that deals with radio waves and enables the RFMP system to visually monitor the battlefield terrain in 3D on a television screen.

The third chemtrail project uses barium salts in the atmosphere with the aim of controlling weather and utilises technology discovered by Nikola Tesla.

The fourth reason Dr Mckay gives for the chemtrails is the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), biological detection and decontamination program and this too employs barium salts in the atmosphere.

Rosalind Peterson set up the californiasky watch.com website, which explains its purpose as follows:

“This website is dedicated to those who want to breathe clean air, protect our drinking water supplies, our soils, trees, public health, and the natural environment in which we live.  We believe that no one, no government agency or private corporation, has the right to pollute our air or drinking water supplies, modify our weather, or impact the living environment around us (even the upper atmosphere), without our consent.”

For more information on chemtrails, search the Internet and visit www.californiaskywatch.com  Steve Andrews

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, thank you.

I hope I'm not be. laboring the point, but the cloud-forming trails of the past few years seem to be a new phenomenon.

Could advances in jet engine design and/or fuel refinement contribute to what we're seeing?

I dont know the answer to that. When it comes to the patterns which have been photographed, the answer would be no. The patterns themselves seem pretty weird.

I would think that the more fuel efficient engine designs would cut back on any kind of trails, owing to the engine exhaust pollutants in creation of core particles for ice crystal formation.

I would say yes. A more fuel efficient design cuts back on the pollutants and leaves more water vapor in the exhaust. Plus newer engines are more powerful, burning more fuel which again leads to more water vapor. There is also evidence that engines ahve been recently changed. Not too long ago (1999), Stage 3 regulations went into effect. These were noise regulations that cut back how noisy commercial jet engines could be over populated areas. All carriers in the US had to be compliant with these regulations and as such most carriers had to replace their engines or install hush kits. Newer Stage 3 compliant engines tend to be more fuel efficient as well as more powerful so most carriers went for that option orif they installed the hush kits for monetary reasons have since replaced the engines. Coincidentally, most "chemtrail" believers will tell you that "chemtrail" started around 1998 right when many carriers would be replacing their engines. I suspect the emergence of the internet around the same time helped to spread the idea. Persistent contrails have been around for a long time but the idea that they are "chemtrails" is easier to spread with the internet. I've seen pictures from space in the early 80's showing persistent contrails and a video of a Phill Collins concert in 1987 showing them as well. Of course there are also the photos one can find dating to before WWII and the numerous anecdotal stories of pilots and navigators that flew during WWII about the hazards of persistent contrails. Basically, since they can be predicted, down to a general altitude layer, if the enemy can see your persistent contrails, they can target you easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles...you should be aware that Lewis is in the Air Force.

Chemtrails are sprayed by the Air Force.

Do you find the coincidence interesting?

Attached are typical chemtrails over Louisville.

Jack

Can't attack the facts so attack the person huh Jack? I am in the Air Force because of a love of aviation. That same love of aviation is why I have both a Bachelor's and Master's in aviation. Throughout my education and in my free time I have researched this and many other issues pertaining to aviation. As I've said before, my posting here has nothing to do with the Air Force. I post here on my own free time on subjects that are of interest to me.

Oh and this

Chemtrails are sprayed by the Air Force.

is purely opinion. Apparently you missed (or diliberately ignored) where I previously stated there are plenty of photos of commercial airliners leaving persistent contrails, how they have existed since before WWII, or how the Air Force doesn't have enough tankers to do what you think they are doing anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not reached any conclusions regarding the chemtrail issue.

In terms of persistent contrails: Should they be expected either to adhere to their original configuration or to expand slightly?

Could expansion of persistent contrials be expected to increase and thicken to the size and apparent depth of significant cloud cover?

I have observed con/chemtrails do just that.

Charles

It all just depends on the weather and how much other air traffic is in the area.

Charles...you should be aware that Lewis is in the Air Force.

Chemtrails are sprayed by the Air Force.

Do you find the coincidence interesting?

Attached are typical chemtrails over Louisville.

Jack

Charles... you should be aware that White is a conspiracy researcher.

"Chemtrails" is a conspiracy theory which is low on facts and high on accusations and insinuations.

Do you find the coincidence interesting?

Here is a report on persistent contrails dating back to WWII

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report...ca-wr-l-474.pdf

Good primer here

http://www.rmets.org/education/secondary/scisky3.php

Another good site

http://www.vnwa.com/Oncourse/Articles/Contrails.htm

Some great pics of persistent contrails from the past

Dogfights create contrails over London's St. Pauls Cathedral during the Battle of Britain

in 1940- at sixty years one of the oldest contrail photos

http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/stpauls.jpg

Crewmen of an American ship watch the contrails as American

and Japanese planes fight it out above Task Force 58 in the Great

Marianas Turkey Shoot on June 19, 1944.

http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/Taskforce58.jpg

Satellite image of the North Atlantic corridor shows contrails west of Great Britain and in mid-Atlantic forming preferentially ahead of two different frontal systems due to higher moisture as the front approaches.

http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/atlanticsat.jpg

1981 NOAA photo of contrail at sunset

http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/noaacon1981.jpg

Many pictures of persistent contrails here taken from space on early shuttle missions.

http://www.astro.ku.dk/~holger/IDA/STSHH.html

A navigator's log from WWII. Note in particular mission #24 and this quote "The contrails were dense, persistent - really hard to even see our own squadron."

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1393/andy2.html

WWII pilot's diary Note mission #33

http://www.100thbg.com/mainpages/crews/crews3/jensen.htm

More WWII pics

http://www.100thbg.com/mainmenus/airplanes...es2/Trails6.jpg

http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/b17trails.jpg

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are interesting chemtrails I photographed from my backyard

about a year ago.

I watched as two planes made a large T over downtown Fort Worth.

I went into the house and got my camera. By the time I got back

outside, three more planes were making a St. Andrews cross over

downtown.

Typically the planes like to make letters like X,T or V or sometimes A.

More often they make parallel lines or grids.

I have several photos I have made of chemtrails at various times

which I will post in this thread.

Jack

THIS MAKES NO SENSE...I POSTED A MESSAGE WITH AN IMAGE

ATTACHED. THE TEXT SHOWED UP IN TRIPLICATE, BUT WITHOUT

THE IMAGE. I TRIED DELETING THE LAST MESSAGE, AND THE

TEXT DISAPPEARED BUT THE IMAGE APPEARED....IN DUPLICATE.

WHAT'S UP?

<removed duplicate attachment - no idea why it happened>

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, Charles:

A good site from the UK from a researcher who studies contrails:

http://hazelrigg.es.lancs.ac.uk/amy/Home.htm

Another excellent site to read is:

http://contrailscience.com/

Be sure to read the sections on the history of 'chemtrails' and chemical analysis of same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are chemtrails over my house frequently. I have photographed a few of them.

Here is a photo looking east over the top of my house. It demonstrates two of the

favorite patterns used by the sprayers...parallel lines and crosses (Xs).

Jack

I would be interested in the Apollo offset shadow photos you have taken, like ones with the camera pointed slightly upwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did? Maybe you'd like to go back to all those "long ago" times... you know... when it first became "tiresome", dig those words up and republish them here so people can see you're not making this xxxxe up.

And the double standards are amazing. Whether or not you think my evidence is "adequate", at least I have supplied evidence. Jack, on the other hand, has called me a provocateur on more than one occasion without any hint of evidence to support it. But that's just fine with you apparently. If someone makes a point about Jack, their evidence is "inadequate". If Jack says something, it's gospel... no evidence required.

You persist on injecting your catfight with Jack in everything you say. I'm not a Jack White supporter, I'm a supporter of the research of John Armstrong. My posts make that clear. Repeatedly, Jack's comments about Armstrong's research have been far more accurate than yours. I simply acknowledged that.

Unlike you, I've read Armstrong's book several times. I've checked his sources often. That's my evidence.

Your inability to admit that Armstrong's research contains anything of value demonstrates that your ego supersedes your reason.

My only persistence in this matter, Mike, is in getting Jack to cease replying to posts of mine concerning Oswald with his pitch for Armstrong's book. We then have to - because Jack pretends not to remember, go through this whole rigmarole of what I've read of Armstrong's and what I haven't. Moreover, I have to keep correcting Jack's misrepresentations of what I say.

Whose research you support and whose you don't is clearly your business and no skin off my nose.

Your opinion on whether Jack's analysis of Armstrong's work is more accurate than mine, is just your opinion, and no skin off my nose.

If you have checked his sources, you will acknowledge his misrepresentation of the NYC school records and;

his reliance on a misstatement by Hubert that Decker's file on Oswald was labeled "Harvey Lee Oswald" (12H51) - even though that very testimony gives the location of that file ( Exhibit 5323). What excuse then, was there for NOT checking it to see if what Hubert said was accurate? None. So much for Jack's claim that Armstrong always checked multiple sources. But then, had he done so, it would NOT have supported his theory. Could that be why Armstrong doesn't it? For the record, the file is labeled: "Oswald, Lee Harvey".

Did you check all the documentation on the Bolton Ford incident? I have. Despite what Armstrong claims, no one at that dealership ever claimed one of the men gave his name as "Lee Oswald". Only the surname was given.

I have more examples if you want.

And your last comment, like many of Jack's, misrepresents the facts (what a shock!). Here is what I said in post #35 of this thread: "I have never said there is NOTHING worthwhile in it. I'm sure there is, though off the top I can only think of one thing - his mention of Percival Brundage. It is his misuse of the evidence to prop up his theory, and the lack of ethics shown in not advising his readers of the relationship between Jack and Mr Kudlaty I take issue with."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are chemtrails over my house frequently. I have photographed a few of them.

Here is a photo looking east over the top of my house. It demonstrates two of the

favorite patterns used by the sprayers...parallel lines and crosses (Xs).

Jack

Looks like another Huckabee ad to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...