Chemtrails are back!

[Duane Daman]

"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."

I don't doubt that SOME contrails linger longer than most, but that is NOT what we're discussing here.. People all over the world are witnessing the chemtrail activity and are even video taping it.. Numerous YouTube videos show chemtrail spraying, even up close.. So there is no doubt they are not ordinary contrails.

People all over the world are also getting ill after being exposed the chemicals that fall to the ground after these sprayings take place.. I happen to be one of the people who got very ill on two different occasions from chemtrail spraying, whether you and your like minded pals here choose to believe that or not.

Scientists all over the world are finally taking notice of these chemtrails, along with their associated illnesses, and have investigated the deadly chemicals that are involved.

So no matter how many times you post the DISINFORMATION that they are only "persistant contrails", it won't make it true.

"As for being at work, again, it is none of your business but am I not allowed to have a lunch break?"

As for your "lunch break", your time would be much better spent if you actually ate lunch, instead of posting untrue information here.

[Matthew Lewis]

"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."

I don't doubt that SOME contrails linger longer than most, but that is NOT what we're discussing here.. People all over the world are witnessing the chemtrail activity and are even video taping it.. Numerous YouTube videos show chemtrail spraying, even up close.. So there is no doubt they are not ordinary contrails.

People all over the world are also getting ill after being exposed the chemicals that fall to the ground after these sprayings take place.. I happen to be one of the people who got very ill on two different occasions from chemtrail spraying, whether you and your like minded pals here choose to believe that or not.

Scientists all over the world are finally taking notice of these chemtrails, along with their associated illnesses, and have investigated the deadly chemicals that are involved.

So no matter how many times you post the DISINFORMATION that they are only "persistant contrails", it won't make it true.

"As for being at work, again, it is none of your business but am I not allowed to have a lunch break?"

As for your "lunch break", your time would be much better spent if you actually ate lunch, instead of posting untrue information here.

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.

[Jack White]

AFA Chemistry 131:

[Jack White]

...13 planes leaving short persistent contrails over Australia.

[Jack White]

Contrail and Chemtrails.

[Jack White]

Busy air traffic over metropolitan Green Valley, Nevada, one of nation's most congested air centers.

[Matthew Lewis]

AFA Chemistry 131:

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.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

...13 planes leaving short persistent contrails over Australia.

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

[Matthew Lewis]

Contrail and Chemtrails.

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?

[Matthew Lewis]

Busy air traffic over metropolitan Green Valley, Nevada, one of nation's most congested air centers.

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.

[Jack White]

For those viewing later after Jack has crippled the post , it shows multiple crossing persistent contrails reportedly over Green Valley, NV.

[Matthew Lewis]

For those viewing later after Jack has crippled the post , it shows multiple crossing persistent contrails reportedly over Green Valley, NV.

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.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

There is no confusion. I use the facilities the Forum offers. I am not required to do any more. It is YOUR problem

if you think I should do something not required or furnished. I WAS TOLD I WAS REQUIRED TO REMOVE OLD

POSTINGS TO MAKE SPACE FOR NEW ONES. I did that, starting with the oldest, which were about 4/5 years old.

It is your problem if you want to refer to postings that old. Talk to Simkin, not me. I do not make postings here

for your SOLE convenience.

Jack

[Matthew Lewis]

There is no confusion. I use the facilities the Forum offers. I am not required to do any more. It is YOUR problem

if you think I should do something not required or furnished. I WAS TOLD I WAS REQUIRED TO REMOVE OLD

POSTINGS TO MAKE SPACE FOR NEW ONES. I did that, starting with the oldest, which were about 4/5 years old.

It is your problem if you want to refer to postings that old. Talk to Simkin, not me. I do not make postings here

for your SOLE convenience.

Jack

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?

Edited September 26, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Evan Burton]

It comes from a lack of understanding of meteorology.

For instance, Jack will claim this as evidence of chemtrails:

But it's not. It's a roll cloud that can be often seen in northern Australia called the Morning Glory. It's been reported since 1942.