Chemtrails are back!

[Duane Daman]

As usual, ground samples that could have been contaminated anywhere

A lot of the "ground samples" that have been tested came from rainfall.. Rainfall that came from the clouds that were either seeded, or created by chemtrail planes .. The toxins being sprayed, including aluminum and barium, were found in alarming levels in the rainwater tested.

Why do the claimants always fail to take a proper airborne sample and have it analysed?

There have also been air grab tests done in areas where these chemicals have been sprayed and the same toxins were found in these tests as well.. I'm not sure how anyone would be able to collect samples directly from a trail in the air, while following behind a chemplane.

According to what Jack has posted, it would seem there are "chemtrails" being dumped in his area several times a week, so why not pick one of those? It's not exactly difficult... but it would be science

There are also chemtrails being sprayed over my city several times a week, but I wouldn't know how to test for the chemicals being sprayed, except to collect rainwater or test the ground under where the planes have sprayed.

In fact, early yesterday morning as I was taking my truck into the shop for repairs, I looked up to the South and saw about six planes criss crossing the sky making large x's and designs that resembled spokes on a wheel.. The entire sky was covered with these patterns, which were quickly turning into clouds .. Most of the planes now create lines in straight rows that quickly form into clouds, opposed to the grid patterns that were more obvious that chemtrails are being sprayed in the skies all over the world.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Duane Daman

[Duane Daman]

For anyone doubting the existence of the phenomenon of ‘chemtrails’, please take a minute to read through this extensive list of patents from America on equipment and processes used in just such programs. The evidence is clear folks.

Excellent list of evidence Jack!

[Dave Greer]

For anyone doubting the existence of the phenomenon of ‘chemtrails’, please take a minute to read through this extensive list of patents from America on equipment and processes used in just such programs. The evidence is clear folks.

It might take a minute to read through the list, but it would take many weeks of research to thoroughly investigate each patent, to see whether it backs up the assertion that "persistent spreading contrails" as seen in some of the photos you've posted are actually "chemtrails".

I looked at a few of them.

1. Self-focussing antenna system - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3174150.pdf

I couldn't figure out why a patent for such a device would help prove the existence of "chemtrails" as I characterised them above, so I looked at the patent. I'm still none the wiser. Please explain how this device proves that "persistent spreading contrails" are actually "chemtrails".

2. Atomizing Attachment for Airplane Engine Exhausts - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/1892132.pdf

Judging the title alone, this one sounds more promising. The patent is from 1932, so how it proves anything relating to "chemtrails" being caused by high altitude jets in the 1990's I'm not sure. Regardless, the patent is basically for a "crop duster". Again, I ask what the existence of a patent for a crop-dusting device proves "chemtrails" over "persistent spreading contrails".

3. Method of Suppressing Formation of Contrails and Solution Therefor - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4766725.pdf

As per the title, this patent relates to a proposal to stop contrails forming. I find it hard to see how such a patent proves the existence of "chemtrails", which persist much longer than Jack claims contrails can last for.

4. Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5003186.pdf

This one sounds more promising. It refers to the addition of Aluminium Oxide to aviation fuel to absorb infra-red radiation, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect.

Of course, the existence of a patent isn't proof that the method is in use, either on a small scale, or the large scale being proposed. I couldn't find any reference to the actual use of such additives in jet fuel. Neither is there any explanation as to why the use of such additives would cause the visible appearance of "chemtrails" resembling "persistent spreading contrails". There's also the difficulty of explaining why this technology has been in use in secret since the 1990's to combat global warming. Why not just fess up and claim the glory for saving the planet? If governments can fluoridise drinking water to save out teeth and convince most people it's safe, wouldn't aluminium oxide in jet fuel to reduce global warming be an easy sell? Why hide it?

[Evan Burton]

But weren't we told chemtrails are only recent? Or was this happening in the 1920s?

[Duane Daman]

But weren't we told chemtrails are only recent? Or was this happening in the 1920s?

I have posted evidence on this thread showing where the American population was sprayed with toxic chemicals during bio warfare tests that were conducted during the 1940's.

There is also evidence that bio chemical weapons were sprayed in the 1920's also.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/biowpns.htm

[Matthew Lewis]

As usual, ground samples that could have been contaminated anywhere

A lot of the "ground samples" that have been tested came from rainfall.. Rainfall that came from the clouds that were either seeded, or created by chemtrail planes .. The toxins being sprayed, including aluminum and barium, were found in alarming levels in the rainwater tested.

Oh really? According to Jack, these trails form cirrus clouds (exactly what one could expect from a persistent contrail). Cirrus clouds are incapable of rain. The last ground sample you presented was misread and claimed as parts per million when it was really parts per billion. They also never accounted for the evaporation that would have concentrated the sample during the month they left it out.

Why do the claimants always fail to take a proper airborne sample and have it analysed?

There have also been air grab tests done in areas where these chemicals have been sprayed and the same toxins were found in these tests as well.. I'm not sure how anyone would be able to collect samples directly from a trail in the air, while following behind a chemplane.

Rent a plane? Why is that so hard to figure out? Multiple "chemtrail" researchers/con men have proposed exactly that in years past always to never get any results. Your "air grab" was nothing of the sort. They did NOT account for the volume of air filtered. Until or unless they do that they are testing dust.

[Matthew Lewis]

For anyone doubting the existence of the phenomenon of ‘chemtrails’, please take a minute to read through this extensive list of patents from America on equipment and processes used in just such programs. The evidence is clear folks.

Excellent list of evidence Jack!

Yeah!

I especially like these that have absolutely nothing to do with "chemtrails" proving the original author was just as clueless

3722183 – March 27, 1973 – Device For Clearing Impurities From The Atmosphere

3808595 – April 30, 1974 – Chaff Dispensing System

3940060 – February 24, 1976 – Vortex Ring Generator

4873928 – October 17, 1989 – Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation (explosions? really?)

4999637 – March 12, 1991 – Creation of artificial ionization clouds above the earth (this refers to space, rather funny that it is included)

5059909 – October 22, 1991 – Determination of particle size and electrical charge

5005355 – April 9, 1991 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor (just the complete opposite of what is described)

5110502 – May 5, 1992 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor (yep, they weren't satisfied with being wrong once, they added both)

5156802 – October 20, 1992 – Inspection of fuel particles with acoustics

5486900 – January 23, 1996 – Measuring device for amount of charge of toner and image forming apparatus having the measuring device (toner, like in a printer)

6045089 – April 4, 2000 – Solar-powered airplane

There are many more. Those are just some of the more obvious. Many describe processes conducted on the ground or in space. Others are completely unrelated. There is no proof offered that any of them are in use or even work. Claiming the list is evidence of anything is hilarious. Keep the humor coming!

[Matthew Lewis]

Just received a comment on my profile from Duane.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=2327

As it was not intended to be private (NOT a pm but a public comment on the profile) I have no reason not to post it here

Duane Daman

Today' date=' 06:36 PM

Your lies won't stop the truth from coming out about chemtrails or any other US government conspiracy.

I really don't know how liars like you sleep at night.

[/quote']

Putting aside, for a moment, the FACT that it is against forum rules to say another poster is lying, care to enumerate any of my "lies"? Is it a lie that the so-called "air grab" did NOT account for the volume of air that was filtered? Is it a lie that the results of your other study were claimed to be parts per MILLION but were really parts per BILLION? Is it a lie that many of those patents are for completely unrelated products and/or processes? Please elaborate. As you know you need to back up an accusation like that.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Duane Daman]

As it was not intended to be private (NOT a pm but a public comment on the profile) I have no reason not to post it here

I sent that message to you as a PM but your inbox would not accept any new messages.. But I'm sure you already knew that and also knew that was the reason I posted it on your page.. Your e-mail is private, so the only way to get my message to you was to post it on your profile page.. But instead of it showing up immediately, a message came up saying it would need to be approved by a moderator, just like my posts here .. I thought that would be the end of it, but obviously it was approved or you couldn't have posted it here.. So I can only assume that it didn't break any of the forum's rules.

As for what I meant by your lies, it would be your constant denial of the existance of chemtrails, despite all of the evidence proving otherwise.

[Jack White]

Today going to lunch I saw six chemplanes spraying. They seemed to be using some sort of NEW TYPE OF SPRAY, which

formed a cirrus cloud MUCH FASTER THAN PREVIOUS SPRAYS. As I drove west on the freeway I saw sprays which, instead

of making long trails which lingered, made short trails (perhaps only ten miles long) which almost immediately became

cirrus clouds...I'd say within five minutes, where previous trails took fifteen or twenty. On the other hand, today's

clouds could have experienced very high altitude winds which dispersed the spray so fast.

The six planes (except one) were flying parallel courses in close formation. The one other plane was diagonal to these.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

How about using a video camera to film them? That would give us a better idea.

[Matthew Lewis]

As it was not intended to be private (NOT a pm but a public comment on the profile) I have no reason not to post it here

I sent that message to you as a PM but your inbox would not accept any new messages.. But I'm sure you already knew that and also knew that was the reason I posted it on your page.. Your e-mail is private, so the only way to get my message to you was to post it on your profile page.. But instead of it showing up immediately, a message came up saying it would need to be approved by a moderator, just like my posts here .. I thought that would be the end of it, but obviously it was approved or you couldn't have posted it here.. So I can only assume that it didn't break any of the forum's rules.

As for what I meant by your lies, it would be your constant denial of the existance of chemtrails, despite all of the evidence proving otherwise.

Trying to send that message as a private comment is cowardly but exactly what I expected from you. I reserve PMs for friends, colleagues and professionals. You are none of those. Others can send me messages though so I would guess it is your moderated status that prevented you from making a cowardly accusation in privateas incoming messages are NOT blockedfor the majority of users. PUBLIC comments on one's profile are approved by the USER. I approved it so all could see you breaking forum rules and to expose your nasty attitude. Again, what have I posted that is a lie? Is it a lie that the so-called "air grab" did NOT account for the volume of air that was filtered? Is it a lie that the results of your other study were claimed to be parts per MILLION but were really parts per BILLION? Is it a lie that many of those patents are for completely unrelated products and/or processes? Please elaborate. I still have yet to see anything that can not be explained by the long known science behind contrails.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

Yet another comment from Duane on my PUBLIC profile

Let's see if you have the integrity, or the courage, to post this message from me.

You posted this erroneous insult to me on the 'Chemtrails are Back!' thread.

"Trying to send that message as a private comment is cowardly but exactly what I expected from you."

I posted two replies to you, defending myself againt your false, character assa...

I maintain my statement that attempting to post insults via private messages (as you ADMITTED you tried to do) is cowardly. I think most reasonable people would agree. I will NOT take that back. If you have something to say to me, say it on the forum where all can see you for what you are or don't say it at all.

I will eventually delete Duane's comments on my profile as I don't think the profile is a place for PMs as Duane is trying use it. I will wait however until others have a chance to see them for themselves.

Edit to add: Here is a screen capture of the profile page with Duane's comments to make it easier for everyone. Duane's comments will be removed from my profile by the end of the day.

As entertaining as all this is, is it possible to get back on topic?

Edited December 26, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Matthew Lewis]

Apparently we can't get back on topic as I have yet more comments from Duane. These will be the last as comments are no longer allowed on my profile (mods take note that I view this as a form of harassment as I can no longer use a feature of the board due to one member's inability to use it properly)

"If you have something to say to me, say it on the forum where all can see you for what you are or don't say it at all."

I would do exactly that but unfortunately Burton will not allow my posts, defending myself against your erroneous, flame baiting accusations, to be seen.

Funny how your immature ridicule is never moderated, while my replies, defending myself,...

Immature ridicule? I called you cowardly (which you have reciprocated) because you attempted to insult via PM. How is that anything but the truth?

Since that last message to you was cut off, I've posted it on my signature.. It's about time the members of this forum know what you and Burton are all about.. Your blatant, game playing dishonesty is unbelievable!

Of course you will remove my comments.. I wouldn't expect anything differently from a dishonest coward like you.

They are removed from my PROFILE only as that section of the forum is NOT intended for conversations, something which you can't seem to figure out. They are however immortalized on the forum in text and jpeg for all to see. How is that cowardly exactly? How does that compare to attempting to insult via PM?

Edited December 26, 2010 by Matthew Lewis

[Jack White]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/is-mass-bird-and-fish-die-off-connected-to-government-testing.html