Matthew Lewis Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 No persistent contrails today, nor in Dothan, AL or points between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 19, 2010 Author Share Posted June 19, 2010 http://www.bluenomore.com/ Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 (edited) Flashy site but short on actual evidence. One of the first things it does is perpetuates the LIE that normal contrails always disappear quickly (page 6, pdf numbering, not internal page numbering, of their free e-book and on captions of their various pictures). Further half-truths are claims that two "chemtrails" are being produced at the same altitude when they have NO WAY of determining altitude at all(one of the captions on one of their many pretty pictures). So how do they know? They don't. A further LIE; that these trails started in 1998 (page 6 of their book). Pictures and videos from before and during WWII, the 50's, 60's, and 70's or even the 80's in pictures taken from space by the space shuttle are easy to find with a cursory web search and prove that wrong. I have posted some on this site before. Another LIE;that the jets leaving these trails are unmarked (page 6). Again, provably wrong with simple web searches. Many plane spotters who take and collect pictures of jets from different airlines with different paint jobs use persistent contrails or "chemtrails" to help them locate the planes in the air. Another LIE; most jets are KC-10s (three engines) or KC-135s (4 engines) (page 8). Ok, maybe not a lie, maybe they just can't count. Most of the pictures I've seen that are supposed to depict "chemtrails" show planes with TWO engines. A misdirection; that the Air Force requested the KC-135 be modified with engines that reduce its noise output, implying that it is because they can then fly lower and attract less attention (page 8). A real researcher would note that ALL commercial and some military jets reduced their noise output at about the same time due to FAA regulations. They would find that the newest engines on the KC-135 were requested because they produce more power, use less fuel and burn cleaner, that the reduced noise is an added benefit that allowed the air force to come into compliance with FAA regs but not a specific request. The book mentions testing of samples but neglects to mention that ALL samples were collected on the ground. There is more but that is what was found with a quick skim. Most of the rest of the book reads very pretentiously. Says a lot without really saying anything. Reminds me of a politician. I'm just glad I didn't have to pay for the book. I may sit down and read the whole thing sometime instead of skimming but likely only if I have trouble sleeping. They in essence have a lot of pretty pictures (on the site) about which they make lots of claims with no actual evidence for any of the claims (like most "chemtrail" proponents). Pretty website though. Makes one wonder who's funding them? Why do they feel it necessary (like most other "chemtrail" proponents) to lie? My opinion is it is an exercise in gullibility. Present an emotional argument with little to no evidence and you'll still get plenty of people to believe it without actually looking into it. What does Jack think about their shoddy research? Apparently no one will ever know since he just posted the link with no comments of his own. Does he even HAVE an opinion? Edited June 19, 2010 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 No persistent contrails here today. Some scattered thunderstorms though. But it is summertime in FL, pretty much every day has scattered thunderstorms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 20, 2010 Author Share Posted June 20, 2010 These strange Australian chemtrails defy explanation. Jack PS...no chemtrails over Fort Worth today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 These strange Australian chemtrails defy explanation. Jack PS...no chemtrails over Fort Worth today. Wind can do funny things to clouds. How do we know the clouds in the picture even came from a plane? Especially when "chemtrail" pushers have made up "evidence" in the past? How do we know one of them didn't just see some odd looking clouds and decided they could weave an emotional story around it? It wouldn't be the first time. I've seen pictures of fuel dumps claimed to be spraying activity, pictures of test aircraft with equipment used to vary center of gravity for flight tests with hazmat warnings photoshopped in, pictures of aircraft used to TAKE samples claiming the instruments are spraying equipment, deliberate mistranslations of the German word for chaff to say the German government admits to "chemtrails", photoshopped duplications of planes to make it appear that large airliners are flying in formation and more. If they have such a good case, why the need to fake their own evidence repeatedly? Jack, what do you think about the LIE that nearly all "chemtrail" websites push that contrails always disappear quickly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Meteorology is not Jack's strong point: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Here is an educational site, Jack: http://weathervortex.com/sky-ribbons.htm But I suppose it's just a disinfo site run by the NWO, financed by the Illuminati, etc, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Lenticular clouds: Roll cloud: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 "Defy explanation" = "I don't know so they must be unexplainable" Question: Were these images that "defy explanation" ever shown to a meteorologist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 "Defy explanation" = "I don't know so they must be unexplainable" Question: Were these images that "defy explanation" ever shown to a meteorologist? You should know better than that Evan. You can't claim they "defy explanation" if you go and try to explain them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 21, 2010 Author Share Posted June 21, 2010 Beautiful blue skies all day in FW TX. Temp topped out at 99 degrees...will be 100 all week (global warming!) No chemtrails. No clouds. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Beautiful blue skies all day in FW TX. Temp topped out at 99 degrees...will be 100 all week (global warming!) Or just summertime, or has it never been hot in late June in Texas before? No chemtrails. and I'll bet no persistent contrails either. Oh wait, they're the same thing. At least they look exactly the same, and they show up at the same times. No clouds. Hardly surprising with the lack of persistent contrails or "chemtrails". Jack For those of you who can't read the name of the poster at the beginning. This has been yet another installment of Jack White's daily weather report. We now return you to your regular forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted June 23, 2010 Author Share Posted June 23, 2010 Wow! 103 degrees today, and no chemtrails. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now