Code 3 says:
I see by your registry date and number of posts that you’re a newbie here. Welcome to ATS.
My handle, by the way, is” Off_the_Street”, not “Off_the_wall”.
”Go here before you try and act like you are an enlightened person.
That’s Jim Phelp’s web site – it’s been around for a long time, and goes on and on and on… As far as I know, no one takes him seriously,
because Jim Phelps is not a scientist or inventor or anything like that. I have researched his name and did not see anything about him other than the
fact that he “studied electrical engineering” (but it didn’t say where of if he even got a degree) and I have looked through several
professional journals and did not see any articles published by him.
If you have any information on him that talks about his degrees and his published papers, please let me know; I haven’t found any of them.
Personally, I think he’s a fraud; but it’s not because he doesn’t have any credentials – it’s that his claims are just goofy, with no
evidence to back them up
. I am certainly not a mad scientist myself, but I do
have a couple pieces of college-degree paper, including one
that says I’m some sort of engineer; and I’ve been working in the aerospace business for about thirty years. I may not come up with any
earth-shattering ideas, but I like to think I can recognize what the Russians call “boolsht” when I see it, and that’s what I see on Phelp’s
site – boolsht.
”Please also look into the US Patents for chemical spray operations.”
There are a lot of patents for all different kinds of spraying. There are also patents for a device that will automatically tip your hat to a lady as
she passes by, and one that uses nuclear weapons to blast out harbors and canals. Some of these patents for spraying, including the ones behind the
Air Force’s MASS sprayer on C-130s and others for spraying fire-retardant, are actually used today.
But the fact that someone patented an idea to spray aluminized particles to keep the earth cool is certainly not the same as saying they’re actually
doing it. I can think of several really obvious reasons why, even if the aluminum thing were feasible (which I don’t believe it is) it’s not
being used. First among these is that a radar-reflecting cloud above the United States would just about completely eliminate the early-warning
defense capabilities of the country, or the ability of the FAA to keep track of the commercial air raft in the sky.
Patents aren't evidence; they're just the government saying that the idea is novel and the idea is protected from other use. Not that the idea
makes any commercial sense.
”Now go here and look at ALL of the photographic documentation.
I’ve seen more pictures of purported “chem-trails” in the five years I’ve been following the hoax than I can shake a stick at. All I see are
interestingly shaped contrails, all of which can be explained by perfectly normal (although dynamic) atmospheric conditions and a basic application of
Your thousand pictures of persistent contrails are no more “evidence” for the existence of a Huge Secret Nefarious Plot than a thousand pictures
of Christmas presents are “evidence” for the existence of Santa Claus.
”I did not just follow some conspiritoral idea on the Internet, I witnessed them before I had ever heard of them. I was very sceptical at first
but after seeing it done over and over in my area (mainly spring and fall) I had to believe my own eyes. Here is my story:”
Think about this. You see these “chem.-trails” in the spring and fall, which is when typically there is the most moisture in the sky (at least in
the temperate latitudes). You will not get persistent contrails unless you have temperatures of below minus 40 degrees and saturated air. There is a
better chance of having those conditions obtain in the spring and the fall than there is at other times.
Yet it’s the summer, when the planet is tilted so that the Northern Hemisphere is closer to vertical in respect to the Sun and its UV rays; and
winter, which is when the ozone layer is thinner, that you would think that any sort of amelioration, like “chem.-trails” would be used, right?
So why, if you consider “chem.-tails” to be an amelioration against UV would they appear just when, statistically speaking, we don’t
”I have seen "chemtrails" that sometimes (my opinion) have mixed it improperly and created what looks like when you spill gasoline into a water
puddle. A greenish rainbow that is in the water vapor of the trail. You would have to see it. It’s not just a light effect.”
It is just a light effect; it’s called “refraction”.
Code 3, I would ask you, if you have not already done so, to read my articles and subsequent discussion in the thread entitled “The Chemtrail
Hoax” located in this forum at www.abovetopsecret.com...
I believe it will address your comments in detail.