LMAO. SOmeone cried to the mods about me and "excessive quoting". wtf? lol. does the truth piss you off?

I saw some chemtrails last night here in Wa state, they were highlighted pretty well by the moon...

And just how ecactly do you know that they weren't ordinary contrails? did you test them?

joepits says:

"LMAO. SOmeone cried to the mods about me and "excessive quoting". wtf? lol. does the truth piss you off?"

I certainly didn't squeal on your posting. But what does your extensive posting have to do with "the truth". Do you really think that your posts are so threatening to anyone that they'd try to bust you to the Mods for "excessive quoting"? I certainly don't think so.

And while we're at it, joepits, when are you going to respond to all those posts on the previous thread?

When I asked why none of the "chem-trail" believers ever actually tried to find flaws in the six arguments I made at the beginning of the thread, your only response was:

"#6 is just plain wrong. Before 1998 or so "contrails" did not stay in the sky so long. This is a fact. Look in old pictures and you will have trouble finding many horizon to horizon contrails."

Well, within a day Howard Roark had posted a bunch of pictures of horizon-to-horizon contrails from as far back as the 1940's. That pretty effectively answered that argument!

(By the way, your response didn't even address what I'd written in #6. What #6 did say is that every single phenomenon used as "evidence' by the"chem-trail" crowd can just as easily (usually even more easily) be explained by normal, although varying, ambient weather conditions.

So far, Joepits, you've only attacked one portion of one of the six, and that attack was refuted in short order. The least you could do is to acknowledge Howard Roark's research.

Now, are you going to discuss contrails (or "chem-trails") in a coherent way, or are you going to accuse people who disagree with you with being Secret Agents and asking everyone to ignore them?

Sounds like you're the one not willing to look at the truth here, joepits!

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And just how ecactly do you know that they weren't ordinary contrails? did you test them?

you dont have to test them to see if they are chemtrails. there are other identifying characteristics.

Originally posted by joepits

you dont have to test them to see if they are chemtrails. there are other identifying characteristics.

No there are not, that is just the point. All of these so-called “other identifying characteristics” are common meteorological phenomena. If a cloud can spread out and cover the whole sky, then so can a contrail. If a cloud can form “mares tails,” then so can a contrail. If a cloud can exhibit wave like patterns, then so can a contrail.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Well, within a day Howard Roark had posted a bunch of pictures of horizon-to-horizon contrails from as far back as the 1940's. That pretty effectively answered that argument!

there is no old footage of contrails spreading out and creating clouds. in fact, when i was a lad in school, they showed us a movie on weather modification, and the state of the science(about thirty yrs. ago). they were trying to make clouds, or alternatively, to get them to start precipitating. they had little to no success, was the messsage of the flick, but they were still trying. if it were as easy to make clouds as you say, man would have been doing it for decades, now.
the pictures howard posted only show contrails coming out of (military, haha) planes. nobody is denying the existence of contrails. why do you guys keep trying to 'go there'. the time reference of those pictures is a few minutes at most(except for the sat pictures, which are not necessarily NOT chemtrails).
so, that has not effectively answered that argument to my satisfaction.

okay. contrails can turn into clouds when there are 750 planes all going the same way. i stand corrected.

[edit on 24-2-2005 by billybob]

Geneticus, given the fact that FAA rules mandate a 1,000 foot minimum vertical separation for planes flying over 29,000 feet, those planes are definitely not in close proximity to each other.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Geneticus, given the fact that FAA rules mandate a 1,000 foot minimum vertical separation for planes flying over 29,000 feet, those planes are definitely not in close proximity to each other.

chemtrail have been known not to follow those regulations.

[edit on 24-2-2005 by joepits]

I watch these planes all the time I live a stones throw from Lake Ontario and the jets start at dawn doing the grid pattern over the lake which in turn spreads into thin low clouds that spread over the city of Hamilton that is south west of me, by noon or if not sooner the city is cloud covered. I have a pile of photos as well, so I don’t care if these none believers spew their crap I have two eyes I see it happing before me,
It’s happening but what for is another matter.

Originally posted by joepits

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Geneticus, given the fact that FAA rules mandate a 1,000 foot minimum vertical separation for planes flying over 29,000 feet, those planes are definitely not in close proximity to each other.

chemtrail have been known not to follow those regulations.

[edit on 24-2-2005 by joepits]

And of course, you have proof of that, right?

Originally posted by Sauron
I watch these planes all the time I live a stones throw from Lake Ontario and the jets start at dawn doing the grid pattern over the lake which in turn spreads into thin low clouds that spread over the city of Hamilton that is south west of me, by noon or if not sooner the city is cloud covered. I have a pile of photos as well, so I don’t care if these none believers spew their crap I have two eyes I see it happing before me,
It’s happening but what for is another matter.

You see the city cloud over as the day goes on? Oooh.

What chemicals are they spraying exactly? Ones that make clouds?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by joepits

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Geneticus, given the fact that FAA rules mandate a 1,000 foot minimum vertical separation for planes flying over 29,000 feet, those planes are definitely not in close proximity to each other.

chemtrail have been known not to follow those regulations.

[edit on 24-2-2005 by joepits]

And of course, you have proof of that, right?

Yes. It is in William Thomas's book "Chemtrails Confirmed". Multiple reports including some from ATC workers. But I won't be bothered to look up and retype the info for you.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

You see the city cloud over as the day goes on? Oooh.

What chemicals are they spraying exactly? Ones that make clouds?

No I see the clouds formed from the trails that had been laid over the lake, do you have a problem with that or are you trying to be witty.
and no I don't know what is in them, do you have a problem with that.
or do you have a problem with me stating what I see?

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
joepits says:

"#6 is just plain wrong. Before 1998 or so "contrails" did not stay in the sky so long. This is a fact. Look in old pictures and you will have trouble finding many horizon to horizon contrails."

I have many books showing pictures/paintings of contrails left by fighters dogfighting over Londn in 1940 and left by USAAF rids over Germany

Actually, it's the second most ridiculous. I have to go with the Secret Nazi Caves in the Antarctic that lead down into the Hollow Earth.

LMAO What about the secret Nazi moonbase one, surely that competes with Antarctica, I remember one about the 'Spice Girls too'. Chem-trails are small beer when it comes to ridiculous conspiracy theories.