ChemTrails for defense against space based Scalar Weapons

Just thought you folks might enjoy this.

[edit on 22-10-2006 by mrwupy]

Hey wupy can you tell me what this video is about and how long it is?

i have 56k and depending on how long this video is, it could take from a few minutes to hours to load.


Thanks.

I would not watch it on 56k.

It's about chemtrails and is interesting, but not worth the time it would take to D/L on that slow a speed.

Sorry

Originally posted by mrwupy
I would not watch it on 56k.

It's about chemtrails and is interesting, but not worth the time it would take to D/L on that slow a speed.

Sorry

Alright thanks, im just glad that others will be able to see it

That video is minutes of your life you wont get back, so dont say I didnt warn you.
Did see what looks like a pic of a Southwest Airlines 737, and yet another
pic of a Navy E-6 TACAMO. Chemtrail believers think E-6 TACAMOs are chemtrail planes because of a single photo of jettisoning fuel from inboard sections of wing.

However, those models of aircraft were modified to jettison fuel there since wingtips have equipment there. This has been explained many times.

Originally posted by mrwupy
The discussion is:

"ChemTrails for defense against space based Scalar Weapons"

Please remain on topic and stop the personal accusations. For those who do not understand this:

wupy

Thanks.. I had a pertinent question on page 2, which nobody has touched as of yet, but this became a titanic struggle over whether chemtrails exist or not which is not at issue in the theme this thread addresses.

HAHAH!!! The photoshop of the X-51 is pure fantasy!! I can't stop laughing at that!!!

An anti-gravity rotorless helicopter???

Shattered OUT...

So there is more variance in aircraft size now then there has ever been in the past.

Here we go again, so would you think that telling a 4 engine aircraft from a twin engine is a relatively straight forward process?

I know the truth, so you do the math.

What are you a prophet? The truth is the the eye of the beholder, and to some people the earth is still flat and in the center of the universe.

Math is good for you. A good poker player can bluff his way out of a tight spot, but a chess player is smart enough not be get him self in that position in the first place, because he always thinks ahead.

I gave links that show the sizes of some of these aircraft, look them up yourself.

That's the point, and I've done just that some time ago, you are the one who doubts that altitude can be calculated by a simple individual with out access to a radar station.

that a 737’s main gear wheels are exposed and appear as two black circles on the bottom of the plane

defcon5, my apologies, but it is evident that your are still missing the point here. In order to calculate approximate altitude all one needs is the approximate WINGSPAN of the airplane in question.

Follow me on this one, given a KNOWN wingspan, and by using information I've already posted, make an effort and try to figure out how it all works before posting more irrelevant information.

At high altitude, with both having 4 engines, I find this very difficult to believe.

Oh for GODS SAKE, defcon5, please use FIND command in your browser, and type in TELESCOPE, and TRIPOD. When you find those words in my previous post, put it all together.

I have seen patterns exactly like this in the air over my old house which was north of the traffic pattern for TIA/TPA, and yeah they stay in the air and become clouds. I also know from having worked for years at that airport, that there is nothing being sprayed form those aircraft. So how do you explain that?

You are asking me to explain you? How would I do that? I don't know you, so naturally I can't speak about you, because that would be an assumption.

I don't know what you did at the airport, and how you know for a fact that nothing is being sprayed. All of that is actually up to you to explain.

The top aircraft in this picture looks to me like it has a possible third trail, so I am going to guess that it is a L1011, possibly a DC-10. The bottom aircraft looks more like an MD-80 to me. The reason I am pretty sure that the second plane is an MD-80/DC-9 is that there is no gap in the contrail as the engines are so close together on the tail. However, again its almost impossible to tell when they are at that altitude, unless you can see their light patterns and even then a lot of the new aircraft have the exact same pattern.

Man, you sure can see a lot form a low rez picture. I for one can't say a damn thing about it, because there is simply to little information in it.

I can't say if it's a contrail or a chemtrail or what ever else, all I see is that the trail form one is longer then another.

So are you claiming that these aircraft are at similar altitude?

Assuming again? defcon5, it looks like it's a bit of a habit with you. Thinking is a better habit, and a healthier one.

The point is, that what you are seeing are called flight banks. This means that the sky is clear and that airports are mostly empty, then within an hour every gate in the airport fills up, dozens of flights all arrive and leave at the same time. The reason for this is that flights need to make connections and in order for stuff to go from one plane to the next they all have to be on the ground at roughly the same time.

You know, there is an old saying "A peasant will not say a prayer until the lightning strikes."

Nothing derogatory about it, it's just the order of things, leave to brilliant men like Benjamin Franklin to think and worry about lightning.

The problem is that with technological revolution and information age, well, I'll just say that prayers won't help, and good men like Franklin are few and far between.

Let me show you something:

If you think that your seeing a lot of trails in those photos, then take a look at how much traffic even two mid sized airports can generate in a day.

Gee, thanks a lot for bringing more irrelevance to this discussion.

How many of those flights reach 30k and how many are commuter hoppers?

That question is answered by statistical analysis.

How many guesses do you want on which engine is going to produce a bigger, more voluminous contrail?
An engine with a 3 or 4 foot diameter or an engine with a 7 to 10 foot diameter?

You can see engine size on that picture?

Besides the obvious difference in altitude in this picture, that is the second relevant factor in the difference in these two contrails.

defcon5, once again, please take the time to figure out how discern assumption from logic.

How is the difference in altitude so obvious? Could it be distance? Meaning could the plane with shorter trail be simply farther away, in horizontal plane?

Are there any points of reference on the picture which allow us to actually establish ANYTHING regarding to altitude/distance?

Going back to the ranging issue, did you have time to look into it yet?

These images are very strange indeed, i'm sure someone will argue that wind drift distributed these err trails in a way that made them appear as a grid, but why don't they extend above oceans??

Good point, and all sorts of satellite pictures show just that.

Do you think that any contrails you see around PDX should only be aircraft going to/from PDX?

No, the strange thing was that ALL contrails going to and from PDX were completely dissipating with in a matter of a 30 seconds to a few minutes, while the persistent contrails remained for hours, and originated from 6 jets that were flying in a pattern.

Actually any contrails you see are probably planes not going into and out of there, or else they would be most likely descending to land or climbing after takeoff. Planes overflying PDX as part of their route, and are at cruise altitudes, are the ones most likely leaving contrails.

More assumptions? Did it occur to you that asking a simple question is the remedy to avoiding all kinds of assumption? Why have you assumed to what I have seen, after I repeatedly described what is is I actually saw, and then dismiss it for your own assumption?

While the first part of that statment is logical, and actually confirms what I previoslty stated, the last part is in complete contradiction to the first, and to my previos statments.

Lets figure all that own and will see how it goes from that point.

You do know you can look at flightaware.com and see aircraft overhead, since it uses an ATC feed?

Yes, I did, but did you know that new system is about to be implemented, in which ATCs will no longer rely on radar tracking data, but on data fed to their centers directly from each jet through the use GPS navigation data?

How convenient will that be, just imagine, radar stating logs no longer be actually kept, and positioning data will be sent bu each plane, and how easy would it actually be to send a simulated position signal?

That way you can literally have thousands of planes in the air with out anybody actually knowing it.

priceless - you specifically asked fro " persistant contrail images " and that is exactly what you got

look carefully at them again -- particularly the shot of the VX777 prototupe -- that cloud above its fin is idential to what chemtrail proponents identify as a " spreading persistent chemtrail residue "

yes - the b-17 image is artfull - because of the 100s of thousands availiable -- the illustration editor of the book chose it as a 1/2 page image

your casual dismissal of images that were exactly what you requested is dishonest handwaving

you are simply moving the goal posts to allow yourself to pretend that valid evidence is inadmissible .

shame on you .

I beg your pardon? Shame on me? Shame on YOU sir, for presenting such insulting and IGNORANT babble.

What was the contrail dissipation time on the pictures presented? How can you call them "persistent" with any DATA?

Have you even ATTEMPTED to calculate their dissipation rate?

Do even have an idea of HOW it can be done?

Sir, it is obvious that LOGIC is concept you are yet grasp, and I would appreciate if you could find the decency to keep you empty insults to your self until you are in fact learn of logical reasoning.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by iskander]

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by mrwupy
The discussion is:

"ChemTrails for defense against space based Scalar Weapons"

Please remain on topic and stop the personal accusations. For those who do not understand this:

wupy

Thanks.. I had a pertinent question on page 2, which nobody has touched as of yet, but this became a titanic struggle over whether chemtrails exist or not which is not at issue in the theme this thread addresses.

As far as who and why when it comes to scalar weapons. Most likely the USA, the Russian federation and the bulk of western European nations. The true purpose and intent of Scalar weapons may have been lost to the cold war, however thier usefulness and avalibility justlfy the means to broaden the scope of thier application through expierimentation.

The best way to put an end to chemtrails is to learn more about aviation, meteorology and how aircraft navigate.

You will notice that people who believe in chemtrails are not knowledgeable regarding any of those, and those who are knowledgeable about those, do not believe in chemtrails.

Chemtrails believers get scared if aircraft fly down similar airways, they get scared if planes fly intersecting airways, they get scared if the exhaust causes ice crystals in rarified air at -50, they get scared if said ice crystals cause refraction.

More assumption? Here's a statistical fact, blind deniers are the first to ignore facts, to attacks logic, and to mount character assassination on anyone that disagrees with their point of view. All such patterns are CLEARLY evident t in this discussion.

As I clearly stated earlier, I'm not a "chemmy" and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I for one do NOT believe that what ever is released into the air is a deliberate spraying of the GROUND targets. Given the altitude, cross winds and sheer cost of such an attempt, it simply makes it IMPRACTICAL, especially in light of much simple and cheaper methods currently available.

I do not know for a fact what is being released, but I do know that PERSISTENT contrails are a new phenomena, which is present over land mass of countries through out the WORLD.

Nope, because I have personally seen chemtrail believers make issue of all of those claims. Chemtrails, and "scalar" are just both nonsense.

firepilot, what do you know about aerosol spray experiments of WWII? How about modern aerosol sprays which inhibit radar, IR and laser guidance of smart munitions?

Tesla was quick to be labeled a "crazy scientist" by the West, right after he actually CREATED the foundation for technological revolution, by inventing the very method of current transmission that literally electrifies our entire lives to this day.

While Edison invented the light bulb, he could not deliver electricity to power them over long distances do to use of DC, and it is in fact Tesla that invented AC current transmission.

Unfortunately it is a basic truth of human nature, that the people who criticize and ridicule others for thinking "outside the box", are the fact the ones who are incapable of creative, independent though.

To such people, all that is new and unusual represents instability to their ordered and structured lives, and they mistakenly associate instability with chaos, simply because they are instinctually afraid of not being in control.

I essence such denial is based on discrediting by association, which is the very foundation of social intolerance, or a concept of proverbial "village drunk". Since Tesla's theories were so far ahead of their times, and still are to this day, it is to easy for all kinds of denier to dismiss Tesla as the "village drunk" version of the crazy scientist, even though Tesla was the one that literally created the future of technological revolution.

The true paradox of such "denier" personalities lies in endless historical examples which show that they are the ones that are perpetually prone to reaching absolute extremes in blindly justifying true chaos, all for the sake of not upsetting their own understanding of THEIR reality, and they do so specifically because of their rigid and uncompromising nature.

Such personalities are a kind of subconscious fatalists, and they are the ones that make perfect subordinates, because they will blindly follow their leaders, ideologies or concepts, even though if it all means jumping of the cliff.

Social dynamics 101.

I have seen people make chemtrail claims because of planes flying down the same path, or in aviation speak, an "airway".

Claims have been made because intersecting contrails were suspicious.

Why does people who believe in chemtrails, have problems with ice formation at high altitudes, or think that if ice crystals cause refraction, that it is somekind of "oily sheen"?

Because until "ice formation" begin to naturally form with an "oily sheen", they are NOT ice formations by the very definition.

LOGIC, the antidote to delusion.

I work in a field of aviation that involves both piloting, and meteorological knowledge, very much involving the icing process of water at freezing temps. I have never seen anything a chemtrail believer saw that was suspicious to me.

Again, this is more of a psychology question then anything else. Back in the 60s an experiment was conducted, in which regular civilians were asked to administer an electric shock to a subject every time he incorrectly answered a question.

Look into that, and find out for your self what percentage of regular, everyday personalities were willing to deliver a deadly shock to a innocent subject, only because they were instructed to do so.

Do I find it strange that you are able to subconsciously justify what ever is occurring in your line of work? Not at all, but when you as a self proclaimed professional clearly state that ice can naturally form with an "oily sheen", I have to question the very nature of your position.

I for one not aware that cirrus can naturally form with an "oily sheen". It's like saying that water naturally comes with a very heavy concentration of mercury, even though the river passes right through a thermometer plant, and until the loved one of such a denier dies from mercury poisoning, he/she will simply not question a damn thing.

Such ridiculous scenarios happen again and again, and such personalities literally underline the very concept of human FUTILITY, because they are BLIND to reality, and indulge in their own comfortable existence in ignorance.

The very concept of the three monkeys was based on such reasoning, I see nothing, hear nothing, and I will speak nothing. On the opposite side of such a debate, is the concept of the thinking man who's forced to think not only for himself, but for everybody else as well.

The video is a ridiculous fabrication. A picture perfect example of age old disinformation tactics.

Back in the days, in order to compromise a rival, retched, diseased bums were regularly hired to advocate the ideas of the opposition in public gatherings, in order to associate political ideas with everything negative.

Modern negative political campaigns are simply a natural evolution of such tactics.

Same thing with various conspiracy theories. Nothing is cheaper and easier then to slap together a ridiculous web publishing, which by default associate every possible angle with all sorts of crazies who have nothing better to do.

One of the reason I quit my employment with FOX was such blatant use of various social engineering propaganda tactics.

We are literally one step away from having inserts of vomit, maggots and all other possible repulsive subliminal images spliced into our daily programming.

So is anybody actually interested in using their brains to discuss the issue at hand, or are we going to just stuck in this denial circle?

edit: had to split in 2 parts.

As far as who and why when it comes to scalar weapons. Most likely the USA, the Russian federation and the bulk of western European nations. The true purpose and intent of Scalar weapons may have been lost to the cold war, however thier usefulness and avalibility justlfy the means to broaden the scope of thier application through expierimentation.

Jaypeth, interesting views. Please go into it further, I would like to know more about your views on various Scalar projects.

btw, I'm a big fan of Makarovs as well. Best ones were still made in GDR, but for the price you can't beet Baikal and Izmash.

Originally posted by iskander
As far as who and why when it comes to scalar weapons. Most likely the USA, the Russian federation and the bulk of western European nations. The true purpose and intent of Scalar weapons may have been lost to the cold war, however thier usefulness and avalibility justlfy the means to broaden the scope of thier application through expierimentation.

Jaypeth, interesting views. Please go into it further, I would like to know more about your views on various Scalar projects.

btw, I'm a big fan of Makarovs as well. Best ones were still made in GDR, but for the price you can't beet Baikal and Izmash.


I have also explored the theroy of more modernized Scalar weapons being used to create elaborate crop circles. Some people say that crop circles are created by microwave based weaponry or stray microwave bursts. I tend to believe that crop circles are the deliberate testing and demonstration of Scalar accuracy and control. Crop circle tagging on the sovriengn soil of your foe is a great demonstration of strike capabilities and a fear bringer. Sorry I got a bit off base with the crop circles. My get tells me there is a connection between Chemtrails, Scalar and Orgon energy.

You totally missed my point in regards to an "oily sheen". Do you get alarmed or scared when you see colors from chemtrails, or cirrus?

Is it an oily sheen too when raindrops have colors to them when sunlight passes thru raindrops?

No, ATC is nowhere near working with GPS position reporting.

Show me any evidence of aerial trails from WW2 from aerosol spraying? How would you define an aerosol anyways?

Originally posted by iskander
Because until "ice formation" begin to naturally form with an "oily sheen", they are NOT ice formations by the very definition.

LOGIC, the antidote to delusion.

So, please explain to us what causes the different colors of the rainbow on an oil slick on a flat puddle, then explain how this works (or doesn't work) with a suspended ice crystal or raindrop.

Then explain how this is differnent from refraction.

Please look up the history of "sun dogs," and "moon dogs." tell up how they are formed in the absence of "chemtrails."

Don't forget to explain how irredicesent clouds are formed.


Then you will be qualified to discuss logic and delusion.

Originally posted by iskander
Here we go again, so would you think that telling a 4 engine aircraft from a twin engine is a relatively straight forward process?

Sure, but the majority of aircraft we are discussing are two engine wing mount.

Originally posted by iskander
What are you a prophet?

No, I spent many years being an airline ramp supervisor that dealt with everything that was loaded and pumped onto aircraft.

Originally posted by iskander
you are the one who doubts that altitude can be calculated by a simple individual with out access to a radar station.

Absolutely cannot be done. If you think it can, perhaps you should call the FAA and let them know how much money they are wasting on radar systems when a simple set of binoculars and a calculator will do the trick.

Originally posted by iskander
defcon5, my apologies, but it is evident that your are still missing the point here. In order to calculate approximate altitude all one needs is the approximate WINGSPAN of the airplane in question.

No sir, you are missing the point, there is no way that you can tell the difference between a 737-300 and a 737-800 with a set of binoculars, and the size difference between them is significant. You will also not be able to tell the difference between a A300 and a B777 in flight at altitude. The point is that the panes are getting more and more similar in layout and harder to tell apart at any significant distance.

Originally posted by iskander
Follow me on this one, given a KNOWN wingspan, and by using information I've already posted, make an effort and try to figure out how it all works before posting more irrelevant information.

There is nothing irrelevant in what I am saying, I am stating that you cannot KNOW the wingspan if you cannot ensure what aircraft type it is.

Originally posted by iskander
Oh for GODS SAKE, defcon5, please use FIND command in your browser, and type in TELESCOPE, and TRIPOD. When you find those words in my previous post, put it all together.

A telescope in not going to help you tell some of these aircraft apart from each other when they are getting harder to tell apart even sitting 100 feet apart from each other on the ramp.

Originally posted by iskander
You are asking me to explain you? How would I do that? I don't know you, so naturally I can't speak about you, because that would be an assumption.

I don't know what you did at the airport, and how you know for a fact that nothing is being sprayed. All of that is actually up to you to explain.

This is pretty simple really, but I will try and put if forth in an even simpler fashion for you:
1) I used to live north of Tampa International Airport, in the www.tampaairport.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Orange colored Flight tracks seen in this map:
2) The sky would often become obscured with contrails from flight banks on approach.
3) Those contrails would hang in the air for hours and spread out to become clouds.
4) I also used to work at Tampa International Airport, as a ramp agent, a lead agent, a fueler, and a ramp supervisor, over the years.
5) In those jobs, I was intimately familiar with EVERYTHING that was loaded into each aircraft.
6) These are the fluids that are loaded on an aircraft:

A) Potable Water.
B) Av Gas.
C) Hydraulic Fluid.
D) Blue Water.
E) Engine Oil.

Now, with that in mind, how could there be anything sinister to these trails that I saw, which look and act exactly the same as “Chemies” report them, but were created by aircraft I loaded?

And don’t tell me there is crap in the gas, you can go to the airport tank farm and purchase the fuel and use it in a diesel car, as a matter of fact we used to use it in our ground equipment with no Chemtrail being created. Every other substance I listed can similarly be purchased by everyday civilians and tested/used.

Originally posted by iskander
Man, you sure can see a lot form a low rez picture.

No I am making an educated guess based on my knowledge of aircraft types and engine layouts and the trails I see in the picture.

Originally posted by iskander
Assuming again? defcon5, it looks like it's a bit of a habit with you. Thinking is a better habit, and a healthier one.

I asked a question, and an assumption would be a statement, would it not? This is nothing more than you dodging a loaded question. You know you cut your own throat with that picture and now you don’t want to answer.

In order for your ascertation that one of these aircraft is spraying something to be true, then they must be flying at the same altitude, and you know as well as I do, that if you say they are, I can prove you wrong. There is no way that the FAA is going to allow two aircraft fly, at that degree of separation, at the same altitude. If they are not at the same altitude then you must yield to that fact that the temperature difference is what is causing the difference in the persistence of the contrails.

Originally posted by iskander
Gee, thanks a lot for bringing more irrelevance to this discussion.
How many of those flights reach 30k and how many are commuter hoppers?

Its absolutely relevant as it shows not only the amount of potential trails, even puddle hopping turbo jets can make them, but also that they make certain patterns in the sky. These are the same patterns attested to over and over by “Chemies” as being spraying patterns. Altitude is not the only factor involved in persistent contrail formation, humidity and temperature can be such that even a commuter flying at 10K feet can create contrails.

Originally posted by iskander
You can see engine size on that picture?

Nope, and neither can you. I can however tell the engine size by the aircraft type. As I said it appears to be an aircraft with tail mounted engines Vs an aircraft with wing mounted engines. Now following logic, since I know that all aircraft that have tail-mounted engines have an engine diameter under 4 feet, and all aircraft with wing-mounted engines have a diameter starting at 5 feet (with the exception of the few 737 1/200’s still flying), it isn’t rocket science.

Originally posted by iskander
defcon5, once again, please take the time to figure out how discern assumption from logic.

Man with my background lets just get one thing straight here. I am the one using logic, and you’re the one making assumptions, apparently to just win an argument at any cost.

Originally posted by iskander
How is the difference in altitude so obvious?

Because the FAA maintains specific degrees of separation between aircraft.

Originally posted by iskander
Could it be distance? Meaning could the plane with shorter trail be simply farther away, in horizontal plane?

I am not sure what you mean, but who knows since we cannot see anything in that photo that gives a reference. I would have to imagine though that if it was an optical illusion taken from a side angle, that we would not be seeing the aircraft silhouettes from the bottom, but at more of an angle.

So yes these aircraft are further apart then they appear in the photo, which means that the weather conditions similarly can be varied enough that one is not producing persistent contrails.

Originally posted by iskander
Going back to the ranging issue, did you have time to look into it yet?

Yeah, no one uses your method as its not viable, which is why when folks do model rocketry they figure altitude by descent time even though they know the exact size of the model they launched.

It appears the rest of your post is aimed at Firepilot, not me.

Originally posted by iskander

Do I find it strange that you are able to subconsciously justify what ever is occurring in your line of work? Not at all, but when you as a self proclaimed professional clearly state that ice can naturally form with an "oily sheen", I have to question the very nature of your position.

I for one not aware that cirrus can naturally form with an "oily sheen".

You mean like this?





(a couple of pictures I tokk earlier this month. Not the best examples, but fairly typical)

Simple defraction of sunlight by water droplets or ice. Just like rainbows.

Some observations based on the Weatherwars side run by Scott Stevens.

Just the link with the picture number for quick reference. Feel free to try explain the majority of these without involving the notion of 'coincidence'; funny how those are used to defend accepted theories but used to dismiss new ideas.

www.weatherwars.info...

8, Looks to me like their converging, why?


14,Turning around?

16. Does it not look like a marker to discover win shear? If so why the huge
effort if it's natural and can not be stopped?

***

www.weatherwars.info...

7. Since when do commercial planes fly in formation and change direction at the
same time?

8. What happened to that contrail? What exactly in the sky can make break up a
contrail like this?

9. As above

10. As above

11. As above

15. ( orbs)

17. what short of wind shear can twist a contrail like that?

18. Why is that contrail so deformed and why is another appearing nearby in the
exact area of the deformation?

19 Formation flying and then each going their own direction...

20 some kind of disturbance of contrail ( orb)

21 More disturbed contrails.

22 More disturbances ( orb)

25 More disturbances

26 More disturbances ( orb)

28 Hole formation ( orbs)

29 Black contrail?

34 More disturbances.

********

www.weatherwars.info...

5 Where does the wind come from that formed the specific 'hole' and look at how
the trail is twisting... ( orb)

6 more twisting ( orb)

7 numerous planes ,twisting ( orb)

8 Holes and twisting, clearly flying around cloud formation as if to discover
something about it's direction

9 Very many forces at work in such a small area.

12 opposing forces at work in cloud ( orbs)

******

www.weatherwars.info...

1 contrail changing form ( orbs)

3 contrail and wind shear ( orb)

4 Contrail breaking up with another appearing in the area of hole.

www.weatherwars.info...

****

1 What is the odds of three aircraft arriving at the same point in the sky at
just about the same time and that the conditions in that area allows for
contrails while the sky not 5 km's further does not?

2. Are those engines really running at a different pitch and if so could it
affect the contrail formation so drastically?

3. Two engines seems to be leaving entirely different contrails..

4. Two planes leaving different contrails

8. Why do the trails intersect in the openings between clouds?

9. As above but now it can be seen that the intersect points marks apparent
crosswinds..

10. Contrail marks area where cloud seem to be expanding.

12. Contrail marking center of hole in clouds... ( orb)

13. Contrails marking cloud edges. ( Orb)

17. Contrails marking wind shear and hole formation in contrail.

21 Symmetry in the sky? Dipoles in the sky?

*******

www.weatherwars.info...

14 Two planes deciding to turn around in exactly the same area of the sky.

******

www.weatherwars.info...

2. How close do civil flights get to each other?

3. Numerous contrails being laid by formation of planes.

12. Contrail formation with two planes laying additional contrails trough wind shear
area and 'hole' area.

16. Contrail with numerous holes punched trough it.

17. Extensive rippling effect visible in cloud ( orb)

Stellar

From the first link in that last post:

Beautiful, and it would be more so if it were natural. No this isn't just the natural refraction of water ice by sunlight. Yes, there is some of this occurring, but the colors are refractions of Ba & Al--- Barium and Aluminum the metallic content of these contrail flights.

(Emphasis added)

I need to look no further then that to conclude that the author of that page is a glorified idiot.

Whats up Howard. You must live on the west coast, because you always seem to be logging on when I am getting ready to go to bed.

Goodnight Howard, LGM

Do like my new Avatar? Its my new friend on the Dept. He has to drink one heck of a lot of water before he can get a fire under control

[edit on 29-10-2006 by LoneGunMan]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
From the first link in that last post:
I need to look no further

Please at least be honest enough to admit that you do not WANT to look further and are desperately seeking for a reasonable looking excuse.

then that to conclude that the author of that page is a glorified idiot.

Well i am not sure what the IQ scale for a idiot is but do you believe that a idiot will be able to point a camera in the general direction of contrails and press the right button and publish it on the internet? Maybe idiots can do that but even if he needed help with the development and internet publishing i would still like to see you attempt a reasonable explanation of the numerous odd events captured in those pictures. Obviously the fact that he is in your opinion a idiot rules out the question of him faking all those pictures so at least that wont be a issue here.

PS. I have actually corresponded with Scott ( the owner of the website) on a few occasions and he seemed quite intelligent so i do not share Howards sentiments in this regard. He responded to my first email within the week so if you want to send him photo's , i have'nt as it's not that interesting a topic imo, he will probably respond with a verdict.

Stellar