Painting the sky..(pics)

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Call me what you want. Actually, I'd LOVE to get one of those jobs being a "spook" as you call them. What a hoot! I'd get paid for proving you wrong with scientific evidence!

No, I'm no spook...just a poor air force guy that has flown too many hours in the last few months (been busy, you know?!) so I have to fly the desk for a while, giving me time to have some fun.

Thanks for supplying it in such abundance!

And you still misquoted me...

it's always my pleasure to bring joy to people.
been bombing villages and stuff lately? those little children are better off without there lives and limbs, anyway. sorry to hear it tires you out. that must be rough, too.
and lord knows we have to protect the corporate power pyramid. where would we be without our masters?

Your either being sarcastic or your completely and irrationally Mad.

Originally posted by Sapphire
it's always my pleasure to bring joy to people.
been bombing villages and stuff lately? those little children are better off without there lives and limbs, anyway. sorry to hear it tires you out. that must be rough, too.
and lord knows we have to protect the corporate power pyramid. where would we be without our masters?

Your either being sarcastic or your completely and irrationally Mad.


It's definatly the latter, Sapphire. However, I think I would use the words sick, depraved, inhumane...ect...sarcasm denotes the attempt to make a joke. He was simply being as repulsive as he could be, something that I have found comes quite naturally for him. Ignore is a great feature on this board.

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by Sapphire
it's always my pleasure to bring joy to people.
been bombing villages and stuff lately? those little children are better off without there lives and limbs, anyway. sorry to hear it tires you out. that must be rough, too.
and lord knows we have to protect the corporate power pyramid. where would we be without our masters?

Your either being sarcastic or your completely and irrationally Mad.

It's definatly the latter, Sapphire. However, I think I would use the words sick, depraved, inhumane...ect...sarcasm denotes the attempt to make a joke. He was simply being as repulsive as he could be, something that I have found comes quite naturally for him. Ignore is a great feature on this board.

the problem is that the truth hurts. nobody likes it.

i had never seen a 'sundog' in my life. now, ive seen three.

Seriously? I've seen lots in my life so far. I don't get why sundogs are associated with chemtrails. It's just light being refracted through water/ice particles. It doesn't have anything to do specificly with contrails either, as far as i know. Just sun shinning through thin cloud. But then what do i know, i'm probably just a disinfo spook too

Originally posted by jra

i had never seen a 'sundog' in my life. now, ive seen three.

Seriously? I've seen lots in my life so far. I don't get why sundogs are associated with chemtrails. It's just light being refracted through water/ice particles. It doesn't have anything to do specificly with contrails either, as far as i know. Just sun shinning through thin cloud. But then what do i know, i'm probably just a disinfo spook too

i don't think, so. maybe, though. they're a real problem, for sure. even if there is no such thing as a chemtrail, there definitely is such a thing as a disinfo specialist. this is the most volatile wing of all the different propaganda mediums. the science of media is a whole 'nother ball'o'wax.

i have seen light effects in the clouds before, too, but these 'sun dogs' have that sickly oilslick look to them. that's what i've never seen before.

hey, Have any of you gotten your Checks lately?? I havent gotten mine for like a month. All spook and no pay I guess...

Originally posted by Milk
hey, Have any of you gotten your Checks lately?? I havent gotten mine for like a month. All spook and no pay I guess...

Yeah..I got mine...maybe yours was held up by Santa Claus...DOH!!! I guess i let the cat out of the bag, huh? DAMN!!!

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by jra

i had never seen a 'sundog' in my life. now, ive seen three.

Seriously? I've seen lots in my life so far. I don't get why sundogs are associated with chemtrails. It's just light being refracted through water/ice particles. It doesn't have anything to do specificly with contrails either, as far as i know. Just sun shinning through thin cloud. But then what do i know, i'm probably just a disinfo spook too

i don't think, so. maybe, though. they're a real problem, for sure. even if there is no such thing as a chemtrail, there definitely is such a thing as a disinfo specialist. this is the most volatile wing of all the different propaganda mediums. the science of media is a whole 'nother ball'o'wax.

i have seen light effects in the clouds before, too, but these 'sun dogs' have that sickly oilslick look to them. that's what i've never seen before.

FWIW, rent the movie "The Deer Hunter." Right at the beginning of the movie as the guys are leaving the mill to go hunting, there is a sundog in the sky and DeNiro states that they are good luck for hunters.


how is a "sickly oilslick" looking sundog different from a normal everyday sundog?

Seriously, that makes no sense what so ever. How can a refraction pattern look "oily?"


In fact, I will go so far as to nominate that as the dumbest claim yet in relation to chemtrails. The scientific ignorance that is in evidence by that statement is so incredibly deep that it really makes me worry for the future of this country. Has our educational system failed that miserably, or is Billybob just an aberration.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by jra

i had never seen a 'sundog' in my life. now, ive seen three.

Seriously? I've seen lots in my life so far. I don't get why sundogs are associated with chemtrails. It's just light being refracted through water/ice particles. It doesn't have anything to do specificly with contrails either, as far as i know. Just sun shinning through thin cloud. But then what do i know, i'm probably just a disinfo spook too

i don't think, so. maybe, though. they're a real problem, for sure. even if there is no such thing as a chemtrail, there definitely is such a thing as a disinfo specialist. this is the most volatile wing of all the different propaganda mediums. the science of media is a whole 'nother ball'o'wax.

i have seen light effects in the clouds before, too, but these 'sun dogs' have that sickly oilslick look to them. that's what i've never seen before.

FWIW, rent the movie "The Deer Hunter." Right at the beginning of the movie as the guys are leaving the mill to go hunting, there is a sundog in the sky and DeNiro states that they are good luck for hunters.


how is a "sickly oilslick" looking sundog different from a normal everyday sundog?

Seriously, that makes no sense what so ever. How can a refraction pattern look "oily?"


In fact, I will go so far as to nominate that as the dumbest claim yet in relation to chemtrails. The scientific ignorance that is in evidence by that statement is so incredibly deep that it really makes me worry for the future of this country. Has our educational system failed that miserably, or is Billybob just an aberration.

all's i said was i had never seen them, now i've seen three. i didn't actually say it proved or showed anything. that inference is yours. i didn't make a dumb claim. just an observation. you'd be out of a job if some of us weren't observing, so don't try too hard if you want to pay your bills.
unfortunately for all of us, i am an 'abberation'. i have hope that someday others will awaken to higher reality, though. some here have already. i see you're picking on them, too. guys like you actually help the process, the same way that breaking from a cocoon makes the butterfly stronger.
here are two words for you to learn, precept(what you have) and percept(what i have).

OK, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself.


How is an oil slick on a puddle of water like the refraction in a sundog?

How are they different?

What is it that you are implying by your observation?

Come on, prove to me that you "observation" does not indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic principles of optics and physics.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
OK, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself.


How is an oil slick on a puddle of water like the refraction in a sundog?

How are they different?

What is it that you are implying by your observation?

Come on, prove to me that you "observation" does not indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic principles of optics and physics.

i think we can all recall what oil on water looks like. i don't need any science fundamentals to have seen that. i have never seen this splitting of the light spectrum in a cloud before. i have seen it through mist, but not through a cloud.
the 'sickly' aspect was the predominance of yellow, with only a hint of other colours along the leading edge.

i don't need a science background to know what i have and haven't seen in my lifetime. i haven't seen other sundogs, so i have no point of reference for comparison. it looked gross. like pollution.

speaking of science, how come you haven't corrected stuart yet?

Originally posted by billybob


i think we can all recall what oil on water looks like. i don't need any science fundamentals to have seen that.

Do you know why oil causes a sheen on water? It helps if you understand that.


What you are observing in the sky is a phenomena known as iridescence.

"Iridescence is caused by diffraction of light by uniform cloud droplets or ice crystals. Iridescence is a remnant of very large coronal diffraction rings around the moon or sun, much distorted and incomplete. It looks like an oily water surface, or petrol stains, pastel colors, with pink and light green appearing most prominent. Cloud types which often show iridescence are altocumulus lenticularis, cirrocumulus and occasionally fractocumulus."

here

(click for a site with some great photos)

i have never seen this splitting of the light spectrum in a cloud before. i have seen it through mist, but not through a cloud.

Again I suggest that you google the terms "Iridescence cloud"

the 'sickly' aspect was the predominance of yellow, with only a hint of other colours along the leading edge.

So what?

i don't need a science background to know what i have and haven't seen in my lifetime. i haven't seen other sundogs, so i have no point of reference for comparison. it looked gross. like pollution.

Just because you have never seen/ noticed this before doesn�t mean that they didn�t exist before. These are well-documented optical phenomena that have been observed and recorded for centuries.

speaking of science, how come you haven't corrected stuart yet?

Why? He has been right so far.

You on the other hand, don�t understand and you don�t want to know what you are looking at. You don�t bother to try to learn about the physics behind what you are seeing, because it would destroy your preconceived ideas. You embrace the chemtrail theory, not because of some half a$$ed observations that you have made, but rather because the theory fits your political viewpoint and no amount of common sense, or science is ever going to convince you otherwise.

That is also why you are so contemptuous of science. You can�t beat it, so you sneer at it.

Chemtrails ARE real. Period. Here's the link of the 5 microbiologists that are dead, investigating the Chemtrail phenominon www.stevequayle.com...
also those who are arguing if they even exist.. you are failing to see the even bigger picture. Chemtrails are just a small part of the many evil things that are going on with the government.

[Edited on 26-12-2003 by porschedrifter]

Uh, they weren't investigating the 'Chemtrail phenomenon'.

Besides, that would be more of a meteorological investigation to start with. For a microbiological investigation you would have to go and sample the actual contrail itself, and take control samples of the surrounding atmosphere.


The whole Chemtrail Issue is starting to get very 'Moon Hoax-ey'. It seems people believe Chemtrails exist purely because they see quite a few other people saying they do. While there is precisely zero scientific evidence suggesting that there is any truth to the theory.

[Edited on 26-12-2003 by Kano]

Originally posted by Bangin
From jra's link:

Fact: There is no such thing as a "Chemtrail". Contrails are safe and are a natural phenomenon. They pose no health hazard of any kind.

StuartAllsop, get a grip.

Sure. Not a problem. I'll get a grip just as soon as you show me exactly WHERE I said that contrails pose no health hazard of any kind.

Next time, you might want to check your FACTS before you falsely accuse others of saying things that they did not say.

(And YOU think that I need to "get a grip"? Yeah right...)

Originally posted by billybob

well put. there is more to communication than hard facts, stuart. your 'body language' is giving you away.

And just what migvht it be "giving away" prey tell?

did you know that 100% of statistics are used to convince somebody of something?

Only when misrepresented, misused and/or misunderstood.

you're singlehandedly convincing me that chemtrails are real.

Like they say: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." No skin off my nose if you refuse to even LOOK at the truth...

if you really want to convince people, you should stop being such a pompous windbag about it.

But I just take my cue from chemmies! All I do is exactly what THEY do! As soon as they drop the "pompous windbag" attiude, then I'll do likewise.

but, as most people around here know, this is a tactic of making people shut up. you ridicule them until they give up.

Yep! That sure seems to be standard chemmie tactics!

i noticed you aren't giving up. very noble of you.

Yep! Thanks very much. But their tactic doesn't work on me. Because I give back as good as I get.

notice i'm not ridiculing you. i want you to keep spouting 'facts' though. keep digging your hole.

OK. Not a problem. Are you planning to refute any of those facts that I've been "spouting"? Since you placed the word facts in quotes, obviously you do not agree that they are facts. Since you think that my "spouting" them is tantamout to digging a hole, you are implying that you have evidence to the contrary that you believe will ridicule me in some way. Therefore, I'm calling your bluff: Show your evidence. You have now come out into the open, and directly implied that you do not agree with any of my facts. So now, in order to avoid riducling yourself, you will have to actually produce some real arguments and real evidence to refute my facts.

Because of you don't, then your underhnaded tactic will become blatantly obvious to all. (And yes, the word "underhanded" most certianly is abblicable to the tactic of hinting that you have evidence that will prove someone else wrong, but without actually presenting any such evidence).

howard, how come your not pointing out stuart's mistakes?

Maybe that would be because I have made no mistakes?

isn't truth what we all want?

If that is true, then how come you refuse to accept the truth when it is layed out in front of you?

Originally posted by THENEO

I don't need proof of anything, my souce is 100% accurate and that is all I need.

Delusions, delusions, delusions...

You keep on claiming accuracy, and that you don't need any proff, yet you have refused to answer the questions that would demonstrate whether or not you have any such accuracy.

Q: How do you tell the difference between "chemtrails" and contrails? No answer.

Q: How do you determine the altitude of an aircraft? No answer.

Hmmmm......


I wonder why that might be ... ? ....

Originally posted by THENEO

I don't need proof of anything, my souce is 100% accurate and that is all I need.

Delusions, delusions, delusions...

You keep on claiming accuracy, and that you don't need any proff, yet you have refused to answer the questions that would demonstrate whether or not you have any such accuracy.

Q: How do you tell the difference between "chemtrails" and contrails? No answer.

Q: How do you determine the altitude of an aircraft? No answer.

Hmmmm......


I wonder why that might be ... ? ....

Originally posted by billybob
say, bangin'. what do you think? do you think AR, howard, and stuart have proven that our eyes don't work?

Oh, I'm not at all concerned about your eyes! I reckon that your eyes probably work just fine. But I am concerned about the functionality of the organ located jiust a few inches behind your eyes....

Originally posted by StuartAllsop
Sure. Not a problem. I'll get a grip just as soon as you show me exactly WHERE I said that contrails pose no health hazard of any kind.

Next time, you might want to check your FACTS before you falsely accuse others of saying things that they did not say.

You have obviously misinterpreted my post. I understand the reason for your confusion. I simply quoted jra's link, since he was the last post at that time. Then, I responded to your 'waste of my time' post. The contrail quote had absolutely nothing to do with my post to you.

Unlike you, instead of posting time after time, after time, I narrowed the space down to one post. I addressed jra's link and then I addressed you. As everyone can see by scrolling up, you've posted consecutively. I, on the other hand, chose to use one post to address the items that I needed to comment on.

As I previously stated, get a grip.