posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 08:37 PM
Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
I'm going to help out here and say that people don't revisit the contrail site because:
Well that's very helpful of you - thanks.
But my conversation with SirClem was nothing to do with people revisiting the site.
it was about identifying what is on it that is junk or disinfo.
Perhaps you cold help him to identify some of that stuff??
(a) It bears no resemblance to what is actually going on in the sky
Presumably except for all those photos of aircraft andcontrails and clouds, and photos and videos of things that chemmies say are going on in our
skies, and stuff liek that?
(b) It is too long
there's a lot of science in the sky!
But I tend to agree - the message system makes some of hte pages very long indeed.
But that has nothing to do with whethe or not the info at the top of each page is true/junk/disinfo.
(c) Persistent contrails are speculative at best and imaginary at worst
Really? And yet there's all this science out there saying that they do exist - and photos from as far back as WW2 of vast sheets of long lasting
contrails from B-17's over Germany - or are you saying that the bombing campaign was actually about spraying Germany with barium & aluminium rather
than high-explosives encased in steel??
Well apart from incendiaries of course - lots of them droped and they were, AFAIK, often aluminium because it burns so hot.....
So if "Persistent contrails are speculative at best and imaginary at worst" with massive amounts of evidence hat they do actually exist, how is it
that yuo can claim that "chemtrails" are any better when there is no evidence for them at all??
edit on 23-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)