Chemtrail seeder caught on photo

reply to post by luxordelphi

No, baby doll, what I'm saying is don't twist and trick and use semantics to prove your con

And those semantics would be?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Thorr

 

Persistent contrails are everyday...somewhere conditions are right for contrails to persist and spread- everyday.

Spare me your bunk science. You all have NO humidity, altitude, temperature, nucleatable particle saturation levels, storm front or at least cirrus forming conditions and cloud corridor (trajectory) data on a flight by flight basis to prove or show anything. You got nothing. You never had anything. You never will have anything.

What you do got is a con. Enough to fool some of the people some of the time. (Abe Lincoln) But only as long as they don't look up.

Thankyou for the link which I am enjoying.

edit on 7-8-2012 by luxordelphi because: add thankyou note

...and yet again you crash and burn upon the ramparts of fact and logic.

Anyone- should they choose to make the effort can have humidity, altitude, temperature conditions in the approximate location of any trail they see.

Indeed, the link which you are so enjoying EXPLICITLY lays out ALL of those conditions and even identifies the specific planes from which the persistent trails emanated. Please explain why the science of that paper is "bunk"

...but you won't.

You will continue to bob and weave- throwing out blanket statements, broad generalizations and outright falsehoods and never once actually provide ANY substantive evidence or data to back up your claims.

Face it, you are either a troll or so dogmatic in your ignorance that you have closed your mind to actual facts and logic.

Faced with evidence that utterly contradicts your claims you simply ignore it and move on to some other illogical, easily dis-proven claim.

This paper from 1999 is a summary of all known persistent contrail data to that date...even then- at the dawn of the "chemtrail" religion...it shows that your beliefs were/are false:

www.ipcc.ch...

Will you actually address any of the evidence presented to you..or simply ignore it and move on to something else.

do you get sand in your eyes when you look up?