posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by luxordelphi
Oh, I am very calm...still waiting on good ole Scott to post the data from the radiosonde he promised in the video. I mean, the guy put that out there
like a big, steaming horse apple...I wonder why he will not post that data...I can almost guarantee you the humidity at altitude was over 40 percent
and well within range to produce persistent contrails...
This guy is a fool leading fools...
So I'm starting to get the picture here of how Scott Stevens (and Carnicom before him) was able to determine that humidity levels were not high
enough to support persistent contrails.
No, you are not starting to get the picture...Scott stated very clearly he needed the radiosonde data to prove the humidity was not at 40 percent in
order to demonstrate persistent contrails are an impossibility in the sky shown in his video. He stated this data was guaranteed to prove his claim.
Well, he failed to present the data. So, he like anyone else who thinks they can tell what the humidity levels are at 25-35K feet, simply by looking
at the sky, is talking out the side of their neck...in other words, they are lying like a rug...
That is the picture. Scott Stevens knows the data from the radiosonde proves him wrong. In response, he fails to show the data and keeps repeating the
same old bull...
How exactly is officialdom putting out data on relative humidity over my head with this sparse data? Is my relative humidity just assumed to
be the same as the nearest 'returned' radiosonde?
No. Assumptions are not made. Only you and Scott and the rest of the crowd who believe in chemtrails make assumptions about conditions at altitude
with no data to support your assumptions.
So who's lying? Where is the data to support your theory?
Scott Stevens is lying. He lied about his credentials. He lied about the radiosonde data. My data would have been the same Scott Stevens would have
posted...except he did not want to post it, because it proved him a liar.
edit on 4-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason
edit on 4-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)