reply to post by luxordelphi
Originally posted by luxordelphi
Calling something a name doesn't make it so.
A prime example being...
Originally posted by luxordelphi
But your 'science' is like dogma which persists in the face of contrary observation.
So you attempt to use 'science' to claim that contrail persistence is rare (it's not, based on our actual knowledge of the atmosphere
and
observation), but once it's shown that you've failed miserably, you claim all the science is wrong. You have nothing to back up this claim other
than your own ignorance.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
There aren't enough radiosondes anywhere in near enough proximity to each other to account for humidity/lack of humidity levels in the isolated yet
neighborly spots of atmosphere involved in the morse-code-like series of dashes across the sky made by a chemtrailing segmented drop/spurt plane. You
got nothing. You got no evidence. You got assumptions.
Since you seem to be ignoring what you have been told repeatedly, I'll try to make it more obvious for you.
CLOUDS!
You have made the assumption that there are no pockets of humidity, when the evidence presented clearly refutes this. Are you still going to claim
that there is no such thing as pockets of humidity? I would not have though it possible, but your ignorance is reaching new heights in this thread so
it probably shouldn't be too suprising if you do.
To the OP, this is why you look at all the information, instead of simply believing posters like this one who repeatedly spread misinformation and
mislead others with their erroneous claims, and refuse to acknowledge they're wrong when they're repeatedly shown to be so, while claiming everyone
else is wrong without ever providing evidence to back them up.
