DH says:

"Well, I think I put enough irony into my response to allow you that conclusion, in case you couldn't come up with the goods ."

It's not a case of "irony"; it's a case of dishonesty on your part.

You said you were too lazy to actually do any research ("then I am ineffably lazy, and I think if you take the right approach to idleness, i.e. that of a zealot...")

I appreciate you honesty about the laziness, dh; but in most cases, people who actually do research is not called "zealots".

They're called "scientists".

The fact is that Howard and I did exactly what you asked us to do (since you said you were too lazy to do it yourself), and, once we showed you the results of our research, you quickly changed the subject.

Your arguments keep going away, dh.

Your kung-fu is weak.

Grrrrrr!

[edit on 4-12-2004 by dh]

Originally posted by dh
Grrrrrr!

[edit on 4-12-2004 by dh]

Well I did a bit of editing and was just left with a growl
So I'll bang OFT's comment back here for reference

"Well, I think I put enough irony into my response to allow you that conclusion, in case you couldn't come up with the goods ."

It's not a case of "irony"; it's a case of dishonesty on your part.

You said you were too lazy to actually do any research ("then I am ineffably lazy, and I think if you take the right approach to idleness, i.e. that of a zealot...")

I appreciate you honesty about the laziness, dh; but in most cases, people who actually do research is not called "zealots".

They're called "scientists".

The fact is that Howard and I did exactly what you asked us to do (since you said you were too lazy to do it yourself), and, once we showed you the results of our research, you quickly changed the subject.

Your arguments keep going away, dh.

Your kung-fu is weak.

'Howard and I - ???? - you guys work in unison then because I've looked back, and I've seen Howard's response but nothing from you. Off_The_Street

Howard gave us nothing but a few wartime contrails pix and a painting

What us fanatics want is a picture from the 'Seventies or 'Eighties of an idyll with a skyscape of formatted spreading decisively lingering contrails which wouldn't be too hard to capture nowadays

As Anok says, the picture of some wartime contrails doesn't add up to much

And if you're going to use a bit of self-deprecation against me, then I'm going to come back with my Kung-Fu Fighting
Hence the Grrrr - though maybe should have been the Hi-Yahhhh


[edit on 4-12-2004 by dh]

Originally posted by dh
Yes, that is quite funny, if you want to believe that the whole presentation is true, Howard, and you want to believe that the institutions and scientific research funded from the top end, and the artists employed from those quaters are only going to represent the absolute truth, and whoever said that contrails don't exist? Because that's all that's represented on that mural. Aircraft exhaust

Your paranoia is getting the best of you. What about the milllions of visitors, many of which actually flew in those planes during WWII?

at any rate. if you admit that what you are looking at in that mural and in the WWII pictures is normal aircraft exhaust, then how can you claim that you are seeing something different today?

There are a lot of planes up there, and if you are curious as to who owns them and where they are going, then why don't you check out flight explorer also?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
[

at any rate. if you admit that what you are looking at in that mural and in the WWII pictures is normal aircraft exhaust, then how can you claim that you are seeing something different today?

Well, I'll pay out a small sum for a lot of things, but not to see how many aircraft are about today. I fully understand that. I doubt it'll tell us much about how they are performing as observed from the ground
I'll give you credit Howard, at least you gave us a painting and a couple of wartime shots of fast-moving tight-formation dog-fighters doing their thing and leaving some dirty contrails behind
I'm sorry that Off_The_Street appears to claim that your work is his.
Then perhaps he's only waiting for my declaration of immanent conversion

Perhaps I should declare that if I see one decent picture from about a decade ago that shows a smaller-scale instance of parallel-lining or cross-hatching then I'll re-consider my position.
Yes, I could be right there with you guys railing against the nutters and the hoaxed


[edit on 5-12-2004 by dh]

Nurp - these freaks can come up with nothing
Oh well - until the next time....

Originally posted by dh
Nurp - these freaks can come up with nothing
Oh well - until the next time....

High Five dh....LOL

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by dh
Nurp - these freaks can come up with nothing
Oh well - until the next time....

High Five dh....LOL

Well, I don't really want to put this post to the top ANOK, but just to publicly acknowledge ....

If you want to continue to believe in "chem-trails", of course you can. It is a (more-or-less) free country, you know.

But you also know that most people think it's silly, and the only place where you can even talk about it without people laughing at you is in places like this.

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
If you want to continue to believe in "chem-trails", of course you can. It is a (more-or-less) free country, you know.

But you also know that most people think it's silly, and the only place where you can even talk about it without people laughing at you is in places like this.

I declare this thread dead - it's going nowhere and yes it's very very silly Off_The_street, if that's the best you have to offer

Originally posted by dh


I declare this thread dead - it's going nowhere and yes it's very very silly Off_The_street, if that's the best you have to offer

The thread is dead, simply because OTS and I have proven that there is a simple, rational explanation based on science and not on supersition (oooh, the evil boogyman is trying to poison me!)


However I have grown tired of arguing with you. I will leave you with the nine famous question of Jay Reynolds.

No Chemtrail believer has ever sucessfully answered them, I don't expect you to either. They will sit here in this thread and mock your every post!

1.Do you have a background in a technical field? If not, whom do you consider to have such a background who would state the case for "chemtrails" being a case of "geoengineering"? If no one with such a background exists after five years of interest(enough time for a baccalaureate degree to be earned) why not?

2.Which resource do you depend upon for accurate, sound scientific informaton about "chemtrails"? If none can be relied upon, why not?

3.Several meetings were held this past year which were unparalleled opportunities for you to present papers or exhibits to distinguished scientists in fields relevant to "aerosol research" and "aviation emissions". I have examined the proceedings and found no evidence that such a presentation was made. Did you, or any other"chemtrail" interest person present at these conferences? If not, why not?

4. What is your personal definition of 'chemtrails"?

5. What are ordinary contrails, how are they formed, and what determines whether they persist, or not?

6. In what way are alleged "chemtrails" different from ordinary contrails?

7.What is the best scientific proof available that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?

8.Could you please direct our attention to a photo of an
archetypical "chemtrail", one which you would attribute to "geoengineering"?

9. William Thomas has stated the following: "the formation of condensation trails requires temperatures lower than about minus 76 F". Is that statement correct, and if not, do you personally consider Thomas an accurate source of information?

This is not natural.

If these are "normal" contrails, these planes have some SERIOUS pollution problems that need to be addressed IMMEDIATELY. Even if you don't believe chemtrails are an Aerosol Spray Black Project program, you should be outraged at how much pollution these planes are spewing into your air.

What I find intriguing about coney's first picture, is the rainbow displayed between the contrails/chemtrails....yes I am aware it "could" be water..but my first thought was that it reminded me of how oil looks on the surface of water.....it's also kinda cool to look at the vortex that is swirling in the contrails/chemtrails I would imagine it is caused by the thrust from the engines and the speed of the aircraft.

But then again it makes you wonder...who took the pic...if it is a secret...how would they have gotten ahold of the pic, and why is it allowed to be published anywhere...plausible deniability?

coney says:

"If these are "normal" contrails, these planes have some SERIOUS pollution problems that need to be addressed IMMEDIATELY."

Since when are ice crystals "serious pollution"? Do you think we should take steps to address the "problem" of cirrus clouds? They're ice crystals too, you know!

"Even if you don't believe chemtrails are an Aerosol Spray Black Project program, you should be outraged at how much pollution these planes are spewing into your air."

Aircraft do pollute, of course; any engine that burns hydrocarbons pollutes! But the pollution from an aircraft (and I'm talking real pollution here, not "chem-trails") is an order of magnitude less per passenger mile than that of a bus, car, or motorcycle. Cleaning up other hydrocarbon-burners, especially autos and electrical generating plants, will do a whole lot more to addressing pollution than to stop jet airplanes from flying.

Netstorm says:

"But then again it makes you wonder...who took the pic...if it is a secret..."

Uhhh -- maybe because it isn't a secret?

"...how would they have gotten ahold of the pic, and why is it allowed to be published anywhere...plausible deniability?"

Uhhh (at the risk of sounding repetitive) -- maybe because it isn't a secret?