Chemtrails

[Matthew Lewis]

The AF Academy offers a course in CHEMTRAILS 101.

Correction. The USAFA USED to offer a course called with a book called "chemtrails" years before people SAY they started to show up and years before William Thomas coined the phrase to mean "chemical contrails". Anyone who looks at the book (I have some screenshots of it on another computer that I may post later) can see it is for a freshman level Chemistry class. In this case it appears to be simply a coincidental name meaning something like pathways in chemistry. The book has nothing in it about contrails, "chemtrails", spraying, weather control, or whatever the current theory is.

They did not start appearing in our sky until about 10 years ago, despite claims that they go back to the 40s.

Then what about the evidence I posted showing exactly that? How is that explained? I'd really like to know.

Lewis is a member of the Air Force, stationed in Georgia, as I recall.

You prove you don't even read the posts of those you disagree with. My last post said I currently live in Panama City, FL. I have also said MANY TIMES that my opinions are my own. I am not paid or compensated in any way to post here or anywhere else. I'm believe you were trying to imply that.

He follows me from website to website,

I did not come here to follow you. I gave my reasons for coming here in my last post. I've been civil. So far I'm not impressed with the reception and frankly have been toying with the idea of leaving altogether. I wanted to give this forum the benefit of the doubt. As I said before, I did not agree with what happened on the other forum on either side. This "cheery" reception is starting to change my mind.

"baiting me" into "debating" with him.

How is asking legitimate questions and presenting evidence "baiting" anyone?

His ONLY point of debate is that chemtrails are "persistent contrails".

If the shoe fits...

His mania for persisting in this strange behavior has only one logical explanation, in my opinion.

Good thing it is only your OPINION then. As I have stated before, my interest in this subject is due to a love of aviation and an abhorrence of ignorance. I have done my own research and come to a different opinion than you. Is that not allowed?

I do not need hassle from Lewis or others, and certainly have NO time to "debate" him. I am entitled to my opinion based on my observations and studies without being pursued and harassed by people like Lewis.

How have I harassed or hassled you? I'm curious. Should I not correct something I see as wrong no matter who posted it? Have I ever said you weren't entitled to your opinion? It may only APPEAR that I have pursued you because we are posting on opposite sides of the same subject. But I have posted many places on many subjects where you are not. Don't flatter yourself Jack.

[Magda Hassan]

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

I just don't think Jack is going to play ball. :playingball: He has neighbours to farewell, lawns to grow, a web site to maintain and doctors appointments to keep. But there are others here who might.

[Matthew Lewis]

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

I just don't think Jack is going to play ball. :playingball: He has neighbours to farewell, lawns to grow, a web site to maintain and doctors appointments to keep. But there are others here who might.

I don't think so either. I don't expect him to as that would be out of character for him. I still don't feel that statements that are verifiably wrong either about me or about the science should go unresponded to just because he won't answer. What would a new observer think if they see some points unanswered or implications about other forum members unresponded to? At the very least questions and responses for him might stimulate discussion amongst others. I am still looking for civil discussion no matter what he (or others) may think.

[Jan Klimkowski]

I do not know the truth about chemtrails.

However, if chemtrails are a covert operation of some sort, then much of the science and logistical implementation would be kept secret.

There are many sceptics who would say that it would be impossible for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people to keep such a secret.

Indeed, these sceptics would suggest that the notion so many people could keep such a secret for years and years and years is a ludicrous "conspiracy theory".

However, we have a prime example from the very world of aeronautics of a Big Secret being kept by thousands of people for more than a decade.

That example is Stealth.

[Matthew Lewis]

I do not know the truth about chemtrails.

However, if chemtrails are a covert operation of some sort, then much of the science and logistical implementation would be kept secret.

There are many sceptics who would say that it would be impossible for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people to keep such a secret.

Indeed, these sceptics would suggest that the notion so many people could keep such a secret for years and years and years is a ludicrous "conspiracy theory".

However, we have a prime example from the very world of aeronautics of a Big Secret being kept by thousands of people for more than a decade.

That example is Stealth.

I agree that it would be kept secret if it exists. Is it possible that there is some massive spraying program? Sure. But so far, everything I've seen can be explained.

A big difference between this and stealth would be that a majority of the claimed trails come from verifiably commercial traffic. Stealth was known that it was being worked toward. What was secret was just how far we had come with it. As far back as the 50's (I've seen rumors about even in late WWII) we had some aircraft with stealth characteristics. The SR-71 and the U-2 had some stealth characteristics. It just wasn't until the F-117 and the B-2 that we had gotten it down.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Yes - Stealth was rumoured. Just as chemtrails are rumoured.

Indeed, Stealth was often ridiculed, perhaps deliberately in a mockingbird fashion, as the "invisible plane".

As Nick Cook, former Aviation Editor for Jane's Defence Weekly, a supposed bible of the military tech world, wrote in "The Hunt for Point Zero":

...since the money for the F-117A programme - to the tune of several billion dollars - had been appropriated from the Pentagon's "black budget", ringfenced as it was from public scrutiny, that was how things remained until 1988, when the outgoing Reagan adminstration revealed just what it had hushed up for so many years.

The F-117A, the bland press release stated, had gone operational in 1983. For five years, its pilots had operated at squadron strength "in the black", roaming the desert night skies of the US Southwest, practising for the nighttime attack mission they would be required to perform in a war. The disclosure had only been made at all because the air force wanted to expand the training envelope and start flying the F-117A by day. Otherwise it would have remained buried even longer.

During the F-117A's five years of secret ops, thousands of workers had been involved in the assembly process at Burbank; hundreds more in supporting the aircraft at Tonopah. And yet, not one had breathed a word about it.

The big story in November 1988, then, related to the existence and capabilities of the Stealth fighter, a programme that rivaled the scale and daring of the Manhattan Project almost fifty years earlier. Like the bomb programme, the F-117A had been meticulously covered up, but unlike the bomb programme, the secrecy had held.


(p120, Cook)

The historical record clearly shows that after a limited hangout for political purposes by Carter in 1980, Reagan's regime deliberately took Stealth back into the black.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airch...1/cunn.htm

A demonstration of just how far the Reagan administration was willing to go with keeping stealth technology secret can be seen in statements by Air Force Secretary Verne Orr in July 1981. Contradicting what Secretary of Defense Harold Brown had stated the year before and disregarding reports of several years in the technical media, Orr called the stealth bomber a "paper airplane" and "wishful thinking." He also expressed doubt that American industry could handle such a "rush program," when in fact the F-117A was developed in record time.24

(snip)

The cost of keeping the F-117A a complete secret for nearly a decade must have been enormous in both human and financial dimensions. The entire facility at Tonopah, Nevada, where the F-117As are based until they are scheduled to be moved in 1992, was constructed for the stealth fighter program. Until the F-117As arrived, the only buildings there werethose of an old World War II training facility.77 Great expense was also incurred when Lockheed personnel commuted daily to the facility from the company's plant in Burbank, California.78 These are but a few of the types of expenses involved in keeping a major program under wraps.

The extreme secrecy of the program had human costs as well. To keep the number of personnel assigned to the F-117A units as small as possible, pilots were made to carry out functions that otherwise would have been handled by a separate staff. This was likely a leading cause of fatigue among pilots flying the aircraft, which led to accidents that otherwise might have been avoided. Additional contributing factors to fatigue and accidents included radio silence orders and the constraint of flying the aircraft only during night hours to avoid detection.79 One report by a retired Air Force general indicates that the pilots of F-117As were all but ordered to die with their aircraft if it became necessary to come down in any unsecured location: "If you can't bring it home, then you auger it in ... even if you have to go in with it."80 Pilots flying in Red Flag exercises at nearby Nellis were supposed to have been "forced down" if they got too close to a stealth aircraft and refused orders to move away.

Under Reagan, the F-117A was a phantasm, protected by national security and rumour.

[Matthew Lewis]

Yes - Stealth was rumoured. Just as chemtrails are rumoured.

Granted.
The difference that I see is that everything I have yet seen regarding "chemtrails" has a mundane explanation based on the long known science of contrails. The "chemtrail" theory rests on the assumption that contrails must always dissipate quickly and never persist and that they were never seen before 1998. I have show those are both untrue.


Here are some scans of the "chemtrails" book mentioned in an earlier post. I obtained these from another forum, godlikeproductions.com , where someone else actually did all the legwork tracking the book down. As anyone can see, it is from a CHEMISTRY 131 class also known as freshman level basic chemistry. It contains all the same subjects that any other freshman class in any other university would cover.
Cover

Contents page

Lab manual cover

Again this was years before the "chemtrail" theory says these trails were seen and years before the word "chemtrail" to mean chemical contrail was coined by William Thomas. Even if the Air Force had a secret spraying program would they really teach all about it to every freshman at the academy, many of which will only stay in the Air Force for their initial 4 year commitment and get out? I think most logical people would agree that it is simply a coincidental title for an unrelated course. In my opinion, thinking otherwise is on par with assuming that because a college psychology class studied this book
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Extreme...r+textbook
that the university commits mass murder.

[Matthew Lewis]

I am disappointed by the response here to Matthew Lewis's evidence.

I have no axe to grind, I am sympathetic to the people and aims of this forum, and am convinced on some issues such as JFK and 9/11.

And I have no idea who Matthew Lewis is. That said, as a fair-minded observer I have to say the information he posted is extensive, well documented, well-argued and, frankly, a damn sight more intellectually robust than most claims I read about alleged chemtrials.

He has been accused of evasion, pseudo-science and ridicule. I see no real evidence to justify these claims.

I don't want to upset people, I just want to find the truth. And I especially don't want to inadvertantly promulgate non-science and lay myself open to the charge of lacking intellectual rigour when I talk about other deep political events.

Thank you for your support. All I'm looking for is a civil discussion.

[Malcolm Pryce]

Surely the point that chemtrails are allegedly sprayed by commercial aircraft is fatal to the argument of the chemtrail proponents.

Yes, the Stealth project was an excellent example of the military keeping a big secret for a long time.

But it would be dwarfed by what we are asked to believe about chemtrails.

This would have to be a secret kept across numerous countries, involving thousands if not tens of thousands of civilians. How come none of the ground staff, technicians, engineers, pilots etc. have noticed or spoken out? What reason would they have to stay silent? Or are we saying they don't know? Who loads the liquid onto the plane? Doesn't it take up an awful lot of space and add weight? How come none of the pilots have spotted what must, after all, be a very strange departure from the norm?

I don't doubt the military spray stuff into the sky for various reasons. But I just can't believe in a worldwide conspiracy involving commercial airliners to surreptitiously spray us all.

[Jack White]

Surely the point that chemtrails are allegedly sprayed by commercial aircraft is fatal to the argument of the chemtrail proponents.

Yes, the Stealth project was an excellent example of the military keeping a big secret for a long time.

But it would be dwarfed by what we are asked to believe about chemtrails.

This would have to be a secret kept across numerous countries, involving thousands if not tens of thousands of civilians. How come none of the ground staff, technicians, engineers, pilots etc. have noticed or spoken out? What reason would they have to stay silent? Or are we saying they don't know? Who loads the liquid onto the plane? Doesn't it take up an awful lot of space and add weight? How come none of the pilots have spotted what must, after all, be a very strange departure from the norm?

I don't doubt the military spray stuff into the sky for various reasons. But I just can't believe in a worldwide conspiracy involving commercial airliners to surreptitiously spray us all.

I know of nobody who studies chemtrails who suggests
that commercial airliners are used. There is NO evidence
suggesting this. Large unmarked tanker jets of the type
used for aerial refueling are used.

Attached is an alleged spray attachment, though most
chemtrails I have seen are twin sprays coming from the
wing/engine areas.

Jack