Chemtrails

[Sam Kent]

1. Are you able to explain the picture I posted from 1940 that shows the same saw tooth pattern you claim is ‘new’?

2. Have you ever heard of ‘plane spotting’? It’s a world wide hobby where people photograph the comings and goings of aircraft. They record the tail numbers and airports where that planes fly. Here is a site that has 71 popular websites listed for this hobby.

http://www.thirtythousandfeet.com/spotting.htm

There are only so many planes built by the manufacturers. If a significant number of these planes were flying unusual (spraying) missions, they would have picked up on it in their data.

3. Now are you are going to claim that they do the spraying while hauling passengers? Well they can’t. A plane with a full load of passengers can’t carry the volume of liquid needed to spray these long paths you are seeing.

4. If they are trying to keep the spraying a secret why don’t they only spray at night?

Can anyone explain away any of these 4 points?

[Charles Drago]

The Kent/Lewis tag-team assault on Jack White happening here mirrors the tactic evident on the EF.

They begin politely, invite civil exchange, and then quickly sink to the default "attack" mode.

The broader agenda is to assault all conspiracy hypotheses with the weapons of pseudoscience, evasion, and ridicule.

While some of their questions to Jack often may stand as valid scientific inquiry, K&L give away their shared game in many ways -- none more obvious than when they demonstrate feined ignorance.

Q. "Why don't they only spray at night?" [sic]

A. 1. Hide in plain (plane?) sight. 2. Operational necessity. 3. Support of "transparent conspiracy" strategy. 4. Some/all of the above.

Next, K&L treat us to a classic strawman fallacy:

Q. "A plane with a full load of passengers can’t carry the volume of liquid needed to spray these long paths you are seeing."

A. 1. There is no reason to believe that only commercial aircraft would be spraying. 2. The assumption that the "long paths" could be produced only by spraying large volumes of liquid is invalid due to the absence of information regarding the composition of the "paths."

I could go on and on ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a "Matthew Lewis" character is one of the EF's primary debunkers.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the ether ...

Jack White is my friend. He is also a man full grown who must defend his own positions. No one on this forum is out to protect Jack from legitimate criticism.

Nonetheless, something stinks about the Kent/Lewis attacks. And I assure you, I'm not the only one who has their scent.
_______________________________________________

The following is reprinted from one of my previous posts (May 26, 2010):

Chemtrail debunkers are quick to note that long, lingering, widely spreading "contrails" occur due to various -- and presumably predictable and consistent -- combinations of altitude, temperature, relative humidity, other meteorological conditions, engine performance parameters, fuel mixtures, etc.

The familiar shorter, quickly dissipating, and therefore ostensibly benign phenomena too are dependent on similar factors.

It would stand to reason, then, that over the course of any 12-month span and absent contributing factors not present during the previous 12 months in which contrails of diverse appearance were observed and noted from a fixed location, we should see consistently diverse patterns in the skies.

Here's the problem: For the past year, daytime observations of classic "chemtrails" from my fixed observation point have all but ceased. In the previous year, the "chemtrails" were present on an almost daily basis.

To my knowledge, flight paths have not been altered (I'm under flights from Boston, Hartford, and Providence airports). I have no way of knowing if changes have been made in altitude, fuel composition, engine configuration and performance, etc.

Again to my knowledge, there has been zero meaningful fluctuation in weather patterns.

Further, my observations have not diminished in terms of quantity or quality.
So if "chemtrails" are in fact "contrails" ... Where the hell are they now?

[Sam Kent]

[size=12]Next, K&L treat us to a classic strawman fallacy:

[/SIZE]

Strawman as in “I see planes spraying chemicals 30K feet above my house.”?

[size=12]The broader agenda is to assault all conspiracy hypotheses with the weapons of pseudoscience, evasion, and ridicule.

[/SIZE]
Pseudoscience?
What kind of proof is “Because I said so.”? That’s all they have as proof. That’s the same proof they used for income verification two years ago, which precipitated the mortgage crisis.
The science of contrail formation is science fact. It has been proven many times over the years.
The science of chemtrails is based on nothing more than fallacious supposition.
When you practice that kind of backyard science you have to expect bugs in the results.

Evasion?
As in not answering my question? I’ll ask it again.
Doesn’t the picture I provided from 1940 show the same ‘saw tooth’ pattern as the one Jack provided, where he claimed it’s ‘new’?
We non believers have provided evidence at every turn. Where the believers have only provided supposition.

Ridicule?
We ridicule the believers theories not the person.

[size=12]Nonetheless, something stinks about the Kent/Lewis attacks. And I assure you, I'm not the only one who has their scent.

[/SIZE]

The only thing that stinks is some of the theories that Hbers have. Not the people.

[Charles Drago]

My case, she is rested.

[Matthew Lewis]

The Kent/Lewis tag-team assault on Jack White happening here mirrors the tactic evident on the EF.

They begin politely, invite civil exchange, and then quickly sink to the default "attack" mode.

How does asking questions, (which are ignored) and presenting evidence (also ignored) constitute an attack exactly?

The broader agenda is to assault all conspiracy hypotheses with the weapons of pseudoscience, evasion, and ridicule.

Please show where I used any pseudoscience, evasion, and/or ridicule.

While some of their questions to Jack often may stand as valid scientific inquiry, K&L give away their shared game in many ways -- none more obvious than when they demonstrate feined ignorance.

Q. "Why don't they only spray at night?" [sic]

A. 1. Hide in plain (plane?) sight. 2. Operational necessity. 3. Support of "transparent conspiracy" strategy. 4. Some/all of the above.

Next, K&L treat us to a classic strawman fallacy:

Q. "A plane with a full load of passengers can’t carry the volume of liquid needed to spray these long paths you are seeing."

A. 1. There is no reason to believe that only commercial aircraft would be spraying. 2. The assumption that the "long paths" could be produced only by spraying large volumes of liquid is invalid due to the absence of information regarding the composition of the "paths."

I could go on and on ...

Please do because I am at a loss to know hwo I was involved with either of those questions. I have never met or seen Kent before seeing his posts on this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a "Matthew Lewis" character is one of the EF's primary debunkers.

And? Is it against the rules to be a member of more than one forum? By saying "Matthew Lewis" character are you implying that is not my name? Any evidence for that?

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the ether ...

How is it not exactly? What have I done except try to ask questions and provide evidence?

Jack White is my friend. He is also a man full grown who must defend his own positions. No one on this forum is out to protect Jack from legitimate criticism.

Yet he seems unwilling or unable to actually defend his own positions. I would LOVE for him to do so. I would LOVE to have actual discussion with him about this issue.

Nonetheless, something stinks about the Kent/Lewis attacks. And I assure you, I'm not the only one who has their scent.

Again, how have I attacked ANYONE exactly?
_______________________________________________

The following is reprinted from one of my previous posts (May 26, 2010):

Chemtrail debunkers are quick to note that long, lingering, widely spreading "contrails" occur due to various -- and presumably predictable and consistent -- combinations of altitude, temperature, relative humidity, other meteorological conditions, engine performance parameters, fuel mixtures, etc.

The familiar shorter, quickly dissipating, and therefore ostensibly benign phenomena too are dependent on similar factors.

It would stand to reason, then, that over the course of any 12-month span and absent contributing factors not present during the previous 12 months in which contrails of diverse appearance were observed and noted from a fixed location, we should see consistently diverse patterns in the skies.

Here's the problem: For the past year, daytime observations of classic "chemtrails" from my fixed observation point have all but ceased. In the previous year, the "chemtrails" were present on an almost daily basis.

To my knowledge, flight paths have not been altered (I'm under flights from Boston, Hartford, and Providence airports). I have no way of knowing if changes have been made in altitude, fuel composition, engine configuration and performance, etc.

Again to my knowledge, there has been zero meaningful fluctuation in weather patterns.

Further, my observations have not diminished in terms of quantity or quality.
So if "chemtrails" are in fact "contrails" ... Where the hell are they now?

You state yourself "to your knowledge" there have been zero meaningful fluctuation in weather patterns. Have you looked at the weather at 30,000+ feet or just that on the ground? Do you realize that the two have very little to do with each other? It is possible (although I can not say for sure) that changes in altitude, fuel composition, engine configuration and performance, etc. have been made. I don't know.

What I do know is EVERY "chemtrail" picture or video I've ever seen can be explained by the long known science behind contrails. I also know that what believers call "chemtrails" can be seen in photos, videos and descriptions in newspapers dating back to WWII and before yet "chemtrail" believers say they didn't start until the late 90's. I know that science says that contrails can and do persist given the right conditions.

I have presented evidence to show these and I am accused of attacks. This is exactly why I waited a year to make my first post on this board. I knew this forum was started by some who used to post at the Education Forum. I didn't like everything that happened there to cause and continue the rift (from both sides) and decided to wait and see what the general feeling of this board was. So far it isn't good.

My further personal evidence is that there are no contrails (persistent or not) or "chemtrails" if you must call them that, in my present location of Panama City, FL. Nor were there any the last time I lived here 5 years ago. I know that the vast majority of commercial traffic is routed around this area due to the multiple military airspaces located here used for training of fighter aircraft for Tyndall AFB and Eglin AFB. I know that military training for fighters involves briefing the known contrail formation altitudes (they can be predicted) so they can be avoided (contrails of any sort only help an enemy to spot you) If there was a mass spraying campaign why would they avoid this area? It is open to military traffic and even commercial traffic with coordination. The reason that makes the most logical sense (to me anyway but I'm open to suggestions) is that what is claimed as "chemtrails" are in fact contrails produced by primarily high flying commercial aircraft. Those aircraft are absent in this location.

Is it "possible" there is a worldwide spraying program with possibly nefarious purposes? Sure. Have I seen anything yet that can't be explained by contrail science? No.

Would you like to comment on the evidence I posted in my last post?

[Sam Kent]

I read MLs long post on EF tonight.

It’s filled with link after link of fact filled science. Enough to choke any fence sitter.
Too bad, it will never change the mind of those hard core believers.

You know what they say. Never let the facts screw up a good hoax.


I’m worried about Jack, he hasn’t answered any more of my postings. Perhaps his internet is down again.

[Magda Hassan]

If any one is looking to change Jack's theories about chemtrails/contrails I think you are barking up the wrong tree and to set out to do so can only end in a bad way for all concerned here. Jack is satisfied with the evidence available to him that they exist. Move along guys and talk about contrails/chemtrails (and other subjects) by all means but leave the baiting of Jack out of it. Not using his name but still directing your question/s to him doesn't change that either. Deal with the evidence, theories, suppositions, facts, hypothesis, science etc and not the person please. There are a range of theories about the subject amongst the members here as there are about other subjects so please feel free to put forward yours but know that here we are united in protecting Jack as a person who has been subject to personal attack by various persons in various forums. We will have none of that here.

[Jack White]

If any one is looking to change Jack's theories about chemtrails/contrails I think you are barking up the wrong tree and to set out to do so can only end in a bad way for all concerned here. Jack is satisfied with the evidence available to him that they exist. Move along guys and talk about contrails/chemtrails (and other subjects) by all means but leave the baiting of Jack out of it. Not using his name but still directing your question/s to him doesn't change that either. Deal with the evidence, theories, suppositions, facts, hypothesis, science etc and not the person please. There are a range of theories about the subject amongst the members here as there are about other subjects so please feel free to put forward yours but know that here we are united in protecting Jack as a person who has been subject to personal attack by various persons in various forums. We will have none of that here.

Thanks for the defense, Magda. Study of chemtrails does not need
defending, since 1000s worldwide have studied the same evidence
and found that covert spraying is the cause of chemtrails. It is all
connected to "global warming" and was recommended by the late
Ed Teller years ago. Teller suggested that an "umbrella" of artificial
cirrus clouds to screen out sunrays was a feasible program. Some
officials and weather people admit that is what is going on. The
AF Academy offers a course in CHEMTRAILS 101. I observe them
over Fort Worth daily or weekly flying various patterns unlike
airliner traffic. Chemtrails are not something that I made up;
thousands observe them daily. They did not start appearing in
our sky until about 10 years ago, despite claims that they go
back to the 40s.

Lewis is a member of the Air Force, stationed in Georgia, as I
recall. He follows me from website to website, "baiting me" into
"debating" with him. His ONLY point of debate is that chemtrails
are "persistent contrails". His mania for persisting in this strange
behavior has only one logical explanation, in my opinion.

I am 83 and my arthritis makes getting around a pain. I went
to the funeral of my next door neighbor of 40 years today. My
grass has been suffering from TAKE ALL ROOT ROT, and I have
been fighting that fungus for up to 4 hours a day. I maintain a
historical website of more than 2000 pages. 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.
Maintaining decorum prevents me from describing Lewis in
anatomical excremental terms.

Thanks.

Jack

[Malcolm Pryce]

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.

[Magda Hassan]

Malcolm, by all means please discuss Matthew's information with him and others here. I encourage you to do so. My concern and that of others here is to do with some personal history on another forum which involved ourselves and Jack and we simply do not wish to go there again and are just making sure the boundaries are very clear.