Painting the sky..(pics)

Originally posted by StuartAllsop

Originally posted by billybob
who has foot in mouth now?

Looks like you do, as far as I can see. Why do you ask?

one of the stated objectives of HAARP is ELF related communication and subterranean imaging.

And your link to this would be where? (Yes, I have read that too, but I didn't see you post any link to support your claim).

as mikromarius point out, "beat" frequencies can be introduced into higher frequencies.

No they cannot. Beat frequencies are just the DIFFERENCE between two or more higher frequencies. You need at least two slightly different frequencies in order to get a beat between them. You cannot do it with one soingle carrier. Oooops! What were you saying about feet in mouth?

a little science for y'all. i'm surprised a super scientist(video store clerk, did you say?) like you forgot that simple fact.

I didn't forget anything. But you, oin the other hand, in your haste to try to show that you know something about science, have actually proved that you know even less that we gave you credit for. Which wasn't much to start with.

howard, you too. carrier waves are a principal in wave study.

No they aren't. They are a basic principal in radio broadcast, but have nothing at all to do with basic wave study. Besides, carriers have nothing to do with beat frequencies. Ooops! Is that both feet at once I see going down your throat?

this looks like another attempt to confuse the lurkers, who have no science background.

Well, you've been doing a pretty good job of that up to now, haven't you? Fortunately, the lurkers now have Howard and myslef and others around, to keep you on the straigh-and-narrow.

stuart, i hate to say it, but your off my respected list.

I didn't know that I was ever on it! And I can truthfully say that I'm not exactly very concerned about being "on" or "off" any list you might happen to have...

i've been patient with your derision. no more , you pompous windbag. stating you have won a debate does not mean you have.

No, but to those who have been following the discussion, the fact is pretty clear, regardless of whether or not you agree. Your opinion on the matter is entirely unimportant. The facts speak for themselves.

you haven't proved # with your scientific obfuscation tactics.

Hmmmm.... that's strange! I thought the science was pretty good, and I can't see anything wrong with it. What part did you not understand? If you show me where you think I went wrong, or where you got confused, I'd be happy to go over it again, and explain it for you, one more time.

you're so busy laughing and pointing fingers, that you have ignored the bigger picture.

What possible "bigger picture" could there be then sciecne? Science deals with the entire universe, from the scale of subatomic particles right up to the scale of superclusters of galaxies! How much bigger can you get that that?

To me, your comment sounds like yet another cheap attempt to try to hint that you know what you are talking about, when in actual fact you have demonstrated the exact opposite.

there is overwhelming evidence pointing to goals of weather modification and study.

Sure there is! Nobody denies that! Scientists all over the place are studying the weather, and trying to figure out if there is any way that we could influence it to our benefit, on a very small scale. So far, with only ambiguous results, at best.

But that is not what the chemmies are talking about. Not even close.

there are patents.

Yes. No doubt about it. There are NUMEROUS patents out there that have NEVER seen the light of day as a manufactured object. Did you really thin kthat every single item that exists on paper as a patent, has acutally been manufactured? And did you really think that if the Air Force intended to spray us all from jet planes, that they would go and publish the patent for doing so in the public domain? If you do actually believe either of those, then you are in far worse shape than I suspected...

there are official statements.

There are? Really? That's GREAT!!!!! WHere are they? Please show them to us!!!! Just post the links here, or photos of the documents, so taht we can see for ourselves. (in other words, I'm calling your bluff...)

eye witnesses.

Cool! Where are they? Oh, but wait a sec.... I guess you probably mean the handfull of conspiracy theorists that love to take photos of the sky and post them on web sites. Is that who you mean?

your honor, i respestfully request this man be removed from the courtroom for contempt.

Well, well, well! Bingo again! Aint that strange.... a troll who is seriously losing a debate, big time, asking for his opponent to be removed, just because the opponent is winning!!!!! Whoever would have thought.....

i have no proof of chemtrails, but you have no disproof either.

I don't need any! Why would I go around looking for proof of something that doesn't exist?

But at least you have finally admitted that you have no prrof of chemtrails. Therefore, what you have is a belief. Plain and simple. Nothing more. You believe in them, simply because you want to, despite the total lack of evidence. At least you are honest enough to admit that.

you yourself have stated you can not prove a negative,

No I didn't, Becaseu it isn't true. All I said was that it is difficult to prove a negative. It is not impossible. On the contrary, it is possible to prove a negative.

and then you go on to say that there are ABSOLUTELY NO chemtrails.

No, I haven't said that either. You are trying to put words in my mouth. What I have said is that there is absolutely no EVIDENCE for "chemtrails", hence no reason at all to think that they exist. If the very best chemmie "researches" have been unable to come up with even a tiny shred of evidence after FIVE YEARS OF LOOKING, then the chances are that there is no such thing as a chemtrail, since all observations are consistent with the known behaviour of contrails.

very unscientific of you.

Nope! Think again!

same with this picture of the strange cloud. you state with absolute authority that it is natural, yet say you know nothing about it.

Nope! Once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that "with absolute authority that it is natural" and neither did I say that I "know nothing about it". Why did you twist my words? How come you didn't just quote them directly, instead of presenting your own warped version, for you own purposes? Hmmmmm.... Does the word "dishonest" mean anything to you?

also very unscientific of you, objective boy. (i make no claims on the cloud, except that it is very unusual, so don't put feet in my mouth).

I don't need to put your feet in your mouth! You are doing an excellent job of that, all by yourself, without any help from me!!! It's fun to sit back and watch, though, so please do feel free to keep on doing it.

yes, i did read the NASA article
quote: Currently, the properties of soot generated by aircraft exhaust are not well understood. We do not know how effective these particles are as ice nuclei.

wow, i found an instant cure for foot in mouth!

Hmmm... I'm trying to see your point, but it is pretty elusive.... I think you are trying to say imply that NASA knows nothing about contrails, but that isn't waht they say at all. Rather, they say that it is the poperties of the SOOT that are not well understood. You are also implying that they don't know if soot particles will work as nucleation sites for condensation, but what it actually says is that they don't know exactly how EFFECTIVE they are as nucelation centers. BIG big difference....

Once again, it looks like you are playing pretezel-knots with the words of others. Either that, or your reading comprehension skills are worse than we thought they were....

despite my attempts to keep it civil,

Can't say that the rest of us noticed much of an attempt on your part. Could you give us an example?

you have continued to belittle my very sound deductive reasoning and logic.

Cough! If it was "very sound" and "deductive", then I would NOT be able to belittle it, would I? Since you yourself say that I did, in fact, belilttle it quite succesfully, then clearly it never was either sound or deductive! QED.

Besides, if the cap fits, then wear it!

at least i don't have head up ass disease like you, stuart.

Guess you haven't looked in the mirror lately....

you can't see the forest for the trees, ...especially through a microscope. how's that for ad hominem?

ABout what I was expecting! How's my comeback doing?

howard, nice math. THAT is what i like.

OK. So I guess that means that Howard's math has now convinced you that "chemtrails" don't exist? It must be so, since you made no attempt to counter his arguments...

i will let the history of this thread speak for itself. people make up their own minds about who is winning a debate.
it is good to know that the search for knowledge is finally over. no more possibilities. no more unanswered questions. i guess we can close down all the research facilities now.
it is very interesting that this is the first topic and only topic you've posted on at ATS, and voluminously, at that. you sure are spending a lot of time and energy on it.

Originally posted by billybob

i accept that jet contrails are turning into clouds. i don't accept that it is something that has been around as long as jet engines have.

Much longer than that, actually. About 87 years, if memory serves me. It is a common falacy among chemmies that you need a jet engine to procude a contrail. Not true. Any type of engine that burns hydrocarbon fuel in the atmosphere is capable of producing a contrail. Rocket, ramjet, scramjet, rotary, reciprocal, whatever. It doesn't matter. As long as it burns hydorcarbon fuel in air, it can potentially produce contrails.

i have already stated why. my memory. i have seen contrails form and persist for at tops, an hour. they still evaporated, though. they didn't turn into clouds.

Of course they did! If you could SEE them, then they WERE clouds!!! No doubt about that.

contrary to stuart's seemingly omnicient info, the nature of the crystalization process, as described by you, requires a much smaller volume(than having a fully laden african swallow) of particulate matter to promote cloud growth.

Sorry, but I lost you there. Howard and I are talking the same language, saying the exact same things. He describes the process better than I can, but that doesn't mean it is a DIFFERENT process. Just that I'm not as good as describing it as he is....

the air is not prejudice. many different types of particles will work. some better than others, i'm guessing. it would be possible add a relatively small apparatus which could combine with exhaust after the turbines, so the abrasive argument, stuart was making is also flat wrong.

Huh? What abrasive argument? What are you talking about? Are you referring to the fact that aluminium oxide is a highly abrasive powder, or that chemmies flatly state that aluminium oxide is the major component of "chemtrails"? Or both? Either way, I am not wrong. You can check in NUMEROUS places to find out that Aluminium Oxide is VERy abrasive, and you can check all the chemmie wbe sites to find out that they insist that this is the exact component that is most prominent in "chemtrails".

why can't you, by the same token, admit that there may be an additive in the exhaust of specially modified tankers

Could be, but not the THOUSANDS of planes, all over the place, all at once! The airforce doesn't even HAVE that many planes, total!

(the airforce has other top secret aircraft that have never been seen, i don't think it would be hard to 'hide' jets of this nature, so the argument of support logistics being too insurmountable is also not holding water).

You cannot compare a couple of top-secret experimental airfcraft kept out of sight, to the thousands of highly visible planes that leave trails every single day! Not in the same ballpark at all!

the evidence continues to build towards a positive on contrails being used to modify weather.
why will you not admit this?

Becuase it isn't so. You keep on SPECULATING more and more, but you STILL have not provided any evidence to support your speculation. I can speculate for hours on end about the fir-breathing dragon that I belive my neighbor is hiding in his garage. But all that speculation will not force a dragon into existance! I can speculate all I want, but it proves NOTHING about the dragon, unless I come up with some really solid evidence. I can get a whole bunch of other people to speculate along with me, very loudly, but it doesn't matter HOW MUCH speculation we do, the dragon won't start exsiting just becuase of our speculation!



[Edited on 22-12-2003 by StuartAllsop]

[Edited on 22-12-2003 by StuartAllsop]

Originally posted by billybob
...
(what frequency has a wavelength of 1360 ft.?)

About 720 kilohertz. Why do you ask?

The low frequency element is approximately 69 feet long and 52 feet above the ground (Figure 2.2-5), and transmits 3.2 MW of energy in a frequency range of 2.8 - 7.6 MHz.

Oooops!! That's a far cry from ELF, isn't it! 3 to 8 MHz is nowhere NEAR the ELF range. 3 to 8 MHz works out to wavelengths of about 100 meters to 40 meters (around 330 feet to 130 feet), so clearly the 69 foot elements are half-wave dipoles for the lower end of the range, and quarter wave dipoles for the higher end of the range. Exactly what you woud expect! Do the math. Also, they are situated 3/8 wavelength above the ground plane for the low end, and 5/32 for the high end. Not bad, for decent ground coupling.

i apologise for being rude. really. sorry. especially stuart. i actually lost sleep and feel very badly for my rude comments. god bless.

That's OK! Don't sweat it. I have a thick skin....


[Edited on 22-12-2003 by StuartAllsop]

You can't see air so then, does it really exist or is it mere speculation?

Originally posted by mikromarius
Microwaves can heat up any given "object" super fast and at low energy costs compared to other techniques.

No, that isn't true. It depends entirely on a number of factors, such as the density of the object, it's specific heat capacity, it's orinatation in relation to the microwaves, etc.

And when they seem to spread metal in the air the effect of such heating is multiplied several times.

No, you cannot ever get more energy out of a system than you put in. If you put in 10 kilowatts, then the maximum possible heat you could ever expect to get out of it is 10 kilowatts. I doesn't matter how much metal you put ito it.

Microwaves produce heat.

No, microwaves ARE heat. The don't produce it, they ARE it.

And such heat can indeed modify the weather, creating clouds and even earthquakes. Period.

It can? Then how come none of the weather modification groups around the world are using micorwaves in their attempts to modify the weather? What is it you know that they don't know?

And how can microwave s cause earthquakes? Earthquakes are events that happen at depths of hundreds of MILES below the surface of the earth. But microwaves cannot penetrate more than a tiny fraction of an INCH into the ground! Earth, rock, soil, sand etc. all block microwaves very, very efficiently. So how can microwaves possible effect somthing that is several billion times beyond their effective range?

Originally posted by billybob
some related topics(keywords) are: ... "tom beardon"....

Tom Bearden? Is he still around? I thought that he was hiding in shame, these days, after having been so totally exposed as a fraud. Is he still tryiing to peddle his "MEG" devide to unsuspecting investors? Or is he on to some new scam now?

Originally posted by mikromarius

Microwaves are radio waves. In the case of microwave ovens, the commonly used radio wave frequency is roughly 2,500 megahertz (2.5 gigahertz). Radio waves in this frequency range have an interesting property: they are absorbed by water, fats and sugars. When they are absorbed they are converted directly into atomic motion - heat.

Didn't see anything in there about them being able to heat air. Did you miss out part of it, when you cut and paste?

Do you agree that the air is full of water and biological material.

No. I agree that a very small percentage of the air is made up of water vapor, which is not the same as water. I do not agree that the air is "full of biological material". Where did you get that from?

If so do you then agree that it is possible to heat up the air by microwaves?

No, I do not.

What's your point?

My point is that you cannot heat air with micorwaves, to any appreciable degree. If you could, then aircraft would have contrails IN FRONT OF THEM, not behind them, since that is the direction that their radar systems point. Also, you'd see contrails coming out of the radar dishes at airports, on ships, in military bases, weather radar, microwave relay towers, cell phones, ....

Get the point?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by billybob
not secret military aircraft though. they could be unmarked.

No they can't. ALL aircraft must be marked, even military. Even secret military. If the fly in US airspace, they MUST be marked. Period.

they could also issue directives to civic airspace controllers in the name of 'national security'.

Oh really? Where abouts in the FARs do you see that?

you're probably aware this is another of the claims out there.

Claims, yes. Plenty of claims out there. But no facts....

what about a simple fuel additive? [/quote/That would also require an STC for the engines, the fuel system, the pumps, the sensors, everything. NOt to mention getting some attention from the EPA...

and besides, once again, this does not apply to military aircraft. especially not top secret ones.

Yes it does. If anything, military aircraft are even MORE tightly controlled by documentation than civilian.

ask anyone who's burned toxic material at area fifty one and had their skin bubble up, what the military thinks of the governments rules.

And how would one go about finding such a person, to ask them? It's very difficult to find a fictitous, non-existant person!

but, so many civilians, just everyday people, are noticing the same thing? it's not just one area.

Well, yes! Of course! Planes do fly pretty much everywhere these days!

a good 'chemmie' doesn't know what the hell they are doing. they just know that something is different and are searching for answers.

And when they are given the answers, the refuse to even look at them! .... If they really WERE searching for answers, why would they do that? Why would they reject the answers when they are starting them in the face?



[Edited on 22-12-2003 by StuartAllsop]

Originally posted by Bangin

If contrails are supposed to create an entire cloud cover over the sky, then I suggest we all go over to NASA's contrail watch site and post our concerns.

Well, you could do that. But I think you still haven't realized the full depth of what you've just learned about contrail conditions. Think about this: You've leanred that contrails form when conditions are ripe for them to form, and all that is needed is the slight extra nudge from the jet exhaust. So, you know that contrails form where the conditions ARE RIGHT FOR CLOUDS TO FORM, and they are just waiting for a trigger. Got that? Good. So, in the case of a contrail, the trigger is the jet exhaust. But it could also be a number of other things... such as, for example, additional moisture coming in, or temperatures chaging, or pressures changing, or dust, or ..... Got the picture? You have a bunch of air that is ready and primed to turn into a cirrus cloud. That much is clear. All you need is a trigger, and there are many of them.

In other words, what I'm saying is that contrails form in air where clouds were about to form anyway! If the plane had not passed through, chances are the cloud would have formed all by itself, due to any one of the other triggers.

Get it now? The air is READY to be a cloud. It WANTS to be a cloud. Trigger it, and the cloud formation starts. And spreads. And persists.

According to NASA, scientists all over the "GLOBE" are concerned about contrails affecting our climate and ultimately our natural resources.

Very, very true! They don't really understand how much of an effect contrails might be having on the atmosphere and the climate. In some places, as much as 2% of the sky can be obscured by contrails. That's an awful lot of difference!

Originally posted by billybob
i really think that i've shown that anything said here is questionable based on the agenda of the poster.

I think you've shown nmothing of the sort! On the fcontrary, I'd say that it anything said here is questionable based on the lack of supporting evidence provided by the poster!

did you see my apology to you? i was trolling for peace.

Yes I did, thanks. But only after I had replied in kind to several of yoru other posts. Ooops! Oh well, you know now that I was just reacting to your post, myslef. Sorry!

the truth will out, one way or the other.

Yep, it sure is out there already, isn't it?

Originally posted by billybob
it is very interesting that this is the first topic and only topic you've posted on at ATS, and voluminously, at that. you sure are spending a lot of time and energy on it.

Why is that intresting? Do you think I really have TIME to post the same amount on other threads? Why do you think I should be interested in other threads? Fact is, "chemtrails" debunking has turned into a bit of a hobby for me. Been doing it for a few years now, on and off, when I have the time and the inclination. Why should I not spend "time and energy" on a hobby that I enjoy? Some people go stand in rivers and catch fish. Some jump off cliffs. Some slouch on the couch in front of the TV. Some go to bars and drink copisously. Some read books. Me? I debunk chemtrails. Anything WRONG with that?

Originally posted by Sapphire
You can't see air so then, does it really exist or is it mere speculation?

Of course it exists! You don't need to SEE something to find out that it exists! There are man, many other ways of measuring and detecting that do not require people to see!

Nice try....!

Originally posted by StuartAllsop
Got the picture? You have a bunch of air that is ready and primed to turn into a cirrus cloud. That much is clear. All you need is a trigger, and there are many of them.

I've addressed the type of cloud formation earlier in this thread. I wouldn't categorize the cloud cover as cirrus.

Anyhow, I get the feeling that you're typing to me in a condescending manner. You and I do not agree, simple as that. I believe this is an operation that will take place, if not already. That's my opinion, period. Agree to disagree, no?! You have made 40+ posts in this thread, and this thread only. You have not posted your thoughts on any other thread at ATS. Why do you put so much effort in disproving the existence of 'chemtrails'? I do not understand. Post your thoughts and let the rest of us choose to believe, if even in falsehoods. What's it to you?

Jeebus, perhaps I should show more devotion to religion-I am in irreligious person.

Originally posted by StuartAllsop

Originally posted by billybob
it is very interesting that this is the first topic and only topic you've posted on at ATS, and voluminously, at that. you sure are spending a lot of time and energy on it.

Why is that intresting? Do you think I really have TIME to post the same amount on other threads? Why do you think I should be interested in other threads? Fact is, "chemtrails" debunking has turned into a bit of a hobby for me. Been doing it for a few years now, on and off, when I have the time and the inclination. Why should I not spend "time and energy" on a hobby that I enjoy? Some people go stand in rivers and catch fish. Some jump off cliffs. Some slouch on the couch in front of the TV. Some go to bars and drink copisously. Some read books. Me? I debunk chemtrails. Anything WRONG with that?

it's a suspicious 'hobby'. i notice you're also debunking the stated objectives and methods of HAARP. that makes me sad. so much hate. such a superior tone. and yet, so wrong on many counts. your starting to embarass yourself. maybe you should read a book.

I think people are confusing contrails with chemtrails. Both exist, and both happen. Difference?

Contrails:
-Happens at 40,000 feet alt and above
-Naturally occuring due to ice crystals forming due to temp.
-Dissolves after a few minutes.

Chemtrails:
-Can happen at any alt
-Not naturally occuring(man made)
-Does not dissolve after a few minutes and slowly dissipates down to ground level.
-Government sanctioned program

If you have little knowledge on the subject then my suggestion is to research it and then base your conclusions. But to those that don't know the difference between the two but have already formed an opinion I say this....ignorance is bliss.

Here are some sites to get you started:

www.rense.com...
www.anomalies-unlimited.com...
www.world-action.co.uk...
educate-yourself.org...

What's the difference between a jet contrail and a chemtrail? According to the U.S. Air Force, jet contrails form above 33,000 feet when hot engine exhaust momentarily condenses ice crystals into pencil-thin vapor trails that quickly vanish like the wake behind a boat.

Chemtrails (CTs) look like contrails initially, but are much thicker, extend across the sky and are often laid down in varying patterns of Xs, tick-tack-toe grids, cross-hatched and parallel lines. Instead of quickly dissipating, chemtrails expand and drip feathers and mare s tails. In 30 minutes or less, they open into wispy formations which join together, forming a thin white veil or a "fake cirrus-type cloud" that persists for hours.

[Edited on 22-12-2003 by Aliceinwonderland]

Originally posted by Aliceinwonderland
I think people are confusing contrails with chemtrails. Both exist, and both happen. Difference?

Contrails:
-Happens at 40,000 feet alt and above

Not nessesarily, contrails form whenever the conditions are right for them to form. The term "contrail" itself dates back to the WWI era and you can not tell me that biplanes flew at 40,000 feet.

-Naturally occuring due to ice crystals forming due to temp.

You are correct in the fact that they are ice crystals, but they are not "naturally occurring, they are definitely anthropogenic. Also, don�t forget about the relative humidity.

-Dissolves after a few minutes.

Why? Cirrus clouds are made up of ice crystals, yet they don�t dissolve after a few minutes.

Chemtrails:
-Can happen at any alt

And just what method do you use to determine a planes altitude?

-Not naturally occuring(man made)

Contrails are produced from jet engine exhaust, therefore they are a byproduct of human activities.

-Does not dissolve after a few minutes and slowly dissipates down to ground level.

Google the term "Water cycle"

-Government sanctioned program

Do you have some hard proof of this, or is it typical hearsay. "I read it on the internet, so it must be true!"

If you have little knowledge on the subject

Like you. J

then my suggestion is to research it and then base your conclusions.

Yes, I would start with reading up on basic meteorology, thermodynamics, and learning how the air traffic system works.

But to those that don't know the difference between the two but have already formed an opinion I say this....ignorance is bliss.

You must be in constant rapture.

Here are some sites to get you started:

www.rense.com...
www.anomalies-unlimited.com...
www.world-action.co.uk...
educate-yourself.org...

Rense: he makes supermarket tabloids look like bastions of journalistic integrity.

The other sites are a bunch of circular referencing, self-absorbed garbage.

Find and post a link to a scientific journal that supports any of your conclusions.

len horowitz.

Genetically engineered viruses and bacteria, the latest technologies for biological warfare, and combined exposures to biochemical, metallic, and electromagnetic agents, offer a "Star Wars"-like arsenal for conducting global genocide auspiciously for "public health", "National Security", and "world peace". Reprinted here are the most stunning U.S. Government documents you have ever seen that vividly expose the secret agendas of war waging by the world's wealthiest colonialists.

Not speculation, Dr. Horowitz relies heavily on Congressional testimonies, legal witnesses, and government documents to prove the public is being chemically and pharmaceutically intoxicated, and electromagnetically immune suppressed, increasing epidemics of cancers and myriad other illnesses. Monumentally, this public health professional exposes the instigating cartel, its leadership, their savvy media manipulations, and their ongoing global operation more insidious and destructive than the nuclear weapons program of World War II.



you'll have to argue with these u.s. government documents if you want to to debunk. then you'll have to burn how many copies of published circulated material, all you brown shirts? and then you'll have to destroy all the government documents. and all the circulated copies. once again, it is not just a conspiracy, but an open conspiracy, and all the government agencies are providing their own damning testimony.

I suspect that all of the predatory electronic tech is designed to work in conjunction with either the prion protein crystals that were induced to grow on our nerve tissue or some deep programming in our brains. Maybe it's a combination. I may seem to be far out on a limb with this observation, but Dr. Horowitz gives some pretty convincing documentation to back up his assertion that prions have been supplied through most of the domestic wheat crops for well over a decade (they grow on nerve tissue; brains, spinal cord, etc.) and that the prion crystal's� varying lengths resonate and vibrate to specific frequencies to generate certain symptoms when those radio frequencies are directed at individuals by scalar targeting and/or over a wide area.

can you say, 'mad cow'?

Originally posted by Sapphire
You can't see air so then, does it really exist or is it mere speculation?

You can feel air, and when it's really cold out you can see it so, it might be real.

Originally posted by Bangin

Originally posted by StuartAllsop
Got the picture? You have a bunch of air that is ready and primed to turn into a cirrus cloud. That much is clear. All you need is a trigger, and there are many of them.

I've addressed the type of cloud formation earlier in this thread. I wouldn't categorize the cloud cover as cirrus.

Whyever not? What other kind of cloud would you expect to find at 35,000 feet?

You and I do not agree, simple as that.

Correct, we don't agree, but not because it is a simple matter. The only reason we don't agree is because you have no formal training in meteorlogy. If you did, then we certainly would agree.

I believe this is an operation that will take place, if not already. That's my opinion, period.

Yes, it is your OPINION. But it is not FACT. Until you can come up with evidence to PROVE that it is taking place right now, then there is no reason at all to believe that it is (unless you count paranoia as a reason).

Could it happen? Sure it could! No doubt at all. Is it happening? Nope. Simply because after FIVE YEARS of trying, all those chemmies between them have not been able to come up with even ONE bit if evidence.

Agree to disagree, no?! You have made 40+ posts in this thread, and this thread only. You have not posted your thoughts on any other thread at ATS. Why do you put so much effort in disproving the existence of 'chemtrails'?

See my other post on the same subject.

Then answer this question: Why is it that, whenever a chemmie is on the losing end of a debate, instead of continuing to try to defend his position, instead he makes every possible effort to discredit his opponent, by flaming him, questioning his motives, or outright lying about him? Why is that?

I do not understand. Post your thoughts and let the rest of us choose to believe, if even in falsehoods. What's it to you?

What is it to me? Simple! It's a HOBBY! I hate to see the truth mangled and distorted by the conspiracy con artists, and I hate even more to see innocent unsuspecting lurkers and posters lured into the trap of these uncouth hoaxsters. So I spend every spare minute that I can doing my absolute best to make sure that the hoax is put to rest, and that the hoaxsters are exposed for what they are.

And what is it to you? WHy are YOU so intent on spreading the hoax?

perhaps I should show more devotion to religion-I am in irreligious person.

Not a bad idea! It's never too late, you know! (Well, as long as you are still breathing, that is!)