posted 02-10-2003 04:40 PM            

Please show me where I EVER said I had all the answeres or that everybody else is wrong. Don't bother looking, you won't find that statement cuase I didn't make it.

>>I think you know what he means FK, I've watched this take place for the past few years. A storm or front is coming in, the spraying begins ahead of front. Like today for instance, spraying ahead of the projected moisture due about the middle of this week. And no, I am not talking about the colder air ahead of the mass causing contrails, I talking spraying ahead of the front.<<

Of course I new what he meant. A poor attempt at humor.

As far as your statement, it does not make sense to me so I will attempt to simply explain how airmasses work. A cold front is the leading edge of a colder airmass. You can't have colder air ahead of the front(as you suggested). It is very common to have mid and high clouds arrive about the same time as the front. Why? Because, usually, fronts are driven as a response to upper level features (short and long wave troughs). These features ususally transport colder air (baroclinicity), and with colder air, RH values will tend to increase because cold air can't hold as much moisture and warm air so it is easier to saturate. Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that more persistent contrails will be common at the same time.

>>You said you are a meteorologist, do you work for a tv station, radio station or somewhere a bit more, shall we say, technical and larger? <<

I have a degree in Meterology. I am an operational meterologist(That means I don't have somebody do the work for me). Most of the TV guys don't even have a degree and it shows. I am not with tv or radio and that's all I will say.

>>I just don't understand how a weather professional, such as yourself, can't acknowledge the reality of the chemtrails.<<

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I am still skeptical. Trust me though, I will be the first one to jump on the bandwagon if it can be proven.

posted 02-10-2003 04:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PHXPilot:
The X's are just aircraft paths crossing. It doesnt take a genius to understand that, unless the airplanes are flying EXACTLY parallel, they will eventually make an X when they cross paths.

---

I have seen this nearly every day when contrails form. I don't see the big deal.

posted 02-10-2003 05:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PHXPilot:
what exactly came out?

---

I just took a dump. That count?

just kidding.

posted 02-10-2003 10:36 PM            

BTW, Ive seen the name "chemmie" thrown around long before I ever got involved here.

posted 02-10-2003 10:53 PM            

I pointed out elsewhere that this post- (not really very post-) -Cold-War ideologizing of a threat that is hitting people quite independently of their politics reminds me of nothing more than a street demonstration I saw of Communist Party supporters in central Athens in the immediate wake of Chernobyl.

To show their contempt for those who would cast aspersions on the safety of proletarian nuclear technology these people were ostentatioiusly eating strawberries said to be contaminated by radioactive caesium from Chernobyl.

You have the same mentality as them if you call people who have eyes and brains "chemmies". And I don't make any proposals for alternatives. It is you who are wrong.

posted 02-10-2003 11:04 PM            

I first read someone using the term "chemmie" back a few months ago when I visted here one time, and I just figured that was the term that was used for "person who believes in chemtrails". So I just kept using it. But you guys seemed to get pretty irratated whenever I used it. And now I know why.

Completely sorry about that.

posted 02-10-2003 11:30 PM            

and just because you have eyes does not mean you can see...and just because you have a brain does not mean you can think...

quite a few go on proving this daily...

posted 02-11-2003 04:48 AM            

And let me tell you something: these self-referential ironies simply don't communicate.
The English language is moving beyond where you want to keep it imprisoned.

posted 02-11-2003 11:33 AM            

Likewise in these chemtrail groups we've had many professing to be experts and professionals etc. Blah Blah BLAH! This is NOT something that requires a professional anything to analyze. If anybody is interested, I've put together a summary here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LLNews/message/2196

And if you want the summary on SATANIST Bush boy, it's here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LLNews/message/3028

posted 02-12-2003 04:40 PM            

Why in the heck would they need to create an X many miles wide to allow pilots to know where to go? Thats insane. Maybe if we lived in the middle ages, then they would need to resort to that but we live in the 21st century. They have GPS, and zillions of other modes of finding out where they are, and where they are supposed to be.

Instead of spraying a big X in the sky so everyone can see, a much better way of telling pilots where to spray would be to give Latitude and Longitude coordinates or somthing related to VORs like this:

"All spray pilots: At 1300 hours on 3/12/03 a coordinated spray operation will commence on the 180 degree radial of the PHX VOR. Spray in a North-South orientation on the 180 radial, until 25 miles south, then arrange on the 090 radial and proceed east spraying for 18 miles. Then return to Luke AFB for chemical refueling."

posted 02-12-2003 09:09 PM            

This, in its nature, is impossible to do. You can NEVER find positive proof that somthing doesnt exist. You cant because that thing doesnt exist. Its like trying to find positive evidence that the Yeti doesnt exist. Its impossible. There is nothing that you can do or find that would remove all doubt from anyones mind that the Yeti doesnt exist. You can find evidence that somthing DOES exist, because there is evidence that has come into being due to the object existing, such as Yeti dung or whatever. But you cant find evidence that somthing doesnt exist because there is nothing to find. Evidence can only occur if somthing exists.

The burden of proof is on people who think it DOES exist. If you can find positive evidence that chemtrails DO exist, than you will have won the argument once and for all. And I, and im sure evey other debunker, will jump right on the bandwagon with you.

But it is obvious that you do NOT have positive evidence that chemtrails exist. You may notice that your main argument for chemtrails is "I see them". That is not evidence. Mainly because you do not have evidence to prove that what you are seeing is chemicals. The only "proof" you have is "contrails look funny to me".

I just don't buy that, PHX, I'm sorry. It's the same old argument, over and over again. Can't you guys come up with something new?

Its the same old argument because, why should I change an answer that is right?. If you asked what is 2+2. And I answered 4, you would say "I see a 2, and a 2, so the answer must obviously be 2."
I would say again, 2+2 equals 4. Then you would say "Its the same old argument again, your gonna have to do better than that." I would say the answer is 4 again because it is right. Im not going to change it.

Think of it this way: The 2+2=? question represents your question of "Why do contrails look that way?"

Your answer of 2 represents your answer of "They must contain chemicals"

My answer of 4 represents my answer of "They are normal contrails"

If the correct answer is 4, why should take your advice to "do better than that." when the answer I hve given you is, in my eyes, correct. The explainations we give you are what we believe to be correct. That is why we keep repeating it.

And I really hope that you can come up with some proof, because I'll be very relieved if it turns out that they aren't real. But up to this point, quite frankly, you haven't been doing a very good job of it.

We have explained why you see what you see. That is as much as we can give you. As I stated before, we cant give you any "evidence" because there is none. There is none because it doesnt exist. That is as much "evidence" as you are going to be able to find.

Heres my assignment to you: What if I believe that my computer monitor makes pictures on the screen because there are little elves behind the screen painting pictures on the screen so I can see them.

I want you to give me evidence that there are no elves. Go ahead, im waiting.

posted 02-12-2003 09:19 PM            

When I first came to this site I had no hard feelings or dislike for anyone on here. I had fun loking at your chemtrail photos and explaining what they really are. But that all changed when I was told numerous times to "Die you F****** debunker" or "I hope you get hit by car and die a horrible death you f****** nazi!!!"

posted 02-12-2003 09:45 PM            

You may notice that 3 of the 4 "evidences" are opinions or findings not proven to be connected to contrails in any way.

Many pics of not so normal contrails: Opinion. Saying they are "not so normal" does not make it so.

Biologicals found: Not proven to have any connection with "chemtrails".

Irradic flying patterns: Not erratic but rather normal flight patterns. Lack of aviation kowledge is probable culprit of that.

posted 02-12-2003 09:50 PM            

pic's are proof ?

biologicals have never been found to exist in a contrail...to say so is a lie...

erratic flight patterns ??!?!?!