What they don't want you to know

[altitudelou]

What the government Scientoids and debunker don't want you to know about.

According to Atmospheric Scientist experts / Chemtrail Spraying does not exist / But it does exist.

See Chemtrail's - The Evidence.

____________________________________________________

In virtually all of the Atmospheric studies that I have read with regard to how persistent contrails form, as with this paper "Contrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate" authored by Patrick Minnis, J. Kirk Ayers, Rabindra Palikonda and Dung Phan, all of whom are qualified experts on contrail interaction within the atmosphere and the properties that allow the formation of persistent contrails from.

See: Contrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate

irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS_spring2006/Minnis2004.pdf

It can be noted that all of these contrail / persistent contrail experts agree in all of their studies and computer models that for contrails to form and otherwise form into persistent contrails and spread, the relative humidity at altitude must be or exceed 60% in conjunction with a minimum ambient air temperature of -40 C. or lower.

All of the study data by these competent experts in the field requires that these two atmospheric properties be present together without question in order for contrails to persist and grow into persistent contrails that resemble cirrus clouds.

It is this very fact of necessary humidity (60%) and temperature (-40 C.), according to the experts and all of their study data, that contradicts the statement in the link below with regard to "Chemtrail Spraying" by Dr. Patrick Minnis, one of the so called contrail / persistent contrail experts who claims that low temperature and high humidity are a must in order for contrail persistence to occur.

Quote: Patrick Minnis

The cloud-forming contrails that conspiracy theorists find so ominous are ''perfectly natural,'' Minnis says. The odd grid and parallel-line patterns are easily explained as contrails blown together by the wind, scientists say.


www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/usatoday_7mar01.html

__________________________________________________

Quote: Patrick Minnis

"The higher the relative humidity, the more likely you will see spreading contrails."

www.rense.com/general9/naschem.htm

__________________________________________________

Given the absolute irrefutable facts presented by so many experts in the field of Atmospheric research, and the study of contrails and persistent contrail formation within the atmosphere, (they all agree that both high humidity and low temperatures are necessary to allow the formation of persistent contrails), it becomes something of a contradiction when these atmospheric experts - and those who believe and agree with their research findings - when confronted to explain in detail how it is that we have been observing the production of "persistent contrails" or something that resembles persistent contrails (Chemtrails) - in abnormal abundance since the mid to late 1990's - forming at altitudes that humidity and or temperatures do not, according to "the experts," support the formation of what they call persistent contrails - ignore their own empirical data.

We see so often - since the mid to late 1990's - the sky full of jets leaving long, thick and spreading so called "contrails," that prior to that time did not pervade our skies in such numbers, or linger, suspended in the air for hours, spreading out into huge masses to form man made persistent contrails that are observed being made deliberately, and with great precision - (rather than just the random formation of a persistent contrail due to the normal interaction of a contrail and the natural atmospheric conditions present). Far too many "persistent contrails" are observed to be forming when areas of the sky are specifically targeted by aircraft that are seemingly involved in Chemtrail Spraying - numbers aircraft that far exceed those of normal air traffic on days that the high amount of "persistent contrails" are commonly seen to form.

I understand that people not only require proof of such claims but demand it, and rightfully so. Far too many theories have been put forward without the slightest bit of proof to back them up with regard to Chemtrail Spraying. Therefor people should look at this site and take a good look at the evidence available that conclusively proves the existence of what has come to be known as Chemtrail Spraying.

watchthesky.org/chems/chemdata.htm

Using a combination of Doppler Radar and the (NWS) National Weather Service daily upper air sounding data, which provides the humidity and temperature readings within the areas of the atmosphere at which all jet aircraft fly, it is possible to accurately predict whether or not persistent contrails can form over a given area at specific altitudes. The data is the most up to date state of the art information available, and it is depended on by both civilian and military meteorology forecasters in some instances, providing hour to hour accurate upper air sounding data for forecasting and modeling.

It is the (NWS) National Weather Service daily upper air sounding data that can most readily be used in determining if the aircraft that you are observing are indeed making normal persistent contrails, or whether they are Chemtrail Spraying some material that mimics what persistent contrails look like.

When suspected Chemtrail Spraying is observed and photographed using a time and date stamp, it's a simple matter to look up the (NWS) National Weather Service upper air sounding data at,.....

weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html where the current as well as archived data is available to anyone who wishes to access it. Simply check the altitudes at which the suspected Chemtrail Spraying was being conducted against the corresponding altitudes of the upper air sounding data for temperature and humidity values. If they do not meet the 60% or better humidity or -40 C. temperature necessary for the formation of persistent contrails, then it becomes obvious that what you have is definitely not persistent contrails - but Chemtrail Spraying.

With a photograph that is date and time stamped, you have a visual record of the event, and with the (NWS) upper air sounding data showing the precise temperature and humidity values at altitude, the combined data constitutes solid empirical scientific proof of Chemtrail Spraying. Proof, not only from the upper air sounding data, but proof from every contrail / persistent contrail research study ever conducted by the so called experts like Patrick Minnis, whose very work validates the fact that Chemtrail Spraying is indeed real in spite of his own contradictory claims to the contrary that Chemtrails do not exist.

It would be, at best, hypocritical of the experts like Patrick Minnis if they were to now somehow say that persistent contrails can form in humidity lower than 60% and temperatures higher than -40 C. after using these values as the constant persistent contrail formation standard since the Schmidt in Germany (1941) and Appleman in the United States (1953) independently developed the currently accepted theory of contrail/persistent contrail formation that has set the criteria / properties for persistent contrail formation which is used to this day, and quoted in their own research by such experts in contrail study as Patrick Minnis.

It is without doubt appropriate, if not poetically just, that the science used by these atmospheric research scientists like Patrick Minnis, which qualifies without question properties necessary for a persistent contrail to form, and that has given us the ability - by way of their own research - to recognize and prove that Chemtrail Spraying has been, and still is being conducted on a daily basis worldwide. Chemtrail Spraying is no longer a conspiracy theory, it is a proven fact thanks to those atmospheric scientists, like Patrick Minnis, who are the expert voices for our government that are refuting any and all knowledge of a "Chemtrail Spraying" program while, in fact, it is being conducted and observed on a worldwide basis by millions of people. These experts of the science of contrails / persistent contrails cannot have it both ways.

Either all of these scientific experts atmospheric research data that they have compiled since the 1940's on the properties that allow the formation of persistent contrails is not correct, or, in fact, the highly unusual amounts of abnormal persistent contrails that we have been observing since the mid to late 1990's on, are products of a "Chemtrail Spraying" program.

With the use of the (NWS) National Weather Service daily upper air sounding data, we have proved that on many occasions when high numbers of aircraft made extreme numbers of lingering contrails - which spread out over hours into persistent contrails - it was impossible for persistent contrails to form due to either a lack of humidity of 60% or greater, or a temperature of -40 C. or lower - both of which are necessary to allow persistent contrails to form - one or both were not present according to the upper air sounding data. The upper air sounding data proved that those "persistent contrails" could not possibly exist due to the lack of high humidity, or temperatures higher than -40 C., or both. Obviously at these times what was being observed was Chemtrail Spraying of some material, and cloud-like artifacts from that spraying - not "persistent contrails".

Examples, courtesy of,...

watchthesky.org/chems/trailimage.htm

We see the so-called scientific experts, but not nearly as much as the "chemtrail debunkers," criticize anyone who remotely eludes to the fact that there might be a Chemtrail Spraying program going on. The "debunkers" call the those who believe there is an ongoing spraying program "chemmies" and conspiracy theorists at best, and outright liars, fringe lunatics and hoaxers at worst. Many debunkers are vile and vulgar in their ruthless attacks upon anyone who speaks out on the issue, and these individuals have demanded that we 'Chemmies' provide empirical scientific proof of the Chemtrail Spraying. Well, we have supplied the "empirical scientific proof" that they have been demanding via the above mentioned upper air sounding data, and what have the debunkers said about it? NOTHING that I am aware of to date! They ignore the empirical evidence presented while they continue to attack those who believe that a Chemtrail Spraying program is taking place. Choosing to ignore their own data, and our evidence, which proves their flawed claim of, "There is no such thing as Chemtrail Spraying," false is ignorant.

Why have the vile debunkers not come forward in an effort to prove that the (NWS) National Weather Service upper air sounding data is somehow wrong, and dispute the fact that it would be a meteorological impossibility for persistent contrails to form in an atmospheric environment with less than 60% humidity and a temperature of -40 C. or lower according to the scientific experts that these debunkers revere and hold in such high esteem? Certainly they are not going to allow our evidence to go unchallenged after they have been demanding "proof " from us for so long now. Where are the great debunking mouths with regard to the evidence that conclusively proves that Chemtrail Spraying is indeed very real?

There is no longer a question of whether or not Chemtrail Spraying is real - it most definitely is real and ongoing. The very fact that the United States is doing nothing with regard to reducing carbon output or reduce greenhouse gasses and Co2 levels in an effort to mitigate the effects of Global Warming, and has, in fact chosen to do nothing that might interfere with the status-quo of the great "economy," but rather will pursue "other means of dealing with Global Warming," as stated by George W. Bush, is further evidence.

See,...

www.legislative.noaa.gov/Archives/2001/ganske031401.html

...Excerpt...

"Mr. Speaker, let me read from President Bush´s letter to Senator Hagel:

"My administration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously." He talks about various things related to the energy crisis, but then closes with this statement: President Bush says, "I am very optimistic that with the proper focus and working with our friends and allies we will be able to develop technologies, market
incentives and other creative ways to address global climate change."

________________________________________________________

Should we then assume that by "other creative ways" to address global climate change as stated by George W. Bush, that one of those ways is through the ongoing implementation of the Chemtrail Spraying operation that we observe taking place with so much frequency worldwide? It should be obvious to even the most devout brain dead Bush supporter that the United States, which produces more carbon, Co2, and greenhouse gases than any other Nation State on the planet, has had an active Chemtrail Spraying program in operation since the 1990's. A program that they can no longer hide with their front men or mercenary debunkers claiming that Chemtrails are just a hoax that is being perpetrated by a few conspiracy theorists.

The evidence that proves that Chemtrail Spraying is real is irrefutable. Neither the atmospheric scientists who's own research proves it, nor the vile and vulgar debunkers that howl that Chemtrails are just normal contrails - but refuse to address the empirical evidence which proves the Chemtrail Spraying - have a rational leg to stand on. They are both willing and equal conspirators in the ongoing cover-up of this crime known as Chemtrail Spraying.

It is now up to those who can see that we are being lied to and kept in the dark as to this criminal Chemtrail Spraying. You can do something about it. Your state and federal elected representatives probably have some knowledge as to what is going on with this spraying. It is up to you to get them to admit it. So write to them, e-mail them. Stop being just dumb sheep and buying into all of the deceit that's become the norm in government today. Demand the truth or watch as the Chemtrails keep on being made over your heads and eventually come leeching down from the sky into everything we breath, the water we drink, the very food we eat. It does not have to be, and should not be something that is accepted or acceptable to us because some feel the economy should come before human life.

When writing to your representatives on the Chemtrail Spraying issue be sure to include your own evidence with regard to suspected Chemtrail Spraying, send copy's of your date / time stamped photographs along with the (NWS) National Weather Service upper air sounding data for the day in question that shows that normal formation of persistent contrails could not be possible due to lack of humidity / temperature,etc, and a brief summery explaining how it is that the persistent contrail's seen in the photographs must in fact be artifacts of Chemtrail Spraying.

If ever there was a distinction between "Us" and "Them", it is now.



Lou Aubuchont

Parsonsfield, Maine.

___________________________________________________

"Near the day of the Great Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky."
................................................... Hopi prophecy.

[Swamp Gas]

Excellent Lou!!

What convinced me of what you are saying was when I saw tons of criss-cross trails, freshly laid on a summer day, and a Cessna airplane flew through one of them. I looked it up, and Cessna has a ceiling of 14,000 Feet

[altitudelou]

Swampgas,

Yes, the evidence by way of the (NWS) upper air sounding data leaves little doubt as to whether or not Chemtrail Spraying is real as it proves conclusively that it is real, there is no way that the scientoids like Minnis can contradict and explain away their own research data that proves the spraying is real.

Don't get me wrong, there are times when the atmospheric conditions are right for the formation of persistent contrail's but those naturally occurring conditions are inconsistent with the volume of "so called" persistent contrail's that we are observing that are associated with the Chemtrail Spraying.

Today was a good example here in Southern Maine and New Hampshire, the upper air sounding data showed that it might be possible for long lasting contrail's or even non- persistent contrail's to form from an altitude of 28K up to 31k but no higher than that, as I watched the sky today I saw five jets (Busy air traffic day here) that four of which where leaving fairly long contrail's at about 29K or 30K feet, the contrail's did linger and spread slightly but then they where broken up by upper air wind shear and they did not persist.

So, the upper air sounding data temperature and humidity values were right on as far as being of use in determining what contrail artifacts might form at various altitudes.

There where no persistent contrail's forming here in the sky's over Maine or New Hampshire today that I could determine, of course there was not a sky full of untracked, unidentifiable aircraft filling our sky's with criss-crossing grids of Chemtrail's either.

There is a lot of information in my "Chemtrail - The Evidence" post, my hope is that people really take their time and thoroughly read through it and the links, the "Chemtrail Spraying" proof just jumps right out at you.

Hopefully what I have written will help people come to understand that there is a Chemtrail Spraying program going on and ongoing worldwide and make them ask questions of their elected "tax burdens" that are just sitting on their hands on this issue, they need to be squeezed,... hard.

[altitudelou]

"a Cessna airplane flew through one of them. I looked it up, and Cessna has a ceiling of 14,000 Feet'
_______________________________________________________________________

Ha,... it is an impossibility according to the experts for normal contrail formation to take place below 20K,... at 14K, even if there was ample humidity (60%+) it would not be cold enough to support the formation of contrail's let alone persistent contrail's, it's a shame you didn't get a picture of that Cessna flying through the trail, that would have been a keeper.

[BigBunny]

Lou it is our view at Mega that persistent contrail formation (CT) is likely to occur at no less than a minimum of 5000 feet. However I'm not sure that I agree with the assertions in regard to relative humidity and temperature. I don't think the issue is that simple - believe me when I say I wish it was.

If you read the Minnis paper (actually dated 2003) cited in the link you will find that Dr Minnis is very careful not to assert any definitive conclusions. This is understandable given that the data relied upon is in the 1971 - 1995. The problem we are describing began in earnest no earlier than 1997. Indeed my one constant criticism remains that the data often relied upon seems to run out in 1995. This is peculiar because I am aware of later research programmes here in Australia the data for which has never seen the light of day so to speak. I am certain that this is true for elsewhere on the planet.

Further I do not agree with Dr Minnis' conclusions based on the data presented. What is evident is a trend of gradual increase in relative humidity in the period 1971 - 1995 which incidentally supports the argument for the inclusion of an anthropogenic factor in global warming. Curiously enough the regions where there is a reduced rate of growth of relative humidity are in the same regions with highest proportion of air traffic. Another assertion relates to radiative forcing. As a result of recent research I sincerely believe that the radiative forcing is NOT quite as it appears. I have reason to believe that one of the more significant CT functions is related to the structural dynamics of the Troposphere. I'll expand on this belief within the next 14 days.

I can understand Dr Minnis being exasperated if only because there appears to be an assumption that the good Doctor is part of the problem. I'm not sure that this is true. Equally I am certain that Dr Minnis has been subjected to ill-informed ridicule which was not warranted. At best I think Dr Minnis can be best described as a "fall guy" in this debate.

Lou, I agree with you that we should apply pressure to our elected "tax burdens" although I doubt that there is any elected assembly worldwide where the collective IQ exceeds the CQ (Charm Quotient). However that is simply yet another hurdle we have to overcome.

[altitudelou]

Big Bunny,

See inserts.

BB.

"Lou it is our view at Mega that persistent contrail formation (CT) is likely to occur at no less than a minimum of 5000 feet. However I'm not sure that I agree with the assertions in regard to relative humidity and temperature. I don't think the issue is that simple - believe me when I say I wish it was."

LA.

Yes, I am aware of the low altitude occurrence of CT's however one must be vigilant of the separation between contrail, persistent contrail formation and that of the CT's, obviously temperature and humidity value standards apply when referring to contrail's, persistent contrail's but not in relationship to the formation of CT's.

BB.

"If you read the Minnis paper (actually dated 2003) cited in the link you will find that Dr Minnis is very careful not to assert any definitive conclusions. This is understandable given that the data relied upon is in the 1971 - 1995. The problem we are describing began in earnest no earlier than 1997. Indeed my one constant criticism remains that the data often relied upon seems to run out in 1995. This is peculiar because I am aware of later research programmes here in Australia the data for which has never seen the light of day so to speak. I am certain that this is true for elsewhere on the planet."

LA.

I only used the 'Minnis' research on contrail's, persistent contrail's to distinguish that there is a very real difference between normal jet contrails, persistent contrails and what's being formed by the CT Spraying that mimics the properties of persistent contrails, the research I linked to was never intended to apply to CT's which as we know from observations have quite a different lifecycle from normal contrails, persistent contrails.

BB.

"Further I do not agree with Dr Minnis' conclusions based on the data presented. What is evident is a trend of gradual increase in relative humidity in the period 1971 - 1995 which incidentally supports the argument for the inclusion of an anthropogenic factor in global warming. Curiously enough the regions where there is a reduced rate of growth of relative humidity are in the same regions with highest proportion of air traffic. Another assertion relates to radiative forcing. As a result of recent research I sincerely believe that the radiative forcing is NOT quite as it appears. I have reason to believe that one of the more significant CT functions is related to the structural dynamics of the Troposphere. I'll expand on this belief within the next 14 days."

LA.

To be sure, we can agree that we both disagree with 'Minnis' on a number of points but it was not my intention to dissect his research on contrails or persistent contrails, as stated above I only used it to qualify the standard values and properties used in the understanding of the formation of persistent contrails which clearly is different from the formation of the CT's.

BB.

"I can understand Dr Minnis being exasperated if only because there appears to be an assumption that the good Doctor is part of the problem. I'm not sure that this is true. Equally I am certain that Dr Minnis has been subjected to ill-informed ridicule which was not warranted. At best I think Dr Minnis can be best described as a "fall guy" in this debate."

LA.

I am sure that 'Minnis" is part of the problem, I have no proof but I common sense kicking in says that probably a good number of Atmospheric researchers such as 'Patrick Minnis" among others are themselves deeply involved in the Chemtrail Spraying operations we are observing taking place worldwide, the military alone does not have enough scientific / academic human resources as possible in order to oversee and manage research and development of an ongoing spraying program, therefor they would obviously recruit as many civilian scientist and academics as possible, who would be better qualified to be in charge of seeing to it that the spraying operations run smoothly than the atmospheric research scientists that know so much about contrail's and persistent contrail behavior, etc...plus I am not about to cut 'Minnis" any slack simply because he is a smug, arrogant puke much the same as that useless debunker John Boyd Reynolds, Jr. is.

BB.

"Lou, I agree with you that we should apply pressure to our elected "tax burdens" although I doubt that there is any elected assembly worldwide where the collective IQ exceeds the CQ (Charm Quotient). However that is simply yet another hurdle we have to overcome."

LA.

Well thanks, it's nice to agreed with on something, it might as well be our useless tax burdens.

Later Bunny.

[altitudelou]

it's way past my bed time, please forgive the typos in that last post.

I'm off to dreamland.

[BigBunny]

Lou, I have reread your post and I understand your viewpoint. I think that when all is said and done we do agree about the fact of the existence of Chemtrails. My apologies for my dissection of the Minnis paper as it appears now that it was cited purely as an example.

I note that we do not agree on the mechanics of the program but then such disagreement may simply arise from the specific methodology applied in each of our respective countries.

I do not agree with the specific temperature and relative humidity protocols because such protocols ignore the atmospheric physics and chemistry of the instant region.

I did use your link regarding the upper atmosphere soundings - it is quite interesting and it does make a mockery of the protocols referred to supra.

[altitudelou]

Bunny,

Ha,..we would never have been able to evolve past caves if we did not have the ability to question each others reasoning and understand our varied opinions, two people on opposite sides of the planet can each come to the same conclusions but via far different methods. I believe that disagreement if that's what you want to call it is good, in that it generally promotes understanding though collective investigations.

"I do not agree with the specific temperature and relative humidity protocols because such protocols ignore the atmospheric physics and chemistry of the instant region."

Again, I only used the "Appleman chart" Temperature and humidity values as the standard for "contrail - persistent contrail" formation to show in most cases of CT spraying that persistent contrail's could not have formed. I agree with you about the "instant region" or in other terms, the clear sky ice nucleation process, I did not discuss this in my post because the slant was towards CT persistence and not normal contrail formation and there effects.

As I stated in my post to Swampgas, #2.

"Don't get me wrong, there are times when the atmospheric conditions are right for the formation of persistent contrail's but those naturally occurring conditions are inconsistent with the volume of "so called" persistent contrail's that we are observing that are associated with the Chemtrail Spraying."

Also,

"There where no persistent contrail's forming here in the sky's over Maine or New Hampshire today that I could determine, of course there was not a sky full of untracked, unidentifiable aircraft filling our sky's with criss-crossing grids of Chemtrail's either."

I think that it would be a mistake if we applied the atmospheric research of the "Experts" regarding the formation of contrails, persistent contrails as blanket coverage to the CT's which seem to exhibit properties somewhat different from contrails, persistent contrails.

We must always remember that we are not dealing with "normal contrails / persistent contrails" but rather artifacts of the CT Spraying.

[socrates]

I think the only problem with your method Lou is that meteorologists are so hush hush about the mucked up skies. This is no fault of yourself. The media as a whole is a joke. Sure, they came out strong after the Katrina response, yet except for Olbermann, I don't see much in your face Murrow type journalism going on.

The elephant in the room is the year 1997. This is the generally agreed on date when the super megacontrails first started to appear. We all probably can agree that chemmies in general have been ignored and belittled.

Yesterday, there was yet another show on Big Foot. There are shows on all the time about ghosts. Is there a reason why the topic of chemtrails is never addressed as these other topics are?

What changed in 1997 that has been clearly documented through photographs and videos?

Why all of a sudden are "persistent contrails" being openly discussed now by folks like Minnis?

Does this mean that chemmies haven't simply been victims of a hoax or some illness called clouditis?

Big Bunny is correct about how global warming is contributing to more saturated skies. The excess heat leads to more evaporation.

Yet, again, I go back to the elephant in the room, 1997. What changed then that led to the sudden widespread observations of aircraft creating cloud cover? How come if chemmies have been so full of tinfoil all these years, it is turning out now even from "authoritative officials" that their observations have been spot on? Finally, why is it that except for the BBC documentary, there has been next to no mass media coverage of this recent phenomenon of aircraft creating massive fake clouds?

[socrates]

I'm gonna make this my last post of the day. I am trying to cut back on computer use. I'm thinking if someone could take a video of lower flying craft leaving "persistent contrails" this could be smoking gun proof that something fishy is going on. The person doing this would need to be able to prove the elevation, the persistence, and the eventual creation of massive, fake cloud cover.

I have a question. Twice I have seen complete blue skies (i.e NO CLOUDS, ZILCH) turn into total fake cloud cover due to aircraft emissions. I am under the impression that total blue skies means there is not much if any humidity in the air. Since I am not a science major, I would be interested in anyone's comments on this. Finally, I am wondering how they can do it in the hot summers. They are definitely doing this in the troposphere. Can it really be cold enough up there when it is hot enough below to fry an egg on the sidewalk?

[altitudelou]

"I have a question. Twice I have seen complete blue skies (i.e NO CLOUDS, ZILCH) turn into total fake cloud cover due to aircraft emissions. I am under the impression that total blue skies means there is not much if any humidity in the air. Since I am not a science major, I would be interested in anyone's comments on this."
______________________________________________

it's no doubt caused from one or two reasons, either the air is super saturated with ice in the 100% plus (different than ambiant humidity %) and is extremely cold so when contrail's interact with the atmosphere in those conditions, nucleation of the super saturated ice takes place and expands forming ice cirrus clouds.

Second reason, if it's not due to ice super saturation, it's "Chemtrail Spraying".

[altitudelou]

Socrates,

See inserts:

Soc.

"I think the only problem with your method Lou is that meteorologists are so hush hush about the mucked up skies. This is no fault of yourself. The media as a whole is a joke. Sure, they came out strong after the Katrina response, yet except for Olbermann, I don't see much in your face Murrow type journalism going on.

LA.

It's not my method, (Don't shoot the messenger) it's their method, the atmospheric scientoids like 'Minnis', the EPA, the Air Force, NOAA and NASA that are telling the media that there is no such thing as Chemtrail's, the meteorologists that your speaking of are just echoing what they have been told from the so called "EXPERTS."

Soc.

"The elephant in the room is the year 1997. This is the generally agreed on date when the super megacontrails first started to appear. We all probably can agree that chemmies in general have been ignored and belittled."

LA.

Yes, "The elephant in the room is the year 1997", and no one at the time, none of the so called experts came out and said, "Oh, it's just an increase in aviation air traffic" that is causing all of these strange contrail's and persistent contrail's that last for hours, no, no one said a dammed thing until a few people started making waves about it, 'Will Thomas' being one of the first to speak out, yeah, then you saw the so called "EXPERTS" jump into action and start their propaganda cover up of the blatant spraying.

Soc.

"Yesterday, there was yet another show on Big Foot. There are shows on all the time about ghosts. Is there a reason why the topic of chemtrails is never addressed as these other topics are?"

La.

Yes, there is, big brother has managed to put the fear of being ridiculed as wacos into just about everyone who funds documentaries, science and nature programs, not even the Sci-Fi channel who has been chasing UFO's will touch Chemtrail's if you have noticed, clearly it has a lot to do with the funding and politics of the industry.

Soc.

"What changed in 1997 that has been clearly documented through photographs and videos?"

LA.

The obvious change was the appearance of the "Chemtrail's" in our sky's across America and Canada, not in Europe or Australia, that came later about 2000, as far as I know the Chemtrail's have yet to fill the sky's over central and south America, I guess there jets and atmosphere is somehow different from ours, Canada's or the UK or Australia's, gee, what makes us so special?

Soc.

"Why all of a sudden are "persistent contrails" being openly discussed now by folks like Minnis?"

LA.

Because 'Minnis" and those like him are actively involved in the Chemtrail Spraying programs, that's why, these guys are up to their collective necks in seeing to it that these spraying programs run correctly while broadcasting the propaganda that there is no such thing as Chemtrail Spraying, look at who these people work for, they are akin to Bush or Chenny saying that oil is bad.

Soc.

"Does this mean that chemmies haven't simply been victims of a hoax or some illness called clouditis?"

LA.

Victims, yes, anyone who lives under these clouds of Chemtrail sprayed crap are victims, the thing is, it's spreading over the entire planet now, we know they have been constantly spraying since 1997 and we know that most of the material they spray does not stay up in the troposphere, it falls out all around the planet, only a small percentage gets up into the stratosphere were it can remain for two or more years, that's why they have to keep spraying, to replenish what's been lost.

Soc.

"Big Bunny is correct about how global warming is contributing to more saturated skies. The excess heat leads to more evaporation."

LA.

Agreed but we do not know in what percentages our atmosphere is gaining in humidity or in fact just where it is taking on more humid areas or if the process is transient by nature, science is very gray and vague in this area given our present technology.

Soc.

"Yet, again, I go back to the elephant in the room, 1997. What changed then that led to the sudden widespread observations of aircraft creating cloud cover? How come if chemmies have been so full of tinfoil all these years, it is turning out now even from "authoritative officials" that their observations have been spot on? Finally, why is it that except for the BBC documentary, there has been next to no mass media coverage of this recent phenomenon of aircraft creating massive fake clouds?"

LA.

Beating the same dead horse over and over again is a reminder of what's happened over the years since we started observing the Chemtrail's and it is the fact that the Chemtrails showed up around 1997 that has changed our view of the sky today.

When we humans do things that interfere with how nature works, and we do it daily, those actions have consequences that are seen immediately, long-term or somewhere in-between but it usually shows up in some ugly manifestation like oil spills, ground water contamination or air pollution, with Chemtrail Spraying we are seeing it as the experts say, persistent contrails but their own research prove them to be liars regarding their stance on "No Such Thing As Chemtrail's". They are right when they speak of contrails, persistent contrail science and Chemtrail's do not exist because they say they do not exist, there shell game has run it's course and as I see it they have few options left to use in their cover up propaganda bag of tricks. We were right back in 1997 and we are right now in 2006 heading into 07, the spraying continues.

This spraying program may well have a project ceiling of ten years on it, if that is true then this time next year we may see an end to the spraying, or not depending on whether or not the project goals have been met, time will tell I guess.

There is no point is going into the aspects of the media and what role they are playing in the scheme of things, so many are no doubt bought and paid for, which of them can we trust, if any today.

Life goes on and I need to eat, so, I'm off to supper.