Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

[link to www.atmos-chem-phys.net]



So get a sample that is <1hr old. Simple. But the chemtards won't do that, it would ruin the game, right?

Well, the truth is the vast majority of persistent contrails are mistaken as chemtrails. The probability of finding an actual Chemtrail would require a ton of luck and flying well above 30,000 feet. It would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack by driving by the stack at 30 mile an hour in an enclosed vehicle with collection tubes protruding from the vehicle. Good luck . . . not cost effective!


....always EXCUSES from the kOOks.

You think . . . have the courage to come to the debate and see if there are very real, logical explanations for people's belief in Chemtrails.


I've been reading about them for 10 years here on GLP, and it's all bullshit. Nobody has been able to prove a thing, or offer any credible evidence.

Your pathetic 'debate' is just an excuse for you to peddle your ridiculous kOOk views.

Just what I thought . . . no courage just insults and a closed mind. . . did it ever occur to you that new information is discovered constantly . . . that history is full of concepts that were rejected to be embraced at a later time. That there are official sources and hard research that are now showing an definite shift in our environment and number and rate of cirrus cloud formation, just to name just one change.

I'll be away from the computer this weekend, for the most part.

Sorry, I was hoping you would make a flyby . . . you can always catch up later, but some real time would be great. Best Wishes . . . hope your on vacation not work.



By the way... your overly familiar manner just gives me the creeps. It's no skin off your nose(nor any of your business) whether I'm working, vacationing, or whatever. I don't know you, nor are we 'pals'.

Sorry to make you feel uncomfortable . . . we had several discussions regarding Chemtrails, etc. I thought we were past the adversarial posture. So be it . . . I won't bother you in the future.


It's not about being adversarial. It's about you seemingly caring whether I'm working or on vacation, and things like that. You CAN'T really care about that, George. We don't KNOW each other. It's disingenuous for you to feign concern for me like that. It just feels dishonest and as if you are trying to 'stroke' me, for whatever reasons. It doesn't work. It's creepy. Cut it out.


Look . . . my style is different; I am not as confrontational as other posters . . . I noted form your responses in the past that you are working and many times on the road as you have posted many times. I did that myself a lot . . . not anymore. Sorry, I guess I just sympathized and felt I knew how you felt. Didn't mean anything other than that . . . I was not trying to be disingenuous or trying to stroke you . . . what would be my motive? I get tired of the . . . in your face, hope you drop dead crap all the time . . . some friendly small talk is refreshing. If you look back you see that that is what I do with most people . . . again I am sorry it got to you , it was not intentional.



Your motive? Let's see... for years now, the debunkers have been attacked as to motive over and over and over again for simply posting rebuttals to the PX myth. YOU figure it out from there.

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

[link to www.atmos-chem-phys.net]



So get a sample that is <1hr old. Simple. But the chemtards won't do that, it would ruin the game, right?

Well, the truth is the vast majority of persistent contrails are mistaken as chemtrails. The probability of finding an actual Chemtrail would require a ton of luck and flying well above 30,000 feet. It would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack by driving by the stack at 30 mile an hour in an enclosed vehicle with collection tubes protruding from the vehicle. Good luck . . . not cost effective!



You don't know what an in si8tu sample is, do you George?

How did cost effective get into the argument?

And, didn't you tell us there had been sample collected already? If not you, then it was one of the other chemtards. Sorry, but you all sound the same.


I will say it again . . . Chemtrail Advocates do not have a budget of any type, they are not organized or have resources. If the contrail experts themselves debate the difficult challenges of in situ capture and analysis of persistent contrails and the cirrus clouds that result from them; how in the world do you expect a group of independent citizens to accomplish such a task.

Advocates have to rely on the efforts and budgets of others . . . and if you attend the debate you may find some interesting research.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

:C - Pred Cont:

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.




And your point would be? And saying "covered by my hat" is not an acceptable answer.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.




And your point would be? And saying "covered by my hat" is not an acceptable answer.

Atmospheric layering is not constant . . . neither is wind velocity or wind direction, updrafts, downdrafts, relative humidity and temperature. All these factors can and will mix layers of air as well as the products of fuel combustion (primarily water vapor and ice crystals) or aerosols of any source. Just because one sees a trail from the ground appear and/or disappear one cannot assume altitude, temperature, or wind direction from the ground. These cause an almost unlimited variety of possible micro-environmental possibilities that affect vapor trails.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.




And your point would be? And saying "covered by my hat" is not an acceptable answer.

Atmospheric layering is not constant . . . neither is wind velocity or wind direction, updrafts, downdrafts, relative humidity and temperature. All these factors can and will mix layers of air as well as the products of fuel combustion (primarily water vapor and ice crystals) or aerosols of any source. Just because one sees a trail from the ground appear and/or disappear one cannot assume altitude, temperature, or wind direction from the ground. These cause an almost unlimited variety of possible micro-environmental possibilities that affect vapor trails.





All factors which make the need for an in situ sample the only way to resolve your argument.

But it isn't, according to you, cost effective.

You seem to place a high value on ignorance.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.




And your point would be? And saying "covered by my hat" is not an acceptable answer.

Atmospheric layering is not constant . . . neither is wind velocity or wind direction, updrafts, downdrafts, relative humidity and temperature. All these factors can and will mix layers of air as well as the products of fuel combustion (primarily water vapor and ice crystals) or aerosols of any source. Just because one sees a trail from the ground appear and/or disappear one cannot assume altitude, temperature, or wind direction from the ground. These cause an almost unlimited variety of possible micro-environmental possibilities that affect vapor trails.





All factors which make the need for an in situ sample the only way to resolve your argument.

But it isn't, according to you, cost effective.

You seem to place a high value on ignorance.

Did we have to get rock samples from the Moon to prove it existed. In order for the Chemtrail Advocates to get a valid, scientifically verifiable in situ sample would be for them an effort as great as going to the moon to get rocks was for NASA . . . which by the way there are several conspiracy theorists who doubt just that. I dare say you would not accept the in situ sample of a Chemtrail unless you were part of the team that sampled it. Also, my belief is very few persistent contrails are really what people believe are Chemtrails. It would be a very, very rare opportunity to get the sample of the correct vapor trail.

I'll be away from the computer this weekend, for the most part.

Sorry, I was hoping you would make a flyby . . . you can always catch up later, but some real time would be great. Best Wishes . . . hope your on vacation not work.



By the way... your overly familiar manner just gives me the creeps. It's no skin off your nose(nor any of your business) whether I'm working, vacationing, or whatever. I don't know you, nor are we 'pals'.

Sorry to make you feel uncomfortable . . . we had several discussions regarding Chemtrails, etc. I thought we were past the adversarial posture. So be it . . . I won't bother you in the future.


It's not about being adversarial. It's about you seemingly caring whether I'm working or on vacation, and things like that. You CAN'T really care about that, George. We don't KNOW each other. It's disingenuous for you to feign concern for me like that. It just feels dishonest and as if you are trying to 'stroke' me, for whatever reasons. It doesn't work. It's creepy. Cut it out.


Look . . . my style is different; I am not as confrontational as other posters . . . I noted form your responses in the past that you are working and many times on the road as you have posted many times. I did that myself a lot . . . not anymore. Sorry, I guess I just sympathized and felt I knew how you felt. Didn't mean anything other than that . . . I was not trying to be disingenuous or trying to stroke you . . . what would be my motive? I get tired of the . . . in your face, hope you drop dead crap all the time . . . some friendly small talk is refreshing. If you look back you see that that is what I do with most people . . . again I am sorry it got to you , it was not intentional.



Your motive? Let's see... for years now, the debunkers have been attacked as to motive over and over and over again for simply posting rebuttals to the PX myth. YOU figure it out from there.

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.


So your claim is that the atmosphere is essentially isothermal with respect to altitude and location?

Guess you slept through sixth grade science, and you sure as hell have never flown as pilot in command through that same atmosphere you claim to know so much about.

I'll be away from the computer this weekend, for the most part.

Sorry, I was hoping you would make a flyby . . . you can always catch up later, but some real time would be great. Best Wishes . . . hope your on vacation not work.



By the way... your overly familiar manner just gives me the creeps. It's no skin off your nose(nor any of your business) whether I'm working, vacationing, or whatever. I don't know you, nor are we 'pals'.

Sorry to make you feel uncomfortable . . . we had several discussions regarding Chemtrails, etc. I thought we were past the adversarial posture. So be it . . . I won't bother you in the future.


It's not about being adversarial. It's about you seemingly caring whether I'm working or on vacation, and things like that. You CAN'T really care about that, George. We don't KNOW each other. It's disingenuous for you to feign concern for me like that. It just feels dishonest and as if you are trying to 'stroke' me, for whatever reasons. It doesn't work. It's creepy. Cut it out.


Look . . . my style is different; I am not as confrontational as other posters . . . I noted form your responses in the past that you are working and many times on the road as you have posted many times. I did that myself a lot . . . not anymore. Sorry, I guess I just sympathized and felt I knew how you felt. Didn't mean anything other than that . . . I was not trying to be disingenuous or trying to stroke you . . . what would be my motive? I get tired of the . . . in your face, hope you drop dead crap all the time . . . some friendly small talk is refreshing. If you look back you see that that is what I do with most people . . . again I am sorry it got to you , it was not intentional.



Your motive? Let's see... for years now, the debunkers have been attacked as to motive over and over and over again for simply posting rebuttals to the PX myth. YOU figure it out from there.

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.


So your claim is that the atmosphere is essentially isothermal with respect to altitude and location?

Guess you slept through sixth grade science, and you sure as hell have never flown as pilot in command through that same atmosphere you claim to know so much about.

Layers is a bad term to use the appropriate or more appropriate term should be altitude. Layers do not necessarily stay at a static altitude nor do they always stay intact they mix and flow with other factors.

Getting an in situ "chemtrail" sample is as great an effort as going to the Moon? What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting?

Apollo occupied a budget of about 24 billion 1960's dollars and the combined efforts of on the order of half a million people.

Yet you claim that renting an aircraft, flying through what you claim is a chemtrail would be a comparable effort?

Are you mad, or just that staggeringly stupid?

I'll be away from the computer this weekend, for the most part.

Sorry, I was hoping you would make a flyby . . . you can always catch up later, but some real time would be great. Best Wishes . . . hope your on vacation not work.



By the way... your overly familiar manner just gives me the creeps. It's no skin off your nose(nor any of your business) whether I'm working, vacationing, or whatever. I don't know you, nor are we 'pals'.

Sorry to make you feel uncomfortable . . . we had several discussions regarding Chemtrails, etc. I thought we were past the adversarial posture. So be it . . . I won't bother you in the future.


It's not about being adversarial. It's about you seemingly caring whether I'm working or on vacation, and things like that. You CAN'T really care about that, George. We don't KNOW each other. It's disingenuous for you to feign concern for me like that. It just feels dishonest and as if you are trying to 'stroke' me, for whatever reasons. It doesn't work. It's creepy. Cut it out.


Look . . . my style is different; I am not as confrontational as other posters . . . I noted form your responses in the past that you are working and many times on the road as you have posted many times. I did that myself a lot . . . not anymore. Sorry, I guess I just sympathized and felt I knew how you felt. Didn't mean anything other than that . . . I was not trying to be disingenuous or trying to stroke you . . . what would be my motive? I get tired of the . . . in your face, hope you drop dead crap all the time . . . some friendly small talk is refreshing. If you look back you see that that is what I do with most people . . . again I am sorry it got to you , it was not intentional.



Your motive? Let's see... for years now, the debunkers have been attacked as to motive over and over and over again for simply posting rebuttals to the PX myth. YOU figure it out from there.

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.


So your claim is that the atmosphere is essentially isothermal with respect to altitude and location?

Guess you slept through sixth grade science, and you sure as hell have never flown as pilot in command through that same atmosphere you claim to know so much about.

Layers is a bad term to use the appropriate or more appropriate term should be altitude. Layers do not necessarily stay at a static altitude nor do they always stay intact they mix and flow with other factors.



Aren't you supposed to make a beeping noise when you back up like that?

Getting an in situ "chemtrail" sample is as great an effort as going to the Moon? What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting?

Apollo occupied a budget of about 24 billion 1960's dollars and the combined efforts of on the order of half a million people.

Yet you claim that renting an aircraft, flying through what you claim is a chemtrail would be a comparable effort?

Are you mad, or just that staggeringly stupid?

What is so hard to understand that to a non-budget, non-organized group of citizens any budget is impossible . . . would you like to contribute to a fund I can start for that purpose?

I'll be away from the computer this weekend, for the most part.

Sorry, I was hoping you would make a flyby . . . you can always catch up later, but some real time would be great. Best Wishes . . . hope your on vacation not work.



By the way... your overly familiar manner just gives me the creeps. It's no skin off your nose(nor any of your business) whether I'm working, vacationing, or whatever. I don't know you, nor are we 'pals'.

Sorry to make you feel uncomfortable . . . we had several discussions regarding Chemtrails, etc. I thought we were past the adversarial posture. So be it . . . I won't bother you in the future.


It's not about being adversarial. It's about you seemingly caring whether I'm working or on vacation, and things like that. You CAN'T really care about that, George. We don't KNOW each other. It's disingenuous for you to feign concern for me like that. It just feels dishonest and as if you are trying to 'stroke' me, for whatever reasons. It doesn't work. It's creepy. Cut it out.


Look . . . my style is different; I am not as confrontational as other posters . . . I noted form your responses in the past that you are working and many times on the road as you have posted many times. I did that myself a lot . . . not anymore. Sorry, I guess I just sympathized and felt I knew how you felt. Didn't mean anything other than that . . . I was not trying to be disingenuous or trying to stroke you . . . what would be my motive? I get tired of the . . . in your face, hope you drop dead crap all the time . . . some friendly small talk is refreshing. If you look back you see that that is what I do with most people . . . again I am sorry it got to you , it was not intentional.



Your motive? Let's see... for years now, the debunkers have been attacked as to motive over and over and over again for simply posting rebuttals to the PX myth. YOU figure it out from there.

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.


So your claim is that the atmosphere is essentially isothermal with respect to altitude and location?

Guess you slept through sixth grade science, and you sure as hell have never flown as pilot in command through that same atmosphere you claim to know so much about.

Layers is a bad term to use the appropriate or more appropriate term should be altitude. Layers do not necessarily stay at a static altitude nor do they always stay intact they mix and flow with other factors.



Aren't you supposed to make a beeping noise when you back up like that?

I admit I used the wrong term . . . will you admit it when you use the wrong word or term?

I'll be away from the computer this weekend, for the most part.

Sorry, I was hoping you would make a flyby . . . you can always catch up later, but some real time would be great. Best Wishes . . . hope your on vacation not work.



By the way... your overly familiar manner just gives me the creeps. It's no skin off your nose(nor any of your business) whether I'm working, vacationing, or whatever. I don't know you, nor are we 'pals'.

Sorry to make you feel uncomfortable . . . we had several discussions regarding Chemtrails, etc. I thought we were past the adversarial posture. So be it . . . I won't bother you in the future.


It's not about being adversarial. It's about you seemingly caring whether I'm working or on vacation, and things like that. You CAN'T really care about that, George. We don't KNOW each other. It's disingenuous for you to feign concern for me like that. It just feels dishonest and as if you are trying to 'stroke' me, for whatever reasons. It doesn't work. It's creepy. Cut it out.


Look . . . my style is different; I am not as confrontational as other posters . . . I noted form your responses in the past that you are working and many times on the road as you have posted many times. I did that myself a lot . . . not anymore. Sorry, I guess I just sympathized and felt I knew how you felt. Didn't mean anything other than that . . . I was not trying to be disingenuous or trying to stroke you . . . what would be my motive? I get tired of the . . . in your face, hope you drop dead crap all the time . . . some friendly small talk is refreshing. If you look back you see that that is what I do with most people . . . again I am sorry it got to you , it was not intentional.



Your motive? Let's see... for years now, the debunkers have been attacked as to motive over and over and over again for simply posting rebuttals to the PX myth. YOU figure it out from there.

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.


So your claim is that the atmosphere is essentially isothermal with respect to altitude and location?

Guess you slept through sixth grade science, and you sure as hell have never flown as pilot in command through that same atmosphere you claim to know so much about.

Layers is a bad term to use the appropriate or more appropriate term should be altitude. Layers do not necessarily stay at a static altitude nor do they always stay intact they mix and flow with other factors.



Aren't you supposed to make a beeping noise when you back up like that?

I admit I used the wrong term . . . will you admit it when you use the wrong word or term?

I'll be away from the computer this weekend, for the most part.

Sorry, I was hoping you would make a flyby . . . you can always catch up later, but some real time would be great. Best Wishes . . . hope your on vacation not work.



By the way... your overly familiar manner just gives me the creeps. It's no skin off your nose(nor any of your business) whether I'm working, vacationing, or whatever. I don't know you, nor are we 'pals'.

Sorry to make you feel uncomfortable . . . we had several discussions regarding Chemtrails, etc. I thought we were past the adversarial posture. So be it . . . I won't bother you in the future.


It's not about being adversarial. It's about you seemingly caring whether I'm working or on vacation, and things like that. You CAN'T really care about that, George. We don't KNOW each other. It's disingenuous for you to feign concern for me like that. It just feels dishonest and as if you are trying to 'stroke' me, for whatever reasons. It doesn't work. It's creepy. Cut it out.


Look . . . my style is different; I am not as confrontational as other posters . . . I noted form your responses in the past that you are working and many times on the road as you have posted many times. I did that myself a lot . . . not anymore. Sorry, I guess I just sympathized and felt I knew how you felt. Didn't mean anything other than that . . . I was not trying to be disingenuous or trying to stroke you . . . what would be my motive? I get tired of the . . . in your face, hope you drop dead crap all the time . . . some friendly small talk is refreshing. If you look back you see that that is what I do with most people . . . again I am sorry it got to you , it was not intentional.



Your motive? Let's see... for years now, the debunkers have been attacked as to motive over and over and over again for simply posting rebuttals to the PX myth. YOU figure it out from there.

By the way... the ones most guilty of constant personal attacks have actually been the ones promoting the various conspiracy theories. I suspect that you, too, will resort to that sort of thing when you have your ass handed to you on the chemtrail debate thread.

BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.


So your claim is that the atmosphere is essentially isothermal with respect to altitude and location?

Guess you slept through sixth grade science, and you sure as hell have never flown as pilot in command through that same atmosphere you claim to know so much about.

Layers is a bad term to use the appropriate or more appropriate term should be altitude. Layers do not necessarily stay at a static altitude nor do they always stay intact they mix and flow with other factors.



Aren't you supposed to make a beeping noise when you back up like that?

I admit I used the wrong term . . . will you admit it when you use the wrong word or term?

Why did you infer that I thought that atmospheric layers were isothermal from the comments it was found in? I in no way implied that a layer was not mixable or variable . . . it may be similar but not constant.



BTW . . . your whole position on Chemtrail and or Contrails was indefensible. The is no reason in theory or application where contrails/chemtrails cannot be visible in one horizontal layer of atmosphere and can be visible or not visible in layers above or below (like a sandwich) . . . the exact thing I observed and noted for which you called me a liar. If you think otherwise you need to do some research.

Getting an in situ "chemtrail" sample is as great an effort as going to the Moon? What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting?

Apollo occupied a budget of about 24 billion 1960's dollars and the combined efforts of on the order of half a million people.

Yet you claim that renting an aircraft, flying through what you claim is a chemtrail would be a comparable effort?

Are you mad, or just that staggeringly stupid?

What is so hard to understand that to a non-budget, non-organized group of citizens any budget is impossible . . . would you like to contribute to a fund I can start for that purpose?



A fund administered by YOU? No thanks.

You never did answer my question re the level of effort to get an in situ sample and a manned lunar landing: Are you mad, or just staggeringly stupid?

Getting an in situ "chemtrail" sample is as great an effort as going to the Moon? What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting?

Apollo occupied a budget of about 24 billion 1960's dollars and the combined efforts of on the order of half a million people.

Yet you claim that renting an aircraft, flying through what you claim is a chemtrail would be a comparable effort?

Are you mad, or just that staggeringly stupid?

What is so hard to understand that to a non-budget, non-organized group of citizens any budget is impossible . . . would you like to contribute to a fund I can start for that purpose?



A fund administered by YOU? No thanks.

You never did answer my question re the level of effort to get an in situ sample and a manned lunar landing: Are you mad, or just staggeringly stupid?

Simple math . . .

U.S. Government: budget 24 billion form a pocket book of Trillions.

Chemtril Advocates: Budget required to do it properly with temperature sounding, etc. probably a few hundred thousand to a million . .. Advocates pocket book . . . $0.00. That is the definition at this time of impossible.

Getting an in situ "chemtrail" sample is as great an effort as going to the Moon? What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting?

Apollo occupied a budget of about 24 billion 1960's dollars and the combined efforts of on the order of half a million people.

Yet you claim that renting an aircraft, flying through what you claim is a chemtrail would be a comparable effort?

Are you mad, or just that staggeringly stupid?

What is so hard to understand that to a non-budget, non-organized group of citizens any budget is impossible . . . would you like to contribute to a fund I can start for that purpose?



A fund administered by YOU? No thanks.

You never did answer my question re the level of effort to get an in situ sample and a manned lunar landing: Are you mad, or just staggeringly stupid?

Simple math . . .

U.S. Government: budget 24 billion form a pocket book of Trillions.

Chemtril Advocates: Budget required to do it properly with temperature sounding, etc. probably a few hundred thousand to a million . .. Advocates pocket book . . . $0.00. That is the definition at this time of impossible.


Yes, we know you chemtards are broke. You do not have to repeat it, the fact can easily be derived from your messages.

Now for the question I asked: Apollo cost about 24 billion 1960's dollars and took the combined efforts of around half a million people. Are you saying that obtaining an in situ sample of a chemtrail would be as expensive and require as many people? . . . OF COURSE NOT don't be silly.

And where do you get your budget numbers? Please show your cost breakdown including the expenses for people, aircraft and analysis as separate budget line items.

Oh wait, you just pulled the number out of your ass, didn't you?

Getting an in situ "chemtrail" sample is as great an effort as going to the Moon? What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting?

Apollo occupied a budget of about 24 billion 1960's dollars and the combined efforts of on the order of half a million people.

Yet you claim that renting an aircraft, flying through what you claim is a chemtrail would be a comparable effort?

Are you mad, or just that staggeringly stupid?

What is so hard to understand that to a non-budget, non-organized group of citizens any budget is impossible . . . would you like to contribute to a fund I can start for that purpose?



A fund administered by YOU? No thanks.

You never did answer my question re the level of effort to get an in situ sample and a manned lunar landing: Are you mad, or just staggeringly stupid?

Simple math . . .

U.S. Government: budget 24 billion form a pocket book of Trillions.

Chemtril Advocates: Budget required to do it properly with temperature sounding, etc. probably a few hundred thousand to a million . .. Advocates pocket book . . . $0.00. That is the definition at this time of impossible.


Yes, we know you chemtards are broke. You do not have to repeat it, the fact can easily be derived from your messages.

Now for the question I asked: Apollo cost about 24 billion 1960's dollars and took the combined efforts of around half a million people. Are you saying that obtaining an in situ sample of a chemtrail would be as expensive and require as many people? . . . OF COURSE NOT don't be silly.

And where do you get your budget numbers? Please show your cost breakdown including the expenses for people, aircraft and analysis as separate budget line items.

Oh wait, you just pulled the number out of your ass, didn't you?


From the research I have reviewed the number of flights to just establish simple baselines and trends in contrail properties is very significant . . . probably twenty or so flights (statistical analysis parameters usually require 30 samples) with at least one multiengine fully equipped aircraft specially designed for such tasks. Some of the studies reqired more than one aircraft. Add to this the requirement to have temperature sounding ground equipment and I think my price I quoted is not unreasonable. I think many, many more flight would be necessary for proper Chemtrail research. Sorry, I have to run . . .

Getting an in situ "chemtrail" sample is as great an effort as going to the Moon? What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting?

Apollo occupied a budget of about 24 billion 1960's dollars and the combined efforts of on the order of half a million people.

Yet you claim that renting an aircraft, flying through what you claim is a chemtrail would be a comparable effort?

Are you mad, or just that staggeringly stupid?

What is so hard to understand that to a non-budget, non-organized group of citizens any budget is impossible . . . would you like to contribute to a fund I can start for that purpose?



A fund administered by YOU? No thanks.

You never did answer my question re the level of effort to get an in situ sample and a manned lunar landing: Are you mad, or just staggeringly stupid?

Simple math . . .

U.S. Government: budget 24 billion form a pocket book of Trillions.

Chemtril Advocates: Budget required to do it properly with temperature sounding, etc. probably a few hundred thousand to a million . .. Advocates pocket book . . . $0.00. That is the definition at this time of impossible.


Yes, we know you chemtards are broke. You do not have to repeat it, the fact can easily be derived from your messages.

Now for the question I asked: Apollo cost about 24 billion 1960's dollars and took the combined efforts of around half a million people. Are you saying that obtaining an in situ sample of a chemtrail would be as expensive and require as many people? . . . OF COURSE NOT don't be silly.

And where do you get your budget numbers? Please show your cost breakdown including the expenses for people, aircraft and analysis as separate budget line items.

Oh wait, you just pulled the number out of your ass, didn't you?


From the research I have reviewed the number of flights to just establish simple baselines and trends in contrail properties is very significant . . . probably twenty or so flights (statistical analysis parameters usually require 30 samples) with at least one multiengine fully equipped aircraft specially designed for such tasks. Some of the studies reqired more than one aircraft. Add to this the requirement to have temperature sounding ground equipment and I think my price I quoted is not unreasonable. I think many, many more flight would be necessary for proper Chemtrail research. Sorry, I have to run . . .



Exactly what I would expect from a chemtard: Arm waving followed by running away.

What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting that results in your profound stupidity?

Getting an in situ "chemtrail" sample is as great an effort as going to the Moon? What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting?

Apollo occupied a budget of about 24 billion 1960's dollars and the combined efforts of on the order of half a million people.

Yet you claim that renting an aircraft, flying through what you claim is a chemtrail would be a comparable effort?

Are you mad, or just that staggeringly stupid?

What is so hard to understand that to a non-budget, non-organized group of citizens any budget is impossible . . . would you like to contribute to a fund I can start for that purpose?



A fund administered by YOU? No thanks.

You never did answer my question re the level of effort to get an in situ sample and a manned lunar landing: Are you mad, or just staggeringly stupid?

Simple math . . .

U.S. Government: budget 24 billion form a pocket book of Trillions.

Chemtril Advocates: Budget required to do it properly with temperature sounding, etc. probably a few hundred thousand to a million . .. Advocates pocket book . . . $0.00. That is the definition at this time of impossible.


Yes, we know you chemtards are broke. You do not have to repeat it, the fact can easily be derived from your messages.

Now for the question I asked: Apollo cost about 24 billion 1960's dollars and took the combined efforts of around half a million people. Are you saying that obtaining an in situ sample of a chemtrail would be as expensive and require as many people? . . . OF COURSE NOT don't be silly.

And where do you get your budget numbers? Please show your cost breakdown including the expenses for people, aircraft and analysis as separate budget line items.

Oh wait, you just pulled the number out of your ass, didn't you?


From the research I have reviewed the number of flights to just establish simple baselines and trends in contrail properties is very significant . . . probably twenty or so flights (statistical analysis parameters usually require 30 samples) with at least one multiengine fully equipped aircraft specially designed for such tasks. Some of the studies reqired more than one aircraft. Add to this the requirement to have temperature sounding ground equipment and I think my price I quoted is not unreasonable. I think many, many more flight would be necessary for proper Chemtrail research. Sorry, I have to run . . .



Exactly what I would expect from a chemtard: Arm waving followed by running away.

What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting that results in your profound stupidity?

I have returned seems you don't agree with my analysis . . . just where would you start if you had to convince NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, EPA, academia and the prime news media?

You as a minimum would have to fly all times of the day and night to get samples in several different locations around North America and Europe. What do you think is the minimum necessary. Remember you are trying to prove to a disbelieving world full of critics like yourself . . .

Maybe I have a twisted sense of humour, but imagining the ningtards crouching up against a clay embankment holding a garbage pail top over their heads in extreme hurricane force winds makes me laugh until my belly hurts.

.. Advocates pocket book . . . $0.00.

Getting an in situ "chemtrail" sample is as great an effort as going to the Moon? What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting?

Apollo occupied a budget of about 24 billion 1960's dollars and the combined efforts of on the order of half a million people.

Yet you claim that renting an aircraft, flying through what you claim is a chemtrail would be a comparable effort?

Are you mad, or just that staggeringly stupid?

What is so hard to understand that to a non-budget, non-organized group of citizens any budget is impossible . . . would you like to contribute to a fund I can start for that purpose?



A fund administered by YOU? No thanks.

You never did answer my question re the level of effort to get an in situ sample and a manned lunar landing: Are you mad, or just staggeringly stupid?

Simple math . . .

U.S. Government: budget 24 billion form a pocket book of Trillions.

Chemtril Advocates: Budget required to do it properly with temperature sounding, etc. probably a few hundred thousand to a million . .. Advocates pocket book . . . $0.00. That is the definition at this time of impossible.


Yes, we know you chemtards are broke. You do not have to repeat it, the fact can easily be derived from your messages.

Now for the question I asked: Apollo cost about 24 billion 1960's dollars and took the combined efforts of around half a million people. Are you saying that obtaining an in situ sample of a chemtrail would be as expensive and require as many people? . . . OF COURSE NOT don't be silly.

And where do you get your budget numbers? Please show your cost breakdown including the expenses for people, aircraft and analysis as separate budget line items.

Oh wait, you just pulled the number out of your ass, didn't you?


From the research I have reviewed the number of flights to just establish simple baselines and trends in contrail properties is very significant . . . probably twenty or so flights (statistical analysis parameters usually require 30 samples) with at least one multiengine fully equipped aircraft specially designed for such tasks. Some of the studies reqired more than one aircraft. Add to this the requirement to have temperature sounding ground equipment and I think my price I quoted is not unreasonable. I think many, many more flight would be necessary for proper Chemtrail research. Sorry, I have to run . . .



Exactly what I would expect from a chemtard: Arm waving followed by running away.

What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting that results in your profound stupidity?

I have returned seems you don't agree with my analysis . . . just where would you start if you had to convince NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, EPA, academia and the prime news media?

You as a minimum would have to fly all times of the day and night to get samples in several different locations around North America and Europe. What do you think is the minimum necessary. Remember you are trying to prove to a disbelieving world full of critics like yourself . . .



All you need is one sample that contains the "toxins" that the chemtards claim are there. The rest is just confirmation.

And I note with great interest you have again failed to provide the least bit of support for your assertions.

You are clearly either trolling or a complete idiot.

What the fuck do NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, or the EPA have to do with conducting a simple sample collection to prove the claims the chemtards make? Methinks you are trying, quite unsuccessfully, to throw up a strawman.

What the fuck do NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, or the EPA have to do with conducting a simple sample collection to prove the claims the chemtards make? Methinks you are trying, quite unsuccessfully, to throw up a strawman.

Getting an in situ "chemtrail" sample is as great an effort as going to the Moon? What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting?

Apollo occupied a budget of about 24 billion 1960's dollars and the combined efforts of on the order of half a million people.

Yet you claim that renting an aircraft, flying through what you claim is a chemtrail would be a comparable effort?

Are you mad, or just that staggeringly stupid?

What is so hard to understand that to a non-budget, non-organized group of citizens any budget is impossible . . . would you like to contribute to a fund I can start for that purpose?



A fund administered by YOU? No thanks.

You never did answer my question re the level of effort to get an in situ sample and a manned lunar landing: Are you mad, or just staggeringly stupid?

Simple math . . .

U.S. Government: budget 24 billion form a pocket book of Trillions.

Chemtril Advocates: Budget required to do it properly with temperature sounding, etc. probably a few hundred thousand to a million . .. Advocates pocket book . . . $0.00. That is the definition at this time of impossible.


Yes, we know you chemtards are broke. You do not have to repeat it, the fact can easily be derived from your messages.

Now for the question I asked: Apollo cost about 24 billion 1960's dollars and took the combined efforts of around half a million people. Are you saying that obtaining an in situ sample of a chemtrail would be as expensive and require as many people? . . . OF COURSE NOT don't be silly.

And where do you get your budget numbers? Please show your cost breakdown including the expenses for people, aircraft and analysis as separate budget line items.

Oh wait, you just pulled the number out of your ass, didn't you?


From the research I have reviewed the number of flights to just establish simple baselines and trends in contrail properties is very significant . . . probably twenty or so flights (statistical analysis parameters usually require 30 samples) with at least one multiengine fully equipped aircraft specially designed for such tasks. Some of the studies reqired more than one aircraft. Add to this the requirement to have temperature sounding ground equipment and I think my price I quoted is not unreasonable. I think many, many more flight would be necessary for proper Chemtrail research. Sorry, I have to run . . .



Exactly what I would expect from a chemtard: Arm waving followed by running away.

What the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting that results in your profound stupidity?

I have returned seems you don't agree with my analysis . . . just where would you start if you had to convince NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, EPA, academia and the prime news media?

You as a minimum would have to fly all times of the day and night to get samples in several different locations around North America and Europe. What do you think is the minimum necessary. Remember you are trying to prove to a disbelieving world full of critics like yourself . . .



All you need is one sample that contains the "toxins" that the chemtards claim are there. The rest is just confirmation.

And I note with great interest you have again failed to provide the least bit of support for your assertions.

You are clearly either trolling or a complete idiot.

What the fuck do NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, or the EPA have to do with conducting a simple sample collection to prove the claims the chemtards make? Methinks you are trying, quite unsuccessfully, to throw up a strawman.

I never stated that Chemtrails contain Toxins . . . where did you dig that up . . . are you sleeping well? You have absolutely no idea what I believe and don't believe. You are assuming things you want to believe not what I have presented. One sample is absurd . . . it proves NOTHING . . . total anomaly and you know it. And BTW if I were releasing toxins why in the world would I do it so you would have any way to confirm it . . . I would not be releasing it at 30,0000 feet plus either.

What the fuck do NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, or the EPA have to do with conducting a simple sample collection to prove the claims the chemtards make? Methinks you are trying, quite unsuccessfully, to throw up a strawman.

Come on you get real . . . if the science is not perfect and convincing to the agencies above you have wasted your money and effort. People like you would be all over it in a skinny second, no one would listen except 'us kooks' and you know it. To convince ourselves is not the reason for the budget it is to prove to the world that it exists.

However, I don't need in situ samples, the testimony and research from the above agencies is quite enough to convince people that real changes have occurred in their atmosphere and the changes are caused through known processes that have increased the number and frequency of aircraft induced cirrus clouds.

What the fuck do NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, or the EPA have to do with conducting a simple sample collection to prove the claims the chemtards make? Methinks you are trying, quite unsuccessfully, to throw up a strawman.

Come on you get real . . . if the science is not perfect and convincing to the agencies above you have wasted your money and effort. People like you would be all over it in a skinny second, no one would listen except 'us kooks' and you know it. To convince ourselves is not the reason for the budget it is to prove to the world that it exists.

However, I don't need in situ samples, the testimony and research from the above agencies is quite enough to convince people that real changes have occurred in their atmosphere and the changes are caused through known processes that have increased the number and frequency of aircraft induced cirrus clouds.



For someone who apparently slept through sixth grade science you are remarkably ill informed as to scientific method.

Who care what these agencies say if your science is solid? Solid science speaks for itself, it is not subject to vote or consensus.

So rather than actually getting samples you prefer to rely on unsupported claims, hearsay, rumor and internet codswallop, flapdoodle, dingbattery and loon drool.

I ask again, what the fuck are you smoking/huffing/snorting that results in your profound stupidity?