Recent Comments

Leonard Clampett,

the title of the “chemistry 131” textbook is a pun on the title of the Air Cadet’s handbook called “Contrails”, which everyone of them gets since the 1950ies:

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/108977-my-small-collection-of-air-force-academy-insignia/

The textbook is about science. There is no connection to what you are calling “chemtrails”. Read it for yourself:

http://metabunk.org/files/chemtrails-chemistry-manual-usaf-academy-1999.pdf

I strongly suggest you have a look on page 22 and following, where you will find a good wrap-up about how to confirm a theory according to the scientific method. Apply that to your theory of chemtrails.

What is your scientific evidence?

By Josh on 2013 06 16 - 17:17:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

For all the naysayers and deniers of chemtrails, here is a link to show that the word “chemtrails” was not coined by members of the general public but the the US Air Force as shown in their pilot training manual shown here in that manual published in 1990.

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/chemtrails/us-air-force-academy-chemtrail-manual.html

Maybe we can now get on with the task of stopping the chemtrails.

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 06 16 - 14:48:59
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dane-wigington-on-infowars-4-4-13/#comment-33658

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:31:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:28:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:19:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

the video you linked is a really old conglomerate of all sorts of claims that have been debunked ad nauseam.

What do you think is the ultimate proof for the existence of chemtrails?

Why should we have to assume there is such a thing like chemtrails? How are they different from contrails?

By Josh on 2013 04 10 - 06:59:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://realnewsworldwide.com/2008/09/10/chemtrails-ultimate-proof/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 09 - 16:31:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

If you open the link you will see the reference to chemtrail area forecasts. The other link I wish to post is refused by the “Truth news” which claims it may be SPAM and “will be moderated”, probably because it mentions chemtrails in the link. However, I will try again by separating the words. http://www.chemtrail forecast.com/main.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 10:02:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

about the link you posted - where is the relevance in the discussion about persistent contrails?

By Josh on 2013 03 13 - 09:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.haarpstatus.com/status.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 09:44:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.