Bob (not my real pseudonym) explained on 29/10/2011 :
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 22:45:44 -0700, ¥¥inkY wrote:

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:45:04 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:04:07 -0700, ¥¥inkY wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 01:08:53 -0700, "Bob (not my real pseudonym)"
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:01:31 -0700, ¥¥inkY wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:49:11 +0100, Guy Gorton
wrote:

Sharp turn in progress.

Guy Gorton


There is a big difference between chemtrails and contrails.

The latter actually exist.


http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/4,686,605

This appears to be someone's hypothesis about twiddling with the
highest layers of the atmosphere.

"Chemtrails" in loon lore are just purposely misidentified aircraft
condensation trails.

It's not a hypothesis. Its a patent of the developer of the
technology which is being used by HAARP.

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/gen.html

I am not asking you to beleive me. I don't have to convince anyone.
I was hoping you would disagree. Actually it would be very comforting
to know that this is not true.

How does studying aurorae in Alaska translate to "chemtrails"
everywhere else?

I have seen con trails and chem trails in the sky at the same time in
Edinburgh and know the difference. The first disappears quickly. The
second expands and lasts and the particle fallout causes me chest
problems.

How is the astroturf?

you need better briefing!

The contributors to this group are very intelligent people and need
evidence not dogma!

Sorry for the rant.

--
Auld Sousider
(Remove skye to reply)