CHEMTRAIL WATCH GROUP now forming, USA, Southwest Virginia

[SteveX]

Ad.Johnson

I have entered this thread in an open honest fashion. I have declared my stance and stated my personal opinion from the outset. I have not stated, "chem trails do not exist." I remind all here that this fact has been overlooked.

My motives for entering this thread were based on the thought that proof positive was required for sceptics like myself to get on board. It seems some are confused, and I don't mean to be condescending, by the difference between a sceptic and a non-believer.

Johnson. In effect you are asking me, a self-confessed and open-minded sceptic, to prove my case. I am not the plaintiff here. It's your side of the argument that has brought the charges of chem trails. That's bye the bye as I'm not here to debate "if" or "not" chem trails exist. Again, this fact seems to be overlooked.

I'm opened minded to viewing any poignant and validated evidence. I am not persuaded by logbooks of fly byes, hear say or web links with outlandish, ineffective and plain wrong rhetoric. Neither am I persuaded by paranoia and or ignorance.

Gentlemen, I was fully aware, that upon entering this thread, that my stance could be conceived as controversial. My opinion of scepticism has not been changed thus far. My stance is as it was but I apologise for any misconceptions and failure on my part to avoid controversy. I wish you well with you endeavour’s and, as not to divert your inspiration before this thread slides further into one of honour, I respectfully withdraw.

Good luck.

[Connecting with Sauce]

Originally Posted by SteveX

Ad.Johnson

I have entered this thread in an open honest fashion. I have declared my stance and stated my personal opinion from the outset. I have not stated, "chem trails do not exist." I remind all here that this fact has been overlooked.

My motives for entering this thread were based on the thought that proof positive was required for sceptics like myself to get on board. It seems some are confused, and I don't mean to be condescending, by the difference between a sceptic and a non-believer.

Johnson. In effect you are asking me, a self-confessed and open-minded sceptic, to prove my case. I am not the plaintiff here. It's your side of the argument that has brought the charges of chem trails. That's bye the bye as I'm not here to debate "if" or "not" chem trails exist. Again, this fact seems to be overlooked.

I'm opened minded to viewing any poignant and validated evidence. I am not persuaded by logbooks of fly byes, hear say or web links with outlandish, ineffective and plain wrong rhetoric. Neither am I persuaded by paranoia and or ignorance.

Gentlemen, I was fully aware, that upon entering this thread, that my stance could be conceived as controversial. My opinion of scepticism has not been changed thus far. My stance is as it was but I apologise for any misconceptions and failure on my part to avoid controversy. I wish you well with you endeavour’s and, as not to divert your inspiration before this thread slides further into one of honour, I respectfully withdraw.

Good luck.

I unlike Steve am a believer that they are spraying us!... but like Steve I'm frustrated that there is no solid experiemental data available which I can use to convince more people who are sceptic like Steve or complete non-believers of CS stuff... Steve is here because he is on a path like all of us... There is another thread with all CT links on it started by Seashore.

Do I have an answer? No... but I can't see proposed list convincing anyone if we don't get the data. What we need is more people with access to equipment which can measure the air particles or air filters which can be measured for contaminations in areas of heavy spraying...

Building air filtration filters would be a good start, maybe... but I guess these are just binned and renewed. Analysing these will be the expense...

Car filters maybe from cities?

Just some ideas...