Chemtrails...

[conspiracy analyst]

There is enough info here.
Karlos is right on this one...


Environmental Warfare and Climate Change
The World's climate can be modified by a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, November 27, 2005

Email this article to a friend
Print this article


"Weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels."

(US Air Force, emphasis added. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ )


Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, ... and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare, (...)Recognizing that military ... use of such [environmental modification techniques] could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare, Desiring to prohibit effectively military ... use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind. ... and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective, (...) Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military ... use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

(Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, Geneva: 18 May 1977, Entered into force: 5 October 1978, see full text of Convention in Annex)



The November 2005 Montreal Conference on Climate Change will focus exclusively on global warming. The debate on climate change will center on formal measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The underlying consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions constitute the sole cause of climate instability.

Neither the government delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the November 2005 Montreal venue, have raised the issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)." for military use.

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use is no longer part of the UN agenda on climate change.

In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." (AP, 18 May 1977). Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention.

The Convention defined "'environmental modification techniques' as referring to any technique for changing--through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes--the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space." (Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27)

The substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

"States have... in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (...) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction."

(UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992.
http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html).

In February 1998, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program. The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament:

"Considers HAARP... by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body...; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give evidence to the public hearing ...into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program." (European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999).

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacked the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington. (see European Report, 3 February 1999).

The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, has never considered relevant. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.

Ironically, the Pentagon, while recognizing its ability to modify the World's climate for military use, has joined the global warming consensus. In a major study (pdf) , the Pentagon has analyzed in detail the implications of various global warming scenarios.

In the light of the November 2005 Montreal Conference and with a view to broadening the debate, Global Research has compiled a number of important articles and documents on the issue of "weather warfare". Included in annex is the text of the 1977 ENMOD Convention.

It should be emphasised that the 1977 ENMOD Convention is still in effect and that signatories States have committed themselves to abiding by the clauses of the Convention.


Selected Articles

Weather War? - by The Daily Express - 2005-10-08

The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: "Owning the Weather" for Military Use - by Michel Chossudovsky - 2004-09-27

Climate Change and Geoengineering - by Wayne Hall

Weather Modification a Long Established, Though Secretive Reality - by Mary-Sue Haliburton - 2005-09-11

Threat of U.S. Geophysical Weapons Faces Mankind - by Vladimir V. Sytin - 2004-09-20

Washington's New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change - by Michel Chossudovsky, 2001-01-01

Environmental Warfare and US Foreign Policy: The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction - by Scott Gilbert - 2004-09-23


LINK TO MONTREAL UNFCC CONFERENCE: http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_11/items/3394.php

TEXT OF THE 1977 ENMOD CONVENTION

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

Opened for signature at Geneva: 18 May 1977, Entered into force: 5 October 1978
Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations



The States Parties to this Convention,

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,

Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,

Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,

Recalling the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,

Realizing that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,

Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,

Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,

Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organiza-tion to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.

Article II

As used in Article I, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing -- through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes -- the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Article III

1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.

2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement, and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article IV

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to take any measures it considers necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes to prohibit and prevent any activity in violation of the provisions of the Convention anywhere under its jurisdiction or control.

Article V

1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to cooperate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and cooperation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. These international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations, as well as of a Consultative Committee of Experts as provided for in paragraph 2 of this article.

2. For the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the Depositary shall, within one month of the receipt of a request from any State Party to this Convention, convene a Consultative Committee of Experts. Any State Party may appoint an expert to the Committee whose functions and rules of procedure are set out in the annex, which constitutes an integral part of this Convention. The Committee shall transmit to the Depositary a summary of its findings of fact, incorporating all views and information presented to the Committee during its proceedings. The Depositary shall distribute the summary to all States Parties.

3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting its validity.

4. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties of the results of the investigation.

5. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to provide or support assistance, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to any State Party which so requests, if the Security Council decides that such Party has been harmed or is likely to be harmed as a result of violation of the Convention.

Article VI

1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose amendments to the Convention. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties.

2. An amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties to this Convention which have accepted it, upon the deposit with the Depositary of instruments of acceptance by a majority of States Parties. Thereafter it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance.

Article VII

This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.

Article VIII

1. Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, a conference of the States Parties to the Convention shall be convened by the Depositary at Geneva, Switzerland. The conference shall review the operation of the Convention with a view to ensuring that its purposes and provisions are being realized, and shall in particular examine the effectiveness of the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article I in eliminating the dangers of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

2. At intervals of not less than five years thereafter, a majority of the States Parties to the Convention may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary, the convening of a conference with the same objectives.

3. If no conference has been convened pursuant to paragraph 2 of this article within ten years following the conclusion of a previous conference, the Depositary shall solicit the views of all States Parties to the Convention, concerning the convening of such a conference. If one third or ten of the States Parties, whichever number is less, respond affirmatively, the Depositary shall take immediate steps to convene the conference.

Article IX

1. This Convention shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Convention before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time.

2. This Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification or accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

3. This Convention shall enter into force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by twenty Governments in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article.

4. For those States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited after the entry into force of this Convention, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Convention and of any amendments thereto, as well as of the receipt of other notices.

6. This Convention shall be registered by the Depositary in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article X

This Convention, of which the English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective governments, have signed this Convention, opened for signature at Geneva on the eighteenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-seven.



ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION

Consultative Committee of Experts

1. The Consultative Committee of Experts shall undertake to make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article V of this Convention by the State Party requesting the convening of the Committee.

2. The work of the Consultative Committee of Experts shall be organized in such a way as to permit it to perform the functions set forth in paragraph 1 of this annex. The Committee shall decide procedural questions relative to the organization of its work, where possible by consensus, but otherwise by a majority of those present and voting. There shall be no voting on matters of substance.

3. The Depositary or his representative shall serve as the Chairman of the Committee.

4. Each expert may be assisted at meetings by one or more advisers.

5. Each expert shall have the right, through the Chairman, to request from States, and from international organizations, such information and assistance as the expert considers desirable for the accomplishment of the Committees work.

Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

[sam]

All aircraft at sufficient height for exhaust water to condense will lay down a contrail. This will diffuse at a speed related to atmospheric conditions, mainly wind and temperature. If sufficently cold, the vapour will freeze into ice crystals and the trail wil persist for as long as the winds allow.

The contrail takes a while to form - that is, the hot exhaust vapours have to cool for condensation to form - so there is always a gap between the engine and the appearance of the contrail, where the exhaust vapours are still too hot to condense.

This effect would not apply to biological agents, "barium oxide" and the rest. Biological agents would be destroyed by the temperature of jet exhaust gasses. Plain chemical agents would not "condense".

So, a question ....

Why do we never see (say) a twin-jet "chemtrail" plane laying down four trails ?? Two from the engines, and two from the chemtrail sprays ? Or -- two trails but ones that form instantaneously from the engines, supposing that the chemtrail nozzles are placed right next to the jet exhaust?

Any respectable camera with a big telephoto lens would be able to pick this out p.d.q. I've never seen such a photo. Why not? it would be so easy to blow the "chemtrail" gaff with very simple technology.

It would seem the chemtrail devotees have failed at this very very simple piece of sleuthing.

[Alex_V]

[Bushwacker]

[marky 54]

[pepik]

What are we going to do when they figure out how to make invisible chemtrails?

Why put things in the air rather than the water?

How does any aspect of this theory make sense?

How does "we don't comment on military research" mean "we admit we are spraying you with chemicals"?

[marky 54]

[mr nice]

[pepik]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

[pepik]

Of course I know what it means. They don't comment on what they are doing right now. I'm amazed you don't know what "we don't comment means". Denying something would be commenting. This is blindingly obvious and it is completely silly to pretend this means they have confirmed they are still doing it.

[marky 54]

[pepik]

No genius, commenting on what research they are or are not doing is commenting on research. I cannot believe you would try this hard to misinterpret the obvious.

This is dumber than "pull it".

[marky 54]

we could argue all day long about it.

however nobody has yet attempted to answer why.....

1. they would'nt comment if it was a harmless test

2. why they would do it without the publics knowledge

3. how exactly they could deposite stuff over vast swathes of the population without the use of aircraft.

[pepik]

1. They don't comment. No comment means no comment, not " we reveal what we aren't doing, but won't confirm what we are doing", which is blindingly obvious because if the latter you are by deduction confirming what you won't deny. It really is ridiculous that this needs explaining.

2. Why is secret research secret? Why can't anybody wander around a top secret military research facility or MI5/6? You really can't imagine why?

3. Ketchup bottles. Most people eat ketchup. Can't disprove it, can you? Therefore HOW CAN WE KNOW THEY AREN'T PLANNING TO ELIMINATE EVERYBODY BY POISONING THE KETCHUP!!!!!!

[marky 54]

you really cannot see why your answers give people more reason to believe there is something being hidden, can you pepik.

first of all you avoid the point, everything you apply to our arguement applies to yours but you fail to notice.

the childish level of response and attitude dos'nt help either.

im still mindful and aware there could be nothing in the chemtrail scenerio, however critics have done nothing to ease peoples minds about the possibilities of the trails and other events or reports being far from innocent. other than ridicule and give stupid answers.

where are the sensible and respectful debunkers? you know the ones who turn up and provide information which disproves outright the theory which people believe without acting or answering in a stupid way.

pepik your an embarrasment to debunking, i could make up better * that sounds more reasonible and likely, which disproves everything said on this site, if i was the type to make stuff up like you.

christ not even liars can lie these days without being obvious.

what disproves theorys?

information that says otherwise, which logical and sensible answers, whilst coming across as geniune person who is respectful towards each poster?

or taking the piss whilst making up the first thing you can think of, which is'nt very logical at all or totally unrelated?

your answer is now telling us they put chemicals in food without our knowledge, and theres nothing i can do to disprove it. and i know your taking the piss, but thats one of my points, you avoid giving a sensible answer to the question, so you are able to totally dodge the question without actually answering it.

then you say we car'nt disprove it, so how can you be sure these trails in the sky are not harmful? when they are high up and not able to be tested as easily as ketchup?

don't answer, i reckon you'll just give me more reasons to believe it, rather than reasons to ditch the theory all together.

[marky 54]

as usual i can come up with something more believable and likely myself.

i have no idea if what this letter says is true, but at least it acknowledges the difference in trails and attempts to explain them.

http://www.carnicom.com/af1.htm

"for a number of years commercial companies have been involved in cloud seeding and fire suppression measures"

it even acknowledges it could have something to do with unrelated contrail activity 'cloud seeding'(weather control/global warming caused hazard prevention).

far more believable than someone denying their exsistence when people see them daily and taking the piss and mocking anybody with questions.

take a leaf from the letter.

[Alex_V]

[marky 54]

[pepik]

So when you say chemtrails, you mean contrails, and then when i say chemtrails don't exist you decide I'm saying contrails don't exist and so therefore i'm just denying that anybody anywhere has ever put anything in the air? How did you come up with that logic?

So if i deny a government plot to poison the world then i'm denying air pollution exists?

I hope you've stopped eating ketchup since you can't disprove my theory. We just can't be sure!

[marky 54]

[conspiracy analyst]

Russian Breakthrough Reported In Radio Telescopes And Electromagnetic Weapons

by Yury Zaitsev

Global Research, May 15, 2007
RIA Novosti


MOSCOW. (Yury Zaitsev for RIA Novosti) - A group of Russian scientists from Tomsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod and Moscow have developed a series of unique compact generators capable of producing high-energy pulses of hundreds and even thousands of megawatts.

This compares with the capacity of a major Soviet hydropower station on the Dnieper or an energy unit at a modern nuclear power plant. The new generators are sources of electromagnetic radiation rather than electricity. Their main feature is a capacity to produce enormous power in a matter of nanoseconds. The impulses can be generated with a very high frequency.

Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) Gennady Mesyats recalled that the first high-current electron accelerators were developed in the U.S.S.R. in the 1960s. Ten years later, Soviet scientists learnt to generate powerful microwave nanosecond pulses. The current generators have no counterparts in the world. In effect, Russian scientists have made a breakthrough in what is called relativist high-precision electronics.

The pulse is primarily of interest for fundamental research. Reporting these results to the RAS Presidium at the beginning of this year, scientists emphasized that sources with super radiation effects can be broadly used in long-range high-resolution impulse-based radiolocation and in studies of non-thermal impact of powerful electromagnetic fields on radio electronic components and different biological species.

Super-powerful pulse generators can test the reliability of radio electronic devices and the immunity of energy facilities to different impacts. They can imitate the interference caused by a lightning and even by a nuclear blast. Their tiny size and unique physical properties make their sphere of application extremely wide.

The electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a product of a nuclear explosion. It puts out of action even those electronic control systems that have withstood the shockwave and reduces expensive smart weapons to scrap metal. There are different ways of generating electromagnetic pulses - for example, it can be produced by explosion-induced pressure on a magnetic field.

Physicist Andrei Sakharov was the first to propose using this principle in a bomb in the 1950s. Today, records in the size of an induced magnetic field, maximum current and properties of such "radiators" belong to Russian scientists. They surpass foreign counterparts by 10 times. Depending on what facilities the EMP is directed at, the damage radius can be from several hundred meters to kilometers. Without creating a shock wave and inflicting visible damage, it destroys all enemy electronic equipment. Moreover, unlike electronic countermeasures, electromagnetic weapons are capable of damaging radio electronic components even if they are switched off.

At present, the infrastructure and troops of many countries are stuffed with electronic equipment. It will be the main target for electromagnetic weapons. The destructive effect is produced by the high acceleration of the magnetic and electrical components of the EMP. They induce voltage changes ranging from 100 volts to 10,000 volts in circuit networks and terminals of radio electronic equipment. The ensuing massive sparking of cable jackets, their contact to frame and the ground, and breakdowns in connectors put the equipment out of action and lead to fires and explosions. To understand this effect better, it is enough to imagine what will happen to your TV-set if there is a power surge - it will simply melt.

The Americans were the first to use such weapons in combat, for instance in Yugoslavia. Some analysts believe that electromagnetic bombs would have given the United States a vital advantage in the early stages of the war in Iraq. They could have disabled not only Baghdad's control and communications systems, but also electronic components of missiles, even those located in deep bunkers. But the U.S. command chose not to use electromagnetic bombs for fear that they might disrupt its own radio electronic equipment in the area.

Today, many countries have electromagnetic weapons. Military experts predict a victory in future wars to those who will be ahead in electromagnetic radiation. In many cases, not only the military-industrial complexes but also different civilian organizations, research institutes and universities conduct studies in this field, thereby increasing the threat of radio electronic terrorism. For example, a broadband high-energy and compact wave source is sold without any restrictions. In several fractions of a second, it can burn down all electronic equipment at an electric power station, substation or control tower.

A short intensive pulse can instantly paralyze data bases, financial centers and industrial equipment.


Yuri Zaitsev is an academic adviser at the Academy of Engineering Sciences. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

[marky 54]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVc9GX5K_As

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAWWL4HQDg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVysUSS-I64

[pepik]

[marky 54]

[Stefan]

This thread is pretty tiring. Can I make some observations?

The thread started with Alex challenging people who believed there was a difference between regular con-trails and what has been labelled "chemtrials".

By the bottom of the first page Alex and other critics were demanding that those who believed there was a difference provided proof.

Can you see the problem here? Alex, you made the statement that there is no such thing as "chemtrails" in a provocative way (deliberatly looking to insult those who held the opposite view to you) and yet you believe it is not incumbant upon you to prove that, but on others to disprove it - being the one who has made a claim the burden of proof is on you.

I'm not trying to prove to anyone on this forum that chemtrails exist, for one reason it is not a campaigning topic for me - it is something I am curious and concerned about but considering I have no idea what this means or what the purpose for it might be, it is not at present logical to try and convince the world it is happening. I talk to my friends about it sure, but that's where it ends. The main reason I am not interested in convincing you, Alex, isthis is that I don't believe it is something you can become convinced with by reading an argument - it is one you can confrim or deny through empiricism alone.

The reason I suspect there is something to this is that whenever I see this uncommon type of trail it coincides with a great increase in air traffic - dozens of planes criss-crossing the same patch of sky over a short period of time - and I know this is not normal as I have seen this happen in places where I reguarly go at the same time. Can I prove that to you Alex? No. I'm not trying to, this is why I suspect there is something to this - not why you should; you should watch the skies for your self and see if you observe anything similar.

The reason I don't buy the temperature/pressure/humidity argument is several times during a spraying campaign I have seen a perfectly normal flight glide through the same area of sky at the same time with a perfectly normal contrail. Can I prove to you I have seen this? I'm not even trying to, the only way you will confirm or deny this is if you actually use your eyes and look about a bit, but that's up to you. But if you want to prove to me I am wrong, you need to explain why neither of these observations should lead to the conclusion something fishy is going on, you certainly aren't going to do that by claiming I'm making it up or by calling me names, you have to come up with something solid.

If you don't want to believe in something, or don't want to look into something that is entirely your own choice, just leave others to their own business. But don't go around telling people they are wrong and then when asked why, demand they explain to you why they are right.

[Alex_V]

[Stefan]

Alex,
It should be possible to prove that the empirical observations I have highlighted are nothing out of the ordinary.

Certainly it always takes more research and leg work to back up a statement but that is what you chose when you are the one making the positive statement in the first place - in this case "The phenomona called Chemtrails are just contrails". You chose that or you chose to preside over a weak argument.

Beleieve me I am not stubborn on this one and open to arguments from both sides.

But it seems to me that you made a statement, then when asked to back it up, fliped the switch and started demanding that others disprove you rather than you support your own argument.

[Alex_V]