Karsten Brandt? Oh...my....god. Have you read his report?
Pixelsmith, when I ask for proof, I actually mean proof.
Chemical spraying has been used in the past. The UK has the most astonishing tale of chemical spraying. Unfortunately, no one ever mentions the spraying form ground level that also took place because aerial spraying was ineffective.
Again...I ask for proof, not speculative reports.
The theorist's hypothesis is that contrails are really chemtrails, this is not supported by any evidence whatsoever, and requires a huge international conspiracy involving hundreds of government officials, pilots, airplane technicians, etc.
Karsten Brandt has correlated patterns of heavy artificial cloud-cover with the areas of known military jet exercises in Germany during 2005 and 2006. Patterns which no one can deny could possibly be contrails. Simply put, we are establishing the chemtrail argument using satellite imagery of high air traffic areas. What about the aircraft that isn't military based? Are they guilty too? What about the aircraft during WW1 and WW2? Were they death bringers from the NWO also?
The article is bunk. Plain and simple. It doesn't even claim to be scientific. It's full of speculation with zero evidence. I could have written a more convincing article in 10 minutes with both my arms sawn off. The links to Clifford Carnicom's website, who is supposed to have samples which he sent to several authorities, but all he got in response were letters stating "no, we do not spray you with chemicals". So I guess his first witness has been paid off by the NWO to simply refute the claims Karsten Brandt has made? Dude, that's like putting someone on your CV as a referee only to have them diss you to potential employers.
Let's take a look at his "scientific article"...
QUOTE: "2.4 Frequency of Trails and Why This Factor Alone Should Raise Suspicion.
From my observations, it seems that spraying seems to take place on 3 or 4 days per week."
From his observations it seems to take place on 3 or 4 days a week. Hows that for evidence? He isn't sure how often they occur, but he does know it's regular? Huh? What? Huhhhh? Major fail on his part.
QUOTE: "Though its pattern varies somewhat, aircraft often seem to follow the same flight path (a SouthEast to North West path is often repeated over my own house)."
Aircraft passing over his house "often seem to follow the same flight path". Could this be because he's living near part of the grid pattern of the FAA (as mentioned in the letter of the FAA on page 5)?
QUOTE: "Even just considering this factor should raise suspicion. For example in a run of 3 days, with the same weather conditions at ground level, there may be significant trailing on one day and then little or none on the other 2 days."
Weather conditions at ground level don't affect things in the sky. That is a fact. Hhow often does this happen? "There may be" is pretty vague if you ask me.
QUOTE: "If the trails are caused by civilian air traffic, as most people tend to assume, then this does not make any sense, because the amount of civilian air traffic over a given area on any given day should be relatively constant, or at least will be similar on each subsequent Monday, Tuesday etc."
He cannot quantify the differences? Ouch!
All this is from HIS research article.
So then you follow this link (
http://willthomasonline.net/willt...line/Chemtrails_On_German_TV.html ). The link that takes you to a poorly designed website that looks like it was designed by a blind monkey. In it, it clearly states the results of his evidence. It goes something like "Blah blah blah, I got the results back from the lab, blah blah blah, they found barrium in our water, blah blah". Yet, not a single footnote of where this data came from. How very pseudoscientific and convenient. No sane person with a background in science would dare make a statement unless they had footnotes directing the skeptical to the source of the information.
You can believe in chemtrails. There's nothing wrong with belief. Unfortunately, no one can claim they are real. Not even this hack meteorologist who has written the most unscientific bile I've read in a loooooong time.
Chemtrails are contrails. Contrails are backed by physics and the understanding of weather patterns. Chemtrails are fantasy with zero evidence.
Again, proof, got any?
