Well, you’re getting the discussion you want. This is the first evidence I have seen of “respectable” airlines like Qantas also being involved. I have seen evidence that budget airlines like Ryanair and Easyjet are part of it but Peter Kuznir is showing me something I didn’t know. Thank you for furthering my education.

Good luck with your self-appointed consultant role with Robert Forgette. I won’t check with him that your advice is really being appreciated by him if you would rather I didn’t.

However, as a means of warding off possible future incidents with passengers on flights I must say that “helping” Robert with his lawsuit does not seem a very effectual thing to be doing. Even in the event that a lawsuit against aerosol spraying from aircraft goes ahead with considerable support from local government as in Suffolk County, Long Island
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27866
the findings will be overruled because federal legislation, not county-level, legislation is what applies.

Initially I thought that what you were doing was organizing people with the same views as yourself to have discussion and opposition to chemtrails activity banned.  That WOULD be a useful thing to do as it would trigger the confrontation that is being fobbed off through various rather thin and increasingly less convincing subterfuges.

The ETC group’s activity has been confined to working in the international organizations and unlike the Long Island Skywatch activists in Norfolk County they avoid involvement in contrails vs chemtrails discussion, but nevertheless they have come up with something that can be represented as a moratorium on the type of activity you believe could not possibly be happening and presumably should not be happening. Even if that moratorium is not being enforced, isn’t working for such a moratorium perhaps a little more purposeful than what you are doing?

I gather from what you say that you must have seen Mike Murphy’s “What in the World are they Spraying” and not been convinced by it. If you would like to treat yourself to an even more extreme and “unbelievable” scenario, check out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pzW5Kb8u0Og

Leonard Clampett,

you are right when you state that a jet plane does not change the conditions around and behind it very much when passing by.

The point is that even a change this small may be sufficient to initiate a cloud creation process if the conditions are favorable.
The Wikipedia article article about cloud physics has a paragraph on Supersaturation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_physics

In short: the water for a spreading contrail is already present before the plane comes through.

A more illustrative way of showing how atmospheric conditions are influencing trail creation is here (needs Java):
http://profhorn.aos.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap15/contrail_applet.html

In some humid conditions you get condensation even from the aerodynamic disturbances created by the body and the wings of a plane. Google “aerodynamic contrail” and look at the images found.

Wayne

I am going to ignore the rather obvious attempt at provocation when you say that Qantas is now involved. Instead I am going to invite you to attempt to answer any one of the questions I originally posed; now you know my position, consider them non-rhetoric in your case.

And feel free to contact Robert if you wish.

Confessions of one’s real attitude cannot just be taken back or unsaid, Mike Glynn.

Thank you for the permission to contact Robert, or try to.

Yes, typical of the attitude I find amongst the Chemmie community.

When the hard questions come up you hide, play the man, change the subject… basically do anything to avoid having to confront reality, or someone who might, just might, know what they are talking about.

I have about 15 other airtight reasons why it is simply not possible for commercial airliners to be involved in any chemtrailing, not that I expect any engagement on them from you. It seems that you can be grouped with Mr Kusznir, an ostrich squawking loudly from underground… which is really not a compliment of any sort.

Is the ETC group “part of the Chemmie community” Mike Glynn?

(“Chemmie”, what a word! Dripping with its unexamined Cold War assumptions. Your attitudes and language have been shaped by a very specific troll culture Mike Glynn.)

Now, answer my question.

Is the ETC group “part of the Chemmie community” Mike Glynn?

(“Chemmie”, what a word! Dripping with its unexamined Cold War assumptions. Your attitudes and language have been shaped by a very specific troll culture Mike Glynn.)

Now, answer my question

“Troll”, what a word! Dripping with unvarnished attempts to suppress the truth. Its is right up there with ...whats the other words you guys use to attempt to discredit someone who presents an argument you cannot otherwise counter….shill? Disinfo agent? CointelPro?

  Quick answer Wayne… I don’t care who they are. They have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Now I have answered your question… how about you take a stab at… well just one of mine? Pick any one… take your time.

regards

Mike

“I have joined a Facebook group that is suing over Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails. Not because I believe for a second that they will be successful, but because I wish to see an end to this as I believe that if it continues to gather steam then pilots and aircraft will be placed in danger by extremists. By advising them on aviation matters for the lawsuit I can assist in the ending of this question. Search for Chemtrail and Geo-Engineering lawsuit on Facebook. The owner of that group, Robert Forgette will vouch for me.”

When I read these words of Mike Glynn, about this group that was “suing”, owned by a Robert Forgette who will “vouch for” Mike Glynn, I naturally assumed that the group he was referring to was “suing” chemtrails activists for sowing panic for no good reason and by extension making themselves potential de facto instigators of terrorist actions. Such activity would certainly be illegal and I therefore found this apparent new development extremely interesting. There is all the difference in the world between trollish threatening and intimidating of individual “chemmies” on discussion fora and decisive real-world legal measures, bringing the whole subterranean “chemmie” vs “troll” intenet psychodrama into the light of day and the scrutiny of the public.

When Mike Glynn expressed scepticism over the lawsuit’s chances of “being successful” I thought that what he was referring to was the ideal of “freedom of speech” that a group targeted in this way might attempt to evoke. But surely “freedom of speech” is an idea that cannot be allowed to shield those whose danger-mongering and baseless accusations are leading to incidents like the one that occurred on the flight that Mike Glynn referred to.

It is more than disappointing that what Mike Glynn is doing amounts to nothing more than rather confused and possibly not altogether welcome “advisory” participation in a group of “chemmies”.

It is not possible for him to initiate something like what I imagined he was already doing: suing chemtrails activists for the spreading of baseless rumour?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_person_be_prosecuted_for_yelling_fire_in_a_crowded_building_when_there_is_no_fire

Can a person be prosecuted for yelling fire in a crowded building when there is no fire?

Answer
Yes, it’s called Reckless Endangerment. When you make an action like that intentionally and knowing that there is no such danger, it encourages an action in the crowd that you would have probable reason to suspect panic. People get injured in panics. To put people in danger knowingly and without justification is illegal in all states. But get hold of a lawyer for specific citations.

So, another question, Mike Glynn, if you are NOT in fact doing what I thought you were doing, why aren’t you?

Ad hominen attacks Wayne? That is straight out of the playbook isn’t it?
I have explained, up front, my reasons for advising this group; if they are beyond your grasp I cannot help that.

Can you please cease with the evasion and attempt one single answer of the questions I asked… lest people start seeing right through you, if they haven’t already?

I can answer the question the way you answered my question. In fact I already have, in the earlier exchanges with Josh. In great detail. If you want to know what is happening in the sky, the chemtrail vs contrail argument is the surest way of not finding out.

How could it not be? It is an argument that was set in motion by the same people who dreamed up the idea of “solar radiation management”. Say that your solar radiation management is merely aircraft exhaust, until such times as you can legalize what you are doing.

This exchange is going to become repetitive and time-wasting if you don’t face up to the fact that I have no more intention of playing “your game” than you apparently have of playing mine.

The controllers of this thread will shut it down.

You have many more opportunities than I have of finding out the technical details of how it is being done, how they are managing to do it, in the case of the aircraft and flights that you are involved with.

Wayne Hall,

as long as nobody is showing convincing evidence that “it is being done”, it isn’t. So the “how” question is entirely obsolete until that time.

Mike Glynn,

I suspect you won’t get any sensible reply from Wayne Hall. I also conclude from some of his postings that he is feeling targeted which adds an unhealthy aspect to his behaviour. Maybe he is best left alone.

Leonard Clampett was willing to involve himself in discussion on the basis of “it isn’t being done”.  Is he still, I wonder?

Anyway, I have had some communication from Robert M. Forgette, and although I have no intention of trying to involve him in the time-wasting sado-masochism of the discussion here, perhaps there is now some hope of light being shed on the psychology of Mike Glynn, who says that Robert will “vouch for” him.

Well, I have seen the correspondence between Mike Glynn and Robert M. Forgette, or what Robert says is the correspondence, and I guess there is no reason not to believe him. It is true that there is politeness on both sides and indeed a reassurance from Robert that “your presence here is appreciated”. Mike also mentions that at one chemtrails group he enrolled in as soon as they found out who he was they closed down or relocated. He also expresses a fear that activists may not believe he is really a pilot. I must say that it never occurred to me not to believe that he is who he says he is. The correspondence contains discussion of a proposed scheme to send up a capsule to test the content of the chemtrails. Mike says that he thinks once the result of such a test becomes known this will be enough to disprove the assertions of chemtrails activists. 

Given that no results of the test in question have as yet been announced, no conclusions can be drawn from all this.

If Mike and/Josh did something similar to what I did with Robert and asked of the ETC group the questions I suggested they should ask, perhaps we could get some more constructive input.

COPY/PASTE from Wayne Hall’s last post above:

-The correspondence contains discussion of a proposed scheme to send up a capsule to test the content of the chemtrails.

-Followed by:  Mike says that he thinks once the result of such a test becomes known this will be enough to disprove the assertions of chemtrails activists.
—————————————————————————————————

Hi Wayne,
Wanted to make a note of these statements… There was no “Discussion” of the Capsule, but a Mention of what we were thinking may be something we were going to do, followed by Mike’s response “Seemingly” supporting the idea.  After his response, we decided to utilize an actual Pilot to obtain the sample, since that person offered.  BOTH SIDES of this topic, share the same interest when you cut away all the BS and arguments… ~What’s In The Trails?~ Simple as that right?

Wanted to make sure what I shared with you and what you meant to say are clearly understood by all.  Since my perception of what you just wrote leaves me feeling like it’s not an exact match, I think it’s important for me to copy/paste the actual correspondence I’m referencing in this post.  After all, I did take the time to put it all together and answer you without any details missing. 

COPY/PASTE from my inbox:

Robert M Forgette
May 11
Robert M Forgette

  This is what we will be using… (HARC LINK WAS REFERENCED)

Michael Glynn
May 14
Michael Glynn

  Hi Robert… interesting…if it has a reliable altitude reporting system it should get useable results for you.

  A thought has occurred to me as an alternative or a supplement.

  Have you considered spectroscopy?

  If it is possible to read the spectral composition of a galaxy billions of light years away I would have thought it very possible to point a spectroscope at a piece of blue sky as a control, and then at a trail for analysis. I don’t know anything much about the mechanics of spectroscopy, but it may be worth looking into.

Robert M Forgette
May 14
Robert M Forgette

  Me neither, but since my last reply, David Michael Tweedie has volunteered to take a plane up and sample the air directly. [:)] Very exciting to see people step up and help.

Hi again Wayne,

Had one more thing to clear up. 
————————————————————————————-
You stated:  Well, I have seen the correspondence between Mike Glynn and Robert M. Forgette, or what Robert says is the correspondence…
————————————————————————————-

-While I realize “what I say” is always Honest, others like yourself whom don’t know me, should speculate my honesty.  I would expect no less, until you knew me better and could get a feel for the way I am.  Since my honesty’s very important not only to myself, but for the Group I’m heading with it’s original Founder Al DiCicco, I find it equally important to clear up any statement containing: “or what Robert says is the correspondence…”  ...
-Especially when you received this correspondence as an actual Forwarded Internal Message within the Facebook Platform, which clearly shows as it does in the attached “Screen Shot” link below. 
-I appreciate you coming and inquiring about Michael and realize you may have a lot going on.  Thinking you may have thrown it all together best you could with limited time is all.  I’d rather think this to be the case.

Thanks for the opportunity to post here and thanks for reading. 

Peace!
Robert M Forgette

Thank you Robert. When I said “I have seen the correspondence between Mike Glynn and Robert M. Forgette, or what Robert says is the correspondence, and I guess there is no reason not to believe him” this was just a statement of fact, as I think you appreciated later when you thought more about it. 

I can’t see much difference between my report and the record you post here. I didn’t mention the detail about spectroscopy because it seemed speculative and inessential.

Yes, I should have said “mention of a proposed scheme” rather than “discussion of a proposed scheme” but the basic points about the general politeness, your saying that Mike’s “presence here is appreciated” were all reported by me accurately.

Also, your point that “BOTH SIDES of this topic, share the same interest when you cut away all the BS and arguments… ~What’s In The Trails?~ Simple as that” is not something I dispute. I merely add say: “Mike says that he thinks once the result of such a test becomes known this will be enough to disprove the assertions of chemtrails activists.”

Which is not something I think Mike would dispute. 

But the results of the test are not yet known, so if we were to adopt the spirit of your test we would not be arguing, and we HAVE been arguing, nastily. .

The discussion here has been quite different from the discussion between Mike and you. Mike first joined the debate here with references to a “gigantic hoax, perpetrated out of the US for the personal gain of a few. Carnicom is one… Morgellons research?!?!? give me a break. Michael J Murphy is another peddling his silly videos.

The chemtrail hoax should be very easy to see through by anyone applying some very basic critical thinking.”

In a private message to Mike I said at that point: “You will understand that after ten years of involvement with this subject, including with every manner of debunker and troll, who often have no hesitation about pursuing their attacks into one’s real-world environment, one is not just going to stand to attention and say “yessir” to any bystander who wants to move into the discussion with a peremptory “prove it” demand, enlisting arguments some of which are familiar to the point of nausea and others which make one wonder “yes, what COULD be the explanation?”.

Therefore I would suggest to you that we initiate exploration of this topic by your inquiring of the ETC Group, who organized at Nagoya the moratorium on geoengineering projects including solar radiation management whether they believe that this moratorium is being respected and/or implemented.

If you do as I ask you to do, relations between us will be more equal and we will be in a better position to explore together the situations to which you say you wish to find answers.”

In other words, Robert, I was proposing an alternative way of exploring this subject to the way that you are your group are pursuing. But Mike’s response was to say: “all of those questions (i.e. the questions he himself had been asking) were rhetoric and intended to demonstrate the fallacy of the chemtrail hoax when applied to real world. There is no answer to them that would satisfy any critical thinker as to veracity of chemtrails, particularly as applied to commercial airline flying.

Later on in the increasingly nasty argument, I said to Mike: “To say it for the umpteenth time: I think the contrails versus chemtrails debate is the LAST way to understand anything about what is happening, and what is being proposed.

If you asked me to try to contact him to cross check what he says about you and your role in his group and what you yourself say (this is the equivalent of my proposing that you should contact ETC) I would do so.”

Finally I did and that brings us up to the present. I am grateful to you for being so generous with time and information, which has very much helped the discussion here.

There could be some possibility of collaboration between the supporters of the following:                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M528c41GWs&feature=youtu.be      and what a number of members of the government of Cyprus have said they will support http://www.enouranois.gr/english/epistolesenglish/indexcyprusperdikis.htm