i was responding to this

They are not close to each other. The parallel lines are several miles apart. Jet routes are, I believe , 9-10NM wide. Typically, airline traffic flying along frequently travelled JRs is spaced by ATC (horizontally, and/or vertically depending on how many aircraft are flying at any particular time). Often, we see them in the Eastern US flying out of JFK, LGA, or BOS, along southwesterly JRs...some days 5 or 6 flights, all at the same time, on the same route, some parallel to each other and spaced per ATC instructions, others, being vectored into the JR to assume a position some miles behind the existing traffic, some following sweeping arcs to intercept a route.

It's a painting in the sky some days...all of it being directed by the people who do that every day, for their livelyhood. Air Traffic Controllers.

These are definitely patterns made by design.
All commercial, or military jet traffic, flying from one place to another in the skies above 18,000 feet ASL (above sea level) flies along pre-arranged jet routes...always

Oh i see people are Imagining things now?Very well then i guess you have summed it all up then havent you?
so when i see planes flying back and forth creating a grid like in the op .its just my imagination they arent doing it while i watch
these are happeneing over time and far apart i imagined the rest of it

You responded to one sentence taken totally out of context. I repeat no one is claiming that what you see is imagined.
Actually we just share a difference of opinion on the Context of that sentance.And I find perhaps you have just done what you have accused me of? perhaps i am mistaken? I find that is exactly what was implied, that...." was it something we were wintessing? or were we Imagining what we see.....No it does not come right out and say, you are imagining it, but it does imply it in MY OPINION. And that was a single point, in my response .My entire response did not attack the position of Imagining things? Im unsure if you read my entire reponse? I did read all of what mid wrote twice and now a third time?


Try actually read MIDs posts and you will see things like this:

yes and my response to that was something of this nature

they arent doing it while i watch
these are happeneing over time and far apart i imagined the rest of it? Hmmmm seems pretty unlikely that all these poeple
are imagining things? I have been told that I am not wrong for thinking something is happening.I havent been told what
just that im not crazy and that im not wrong by a very credible person in my life.I dont have the answers of what exactly is happening
But I like discussing it


or this:

you seem to have left out all of this though

Thank you for agreeing that the patterns in the op ar indeed Odd as in not your normal contrail patterns I dont dispute the mechanics of Contrails or the existence of contrails either.What I think i am seeing and reading about is related to Contrails as they are apparently adding some aersols to some of the contrails of some aircraft that seem to be dedicated to flying these patterns.I appreciate your explanation of ATC and what they do but some of what i have seen as well as what was in the Op here doesent seem to me to be addressed by that.Im really not of the mind that commercial aircraft are even invloved.and havent ruled out pilotless craft being used to fly some of the grids


It seems to me as i was saying earlier on in the discussion ,that if one wanted to watch the behavior of certain areas of the atmosphere it would be easy to watch for changs or roll over and shear point if there were Very Persistent contrails laden with aeresolized metals like aluminum and barium to attract more moisture to the contrail to hold it longer the chaffe in the trail would make it easily watchable by radar or whichever means they were using to track these items.they shear and other items are POSSIBLY being induced By Scalar weaponry used by Russia and china Based On nikola Tesla and his theories .if we can determine how they ar effecting the atmosphere and weather in a certain region we can combat it with our own scalar technology present at the Gakona station in Alaska











Which bares no relation to this allegation you made:
we have been over this point, As i clearly see it ,we share a difference of opinion on the context of that last sentance in the post .
As well my responses above clearly show that i was in fact responding directly to MID. My responses all contain reference to points he made in his post.
I am wondering why it is this is being brought up? Are we not allowed to have a difference of opinion ,on the context of something? Or do we all have to fall in line?
I dont understand the angle of this. My post clearly addressed, and responded to the post in question.. I dint attack anyone, or anything,I made a general statement concerning the context of the sentance as i saw it.. I was neither inflammatory, or derrogative.I was simply responding to what i percieved.The rest of the post clearly shows that i was not only reading his post ,but directly responding to it


Apparently we will just have to agree, to disagree. In no way ,or form ,was my post designed, or meant to be an attack on any position or person.









Like I said respond to what people actually say not what you imagine they say.

so may i ask?Is what your saying, is that i cant have my own opinion? on the context of a sentance?and therefore cannot respond accordingly?

Based on all of what i wrote above I do not see where that came into play at all

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

I never IGNORED the body of the post I clearly responded throughout the post to points made by MID Im sorry we are in complete disagreement here i responded to each point of his ....Only My first paragraph dealt with the sentance in question?

Oh i see people are Imagining things now?Very well then i guess you have summed it all up then havent you?
so when i see planes flying back and forth creating a grid like in the op .its just my imagination they arent doing it while i watch
these are happeneing over time and far apart i imagined the rest of it?

I live next to an airport, Surprize Surprize, i see "chemtrails" all the time, because the Aeroplanes fly above my head, leaving them at high atl.

its no big deal......

I see that some people can`t to differentiate contrails from chemtrails so I please them to not post here because they spam this topic. Open topic named Contrails and you can chat about contrails as much you want. This topic is about CHEMTRAILS, not contrails.

Thank you