New Alternet Article About Chemtrails.

From: Andrew Johnson

Date: 2009-01-27 12:59:14

A few weeks ago, I was contacted by the guy who wrote this article. I am glad I didn’t contribute anything to the article (see comment I posted):…       I was contacted by the author [Report this comment]    [Ignore this user] Posted by: ad.johnson on Jan 27, 2009 4:53 AM    Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]  And I am now glad he did not contact me further in this disappointing article.As ever, there is a confusion between “theory” and “evidence”.Some good points are covered in the article, but these days I usually skip to the conclusion of the article, which in this case is woefully inadequate because of its dismissal of all the evidence.Those who are parroting “contrails… contrails… contrails… CONTRAILS for heaven’s sake” have not looked at all the evidence:GridsTrianglesTime lapse studiesThis evidence is clear and unequivocal – as is the path of Hurricane Erin and its location on 9/11/01 (which I encouraged the author of this article to study, but I am not sure from this article if he did)… my report about chemtrails, and some of the responses I received about… a short film I made for… “contrail fantasists”, what say you? It’s funny how some people comfort themselves that it’s just a contrail only phenomenon. It really is funny. I am sure they feel comforted with the author’s conclusion too.A reminder: just because the purpose of something cannot be clearly defined does not mean it does not exist.Example: Fred says: “I don’t know what human beings are for!!”. Bill says: “Neither do I – so they can’t exist, can they?”PLEASE distinguish properly between “theory” “evidence” and “proof”. Thanks.   Are you interested in what’s really going on in the world, behind the facade? Then…www.checktheevidence… happened on 9/11?    

Related articles...

Comments are closed.