Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > chemtrails      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 54
chemtrailsPage 3 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

I have no evidence to present...


if I even had probable cause...


you expect me to prove it to you? Why?

Looks like this argument has backpedalled right out the door. *shuts the door, locks the deadbolt*

I call for an adjournment until we at least get some photos of an all-white KC-135 (not grey as all of them are now) flying at lower than commercial jet altitudes (that is a tricky one to confirm) and spewing contrails out of its 4 engines that are somehow different from normal contrails (although contrails dissipate quite differently depending on the moisture content). Lingering contrails at low altitudes, especially in the warmer months, are unusual. Better yet, find a plane that has less contrails than it has engines-- that IS fishy!

Besides, I have to go feed my pet unicorn. I don't have to prove I have one to say that on here, do I?? I didn't think so.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 55
chemtrails
Posted: 10/29/2009 11:02:49 AM

Looks like this argument has backpedalled right out the door.

Backpedalled? What argument? I wish you guys would quit trying to stick me with a strawman to knock down! How many times do I have to say that I'm merely stating my opinion based on my own observations. I'm NOT trying to prove ANYTHING. I'm only saying that something fishy is going on (and have developed a hypothesis that is apparently consistent with what many people are saying), and unless YOU GUYS can present something more convincing than the usual spiel about how nothing has changed since the nineties (which is in direct contradiction to my observations), I will remain unconvinced.

That said, I have an open mind and I'm quite willing to entertain plausible explanations for the phenomena I have observed, if anyone cares to produce them. If you sincerely want to "debunk" my views, you ought to at least produce explanations for the following anomalies(?) I have observed:

I NEVER observed lingering contrails until the mid-nineties and have observed many lingering ones that turn into cirrus-like clouds since then. Plausible explanation please. Don't say "coincidence" because the probability that it is, is vanishingly small. Something changed around 1995...What might it have been?

While I live near an airport, never in the past (pre-mid-nineties) have I observed jets flying straight flight paths over central Winnipeg at 15,000 to 25,000 ft., leaving dense contrails, more often than not on clear, or partly cloudy days. The planes usually overfly Winnipeg over the course of a couple of hours, then cease leaving contrails. It should be noted that the contrails are apparently left at about the same altitude (I have seen them "interfere" with one another where they intersect). Why would jets overflying Winnipeg fly so low? If they are taking off or landing, why would their flight path be straight? Why are the jets so quiet? as I've said before, they are flying far below cruising altitude, yet make hardly any jet noise. (I should mention that they appear to be flying in the 300 to 400 mph range) Why do these jets appear to be non-commercial aircraft?

Flyguy, as a pilot you ought to be able to answer some of my questions with something plausible if you'd like to assuage my suspicions. At the very least, it would be helpful if you answered some of my questions regarding fuel dumping and airport holding patterns & altitudes (a prior post I made), so I'd have a better handle on what constitutes "odd" behaviour by aircraft.

Don't forget to give your unicorn a treat...I hear they're especially fond of pink cotton candy. (Mine prefers Margaritas)
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 56
chemtrails
Posted: 10/29/2009 1:21:23 PM
Duks, I can lay claim to at least a couple of contrails going over Winnipeg, having traveled to Edmonton and Vancouver from Toronto on business.


How many times do I have to say that I'm merely stating my opinion based on my own observations. I'm NOT trying to prove ANYTHING. I'm only saying that something fishy is going on (and have developed a hypothesis that is apparently consistent with what many people are saying), and unless YOU GUYS can present something more convincing than the usual spiel about how nothing has changed since the nineties (which is in direct contradiction to my observations), I will remain unconvinced.


In other words you want us to prove that contrails AREN'T chemtrails. Sorry, not how it works. If you have a case to make, make it.


I NEVER observed lingering contrails until the mid-nineties and have observed many lingering ones that turn into cirrus-like clouds since then. Plausible explanation please. Don't say "coincidence" because the probability that it is, is vanishingly small. Something changed around 1995...What might it have been?


As the photos already provided show, contrails have been around for as long as we've had high altitude flight. I recall seeing contrails well into the '80s.


While I live near an airport, never in the past (pre-mid-nineties) have I observed jets flying straight flight paths over central Winnipeg at 15,000 to 25,000 ft., leaving dense contrails, more often than not on clear, or partly cloudy days. The planes usually overfly Winnipeg over the course of a couple of hours, then cease leaving contrails. It should be noted that the contrails are apparently left at about the same altitude (I have seen them "interfere" with one another where they intersect). Why would jets overflying Winnipeg fly so low? If they are taking off or landing, why would their flight path be straight? Why are the jets so quiet? as I've said before, they are flying far below cruising altitude, yet make hardly any jet noise. (I should mention that they appear to be flying in the 300 to 400 mph range) Why do these jets appear to be non-commercial aircraft?


This is a little rambling so I'm not sure what your point is. If they are coming in for a landing, they're going to pass through warmer amounts of air and less likely to leave a contrail. However, I too have seen vortices coming off the tips of wings flying into YYZ. Spray? Not likely. It was in humid air. Go fig.

I've heard jet noise from jet flying high overhead. It just took a while. By the time I heard the sound, the jet was already well past zenith. That's just the way sound propogates.

Hey, someone has a unicorn? I have a pegasus. We should get 'em together. Can you imagine what they'd produce?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 57
chemtrails
Posted: 10/29/2009 2:26:08 PM
i would not be too surprised to see kc-135, c-130 and other military aircraft flying over the winnepeg area. Minot AFB is just across the border in north dakota.

True. They do fly over the Peg a lot, apparently headed to/from Alaska(?). With the base only being about 80 miles away, I would expect them to be fying at less than cruising altitude. HOWEVER, I would also expect them to mostly fly in a NW/SE direction. The planes I see are flying in many totally different directions, sometimes turning around for another "pass" over Winnipeg. (Maybe they're doing photo-reconaissance and we have a lot of cute naked rooftop tanners?)


bombers tactically fly low some times so as not to leave contrails

As I stated earlier, I only see an occasional contrail at cruising altitude, and there doesn't seem to be anything abnormal about them (except maybe they are a bit more persistent than I remember from the "old days", but that could just be my faulty memory). Most of the really persistent contrails I see are at about 20,000 feet, which in itself seems a bit strange, because the pressure & temp at that altitude ought to be generally less likely to form contrails than higher altitudes (at least, so far as I'm aware, please correct me if I'm wrong)

The strangest thing (and the one that nobody seems to address here, is the quietness of the jets producing these persistent contrails. Are the military jets different than the civilian/commercial ones? Do they use different engines?


this would account for why you see contrails at similar altitudes.

Yes, but why would air traffic controllers allow planes within say, 20 miles of one another to fly at the same altitude over winnipeg? wouldn't that constitute an unacceptable hazard? (We aren't exactly Chicago here, so I imagine there are plenty of levels at least 1000' altitude differential to assign for safety reasons.

@ stargazer


In other words you want us to prove that contrails AREN'T chemtrails. Sorry, not how it works. If you have a case to make, make it.

I don't want you guys to prove sh¡t, and I'm not out to prove any case either, so quit trying to trap me in a strawman argument. What I would appreciate is not having my observations written off as the ravings of a deluded conspiracy theorist, or perhaps as outright lies in order to "prove my case." I've made some observations that convince me something is going on. You don't believe it's anything out of the ordinary. Fine...I can accept that. HOWEVER, IF you wish to persuade me that my observations are misinterpretatrions of very natural things that happen all the time, then you'll have to produce at least SOME plausible alternate explanations for the stuff I've seen, primarily WHAT CHANGED contrails over Winnipeg in the mid-nineties? (because I assure you, something did).


As the photos already provided show, contrails have been around for as long as we've had high altitude flight. I recall seeing contrails well into the '80s

I've been watching them since jets started landing in Winnipeg in the early sixties. Nothing unusual until about 1995...WHAT CHANGED?


I'm not sure what your point is

The point was that (to the best of my knowledge) aircraft waiting to land , normally fly around the airport in very wide sweeping arcs...They don't normally fly straight over the city at over 15,000 feet.


I too have seen vortices coming off the tips of wings flying into YYZ. Spray? Not likely. It was in humid air. Go fig.

Most of the contrails I see originate from the engines. Only at the highest altitudes does it ever look to me like they might be originating at the wingtips.


I've heard jet noise from jet flying high overhead. It just took a while. By the time I heard the sound, the jet was already well past zenith. That's just the way sound propogates

The sound on the quiet jets that interest me appears to emanate from not too far behind the jet (maybe about 30° arc behind it, certainly no more than 45°). As I say, they are not flying anywhere near their ceiling, so the sound ought to be louder; it isn't.)


I have a pegasus

I bet I could "debunk" that!
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 58
chemtrails
Posted: 10/29/2009 4:42:21 PM

If you could figure out that, you could easily figure out how far away they are from you.

I never checked that way before, but will make a point of it from here on, because I don't have to have anything with me (and haven't carried my little scope in years). Thanks for pointing it out.

My estimate for maximum arc observed being about 45° was a pretty safe assumption, since if an aircraft were flying at Mach 1 (the speed of sound), it's sound cone would sweep out at 45° from its direction of travel, so the aircraft would appear displaced 45° away from the apparent source of the "boom". Taking that as the yardstick, it should be obvious that an aircraft flying at Mach 0.5 (something less than 375 mph - it varies, so it's less at higher altitudes) would appear displaced from the apparent source of the sound by about 26°.
My "best guess" was about 30°, so let's go with that. It works out to about 430 mph. The distance away from me would be hard to calculate accurately by the sound. The angular differential between the plane's position and the apparent source of its sound will be a constant with respect to its velocity. By that I mean you would actually have to measure the elapsed time between a plane's passing a point and the apparent source of the sound reaching the same point. Then the calculations become pretty easy. I'd say they are still less accurate than timing the plane's transit across the field of view of my little scope, after "measuring" the wingspan with the reticle. (I haven't done that in years, and barely know if I could even find the damn thing! - This discussion is kinda getting my juices flowing, so maybe I should dig it out & start seriously studying this crap again.)


As far as the planes getting quieter, that is exactly what is happening.

I know. In fact I knew one of the designers of the quieter ducts (as I mentioned previously on this thread). HOWEVER there is a distinct difference between the commercial jets and the (presumably) military ones, which forces me to ask if the military 767s (for instance) use different engines than the commercial ones. I'm not kidding...The ones I see are barely audible!


One more thing, contrails can ONLY emenate from the jet engine. No conspiracy there, either. Sorry, again.

I SAID as much, and only commented that only when a jet is at high altitude does it LOOK LIKE they could come from the wingtips (which they do not). At that, it is only without binoculars that one might be subject to the illusion, because one can barely see the plane at that altitude. For the record, vortices are only visible at low altitudes under the right conditions and are distinctly different than contrails....GEEZE!!
 aimee333
Joined: 6/12/2008
Msg: 59
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 12/7/2009 10:11:08 PM
google chemtrails.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 60
chemtrails
Posted: 12/8/2009 12:55:13 AM
Ahhh... the dihydrogen monoxide issue.

Another good internet resource -

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

If you have too many of these dihydrogen monoxide chemtrails in your area, you must get an orgone energy accumulator!







[facepalm]

.....people.
 2findU
Joined: 11/19/2005
Msg: 61
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 12/8/2009 7:56:08 AM
Chemtrails are just a conspiracy theory. They are just vapor trails from humidity in the air condensing in the tip vortexes if air craft wings.

Just check this link out to give you the real truth at Skeptoid.com
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4027#
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 62
chemtrails
Posted: 12/8/2009 8:31:37 AM

They are just vapor trails from humidity in the air condensing in the tip vortexes if air craft wings.

What makes you so sure? Have you done a study, or did you just get that off "the news"?
 ea®ly
Joined: 11/7/2006
Msg: 63
chemtrails
Posted: 1/17/2010 5:35:47 PM

I've been watching them since jets started landing in Winnipeg in the early sixties.


I lived in the flightpath of that airport for over 10 years 60's/70's, I certainly remember the noise, but I never saw contrails when they did.


The point was that (to the best of my knowledge) aircraft waiting to land , normally fly around the airport in very wide sweeping arcs...They don't normally fly straight over the city at over 15,000 feet.


Nope, and I couldn't tell you what it's like now, ...is it as busy an airport as it was in those days?

I'll be gathering some when the weather warms up. The last thread we had on this made me resolve to do a little research of my own and verify my sightings with the registration numbers, which, with my new equipment, I'll be able to record, along with the altitude, velocity, weather conditions and contrail persistence. I'm currently thinking of taking daily air samples, but that might get expensive to have them all analyzed unless I can get a friend or two at the U of M to help me out, so I can't right now say I'll be doing that (dammit!). By the time all the data is compiled & reduced, we're looking at about two years, but hell, its already been 15 and I'm sick of people suggesting my hypothesis is just a conspiracy theory.


I will certainly consider your efforts with an open mind, that's a promise.


Something changed in the character of many contrails in the mid nineties. Following up on the patents, I was able to find one for the introduction of an aluminum compound into jet fuel. I'm pretty sure somebody bought or licensed the patent and started producing that jet fuel. It has to be more than coincidence that the patent was issued at about the same time contrail persistence (of many, but not all contrails) increased by nearly an order of magnitude. To this point, all I have are visual observations & guesswork, but that was good enough for me to formulate a rough hypothesis. I know if I want to present my ideas to anyone else, they will have to be backed up with recorded empirical observations along with relevant data. It makes for a lot of work I never originally planned on doing (and costs a lot of money I had allocated for other things), but hey...SOMEBODY has to look into this crap. I guess it'll just have to be me.


It would be nice to get actual particulate samples, ...that would be tough though, but a sample of the fuel should be possible, ...no?

I'm moving your comments here because this thread is established and the other one is mostly a budding flame war (sigh).
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 64
chemtrails
Posted: 1/17/2010 6:14:05 PM
I never saw contrails when they did.

contrails were a high altitude, generally short persistance phenomenon until the mid nineties, at which point many jets were leaving highly persistent contrails at much lower altitude (and instead of dissipating, like most of the old ones, they more often than not spread and became hazy clouds (which suggests to me a far higher particulate content in the fuel). It seemed to happen almost overnight. I've been wondering what in hell they were doing since then, but never pursued too hard to find out, figuring that whatever they were doing it was probably for military purposes and only moderately lethal (statistically speaking). I didn't even hear the term "chemtrail" till about seven years later. It was mentioned on the radio and a little bell went "ding" in my head and I started googling "chemtrails" on the web.

Needless to say, by this time there was a lot of unbelievable crap about it (that I assume to be the usual planted disinformation & lies later used to discredit curious people), but some people were making a sincere effort to find out and DID find out a few things. Their voices were lost in the overpowering din of wild competing conspiracy theories, debunkings & ad hominem attacks. I kinda felt sorry for them...still do. Their evidence wasn't scientific in the sense of being peer reviewed studies conducted by people having the prerequisite degrees, but nevertheless, seemed to possess an air of honesty, and no apparent vested interest in the findings (except that what prompted the taking of soil samples outside the Edmonton(?) airport was a farmer wondering what was killing & stunting some of his plants. I guess you could say he had a keen interest in the soil analysis results.)

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/soilradar.html
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 65
chemtrails
Posted: 1/17/2010 6:19:15 PM

I'm moving your comments here because this thread is established and the other one is mostly a budding flame war (sigh).


Yeah, I'm getting out of that one, for obvious reasons.

What gets me is that people don't realize that there are legitimate concerns about the airline industry, airliner exhaust and the possibility for deleterious impacts on the environment, without getting into "conspiracies." In addition to being hydrocarbon based, there are a number of additives used to improve fuel flow, prevent freezing, static dissipation, etc.

It's an odd phenomenon when people have to find reasons to be afraid.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 66
chemtrails
Posted: 1/17/2010 6:28:49 PM

a sample of the fuel should be possible, ...no?

Why do I have visions of myself standing in rags at a military AFB with my hat in hand?..."Got any spare change or jet fuel? I need it for a cuppa coffee."
 ea®ly
Joined: 11/7/2006
Msg: 67
chemtrails
Posted: 1/17/2010 7:20:52 PM
Why do I have visions of myself standing in rags at a military AFB with my hat in hand?..."Got any spare change or jet fuel? I need it for a cuppa coffee."


I know someone in the National Defense, ...I think I'm going to see if he can point me to fuel suppliers, it might be fun.


What gets me is that people don't realize that there are legitimate concerns


This is why I understand Dukky's complaint, there are many issues I'm concerned about that I cringe when certain personalities agree with me, ...because of their own agenda.
 CoolBreezez
Joined: 8/20/2006
Msg: 68
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 1/17/2010 7:23:48 PM
Interesting read there Dukky- are you sure it was the jet contrails or something else?

Reading the report, it said there was radar interference at the time. Could it be that someone was playing with a radar jamming material? Sometimes these materials are made of aluminum. But I wouldn't put it in your fuel- it would probably foul up or cause undue abrasion in your engine.

I don't think it would persist for "hours". For anything to persist in the air, atmospheric conditions would have to be calm or a slow moving non turbulent type of air flow that would not break up the cloud of material. I don't know of anything that would make a gas or cloud more cohesive without making it fall out of the air supporting it.
 AnarchoCapitalist
Joined: 12/31/2009
Msg: 69
chemtrails
Posted: 1/18/2010 9:45:43 PM
Something funny is going on. I recently moved out to a remote area and there seems to be much more chemtrails out here than there were in Denver. They're definitely not contrails. One time I even saw a plane leaving a regular contrail, then all of a sudden you could see the contrail change, like they flicked a switch, and it got thicker and didn't fade out. It just started doing it halfway across the sky. Other times I've seen planes crisscrossing chemtrails and seen other planes fly by in the same area with regular contrails. so I definitely don't buy the excuse about it just being the temperature or humidity.

Since I've moved out here, I run a charcoal air filter and the one time I left it off for a week I started getting headaches, body aches, and fatigue - all the symptoms that come from to much barium being breathed in. There have been several air studies in areas of reported chemtrailing and barium seems to be a common denominator.

I know for a fact our government does some evil stuff, and it wouldn't surprise me at all that they're doing stuff to control the population. Hell, I almost agree.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 70
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 1/19/2010 5:50:36 AM

so I definitely don't buy the excuse about it just being the temperature or humidity.


Sorry, friend, but it's the chemtrail conspiracists that are selling something. You appear to have bought it.

The thing that floors me is that for a few thousand dollars, you could get a pretty good representative sampling of alleged chemtrails and "normal" contrails and compare them by composition. Look into private jet rentals and remote gas sampling.

And yet, none of the people who clearly have the money (YOUR money) from sales of the books they've written on the subject have BOTHERED to try and get substantive evidence supporting their claims. What.Ev.Er.

Meteorological explanations (temperature and humidity regimes in the atmosphere and humidity/nucleation from plane exhaust) fit the observed phenomena quite well, and in the absence of any real evidence, the chemtrail conspiracists are just blowing smoke out their behinds and hoping people won't notice it smells like turds.


I know for a fact our government does some evil stuff, and it wouldn't surprise me at all that they're doing stuff to control the population. Hell, I almost agree.


So, let me get this straight: The Government does evil things. Mind control is evil. Therefore, the Government probably does mind control?

Again, you're missing this leeeeetle tiny thing called "any evidence at all aside from paranoid imaginings."
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 71
chemtrails
Posted: 1/19/2010 6:07:31 AM

so I definitely don't buy the excuse about it just being the temperature or humidity.


Just because you don't "buy it," doesn't make it not true. Hey, it's amazing what you see car and home exhaust do in real cold temperatures. Having lived in northern Ontario and Manitoba, you see exhaust and cold temps a lot this time of year. It's no real mystery, really.


I started getting headaches, body aches, and fatigue - all the symptoms that come from to much barium being breathed in.


Also a symptom of "the flu." Also symptom of hypochondria.


There have been several air studies in areas of reported chemtrailing and barium seems to be a common denominator.


Oh, do please cite them.


I know for a fact our government does some evil stuff, and it wouldn't surprise me at all that they're doing stuff to control the population.


Ah yes, the lynchpin of all great conspiracy theories...the fantasy of the hyper-competent "government." And while we're at it, just how does barium fit in the great mind control experiment? Funny how conspiracy theories are always short on those little details.
 AnarchoCapitalist
Joined: 12/31/2009
Msg: 72
chemtrails
Posted: 1/19/2010 12:15:26 PM

Again, you're missing this leeeeetle tiny thing called "any evidence at all aside from paranoid imaginings."


The only one lacking evidence is you actually. You can't explain why one plane will fly through the exact same area as another and one will leave a long billowy trail of particulate matter and the other won't. My guess is that the idea of big daddy government hurting you rather than coddling you makes you weak in the knees, and its easier to deny. That's ok, I understand your fear.

There is mountains of evidence about chemtrails. You've just chosen to ignore them because you are making an assumption.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 73
chemtrails
Posted: 1/19/2010 12:35:47 PM

The only one lacking evidence is you actually. You can't explain why one plane will fly through the exact same area as another and one will leave a long billowy trail of particulate matter and the other won't. My guess is that the idea of big daddy government hurting you rather than coddling you makes you weak in the knees, and its easier to deny. That's ok, I understand your fear.


Actually, you're expecting him to prove a negative which is logically not possible. However, you're the one making an affirmative statement that it is "big daddy government" being bad. Okay, give us the evidence.


You can't explain why one plane will fly through the exact same area as another and one will leave a long billowy trail of particulate matter and the other won't.


Okay, what's your proof that this is exactly what it is. Again, it's an affirmative statement so it must have evidence. Let's see it.


There is mountains of evidence about chemtrails. You've just chosen to ignore them because you are making an assumption.


Ah, so then what is it, other than YouTube videos? Nor have you actually answered the whole "barium used in mind control" thing.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 74
view profile
History
chemtrails
Posted: 1/20/2010 11:14:56 AM

You clearly did not read the video maker notes on the right of the videos..


The ones that ask us to believe it was the same model jet at the same altitude of ascent with the same flight pattern when they are OBVIOUSLY at different altitudes?

Wow.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 75
chemtrails
Posted: 1/20/2010 11:46:36 AM

TV SECRETLY records CHEMTRAILS pilot in Fargo, NORTH DAKOTA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwhPR4h6xzg&NR=1


In other words...cloud seeding. Wow, that's real new. *yawn* Oh, hey! Here's their website.

http://www.weathermod.com/

Oh wait...you mean that what they're doing is flying up in a moist air mass and releasing silver iodide in an effort to cause cloud nucleation. As opposed to a passenger jet flying through a moist airmass causing cloud nucleation from its engine exhaust.

And...what?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 76
chemtrails
Posted: 1/20/2010 1:11:49 PM
@ Paul

I can post a video of a jacka$$, and put verbage on the screen saying that this is the president of the USA....

I wish you would... we could all probably use a laugh right about now. Did you hear the one about OW...Never mind...I'll get back to you later after the "anesthetic" takes effect....
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 77
chemtrails
Posted: 1/20/2010 7:49:28 PM
I went out walking today, on the mountain watching the chem-trails being laid down. When I went out it was still sunny, not so when I came back in.


So what's your forecast for the next couple of days?

Edit: Forecast for Victoria from The Weather Network says you've got wet weather coming. Hmmm....
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 78
chemtrails
Posted: 2/8/2010 8:03:32 PM
Wow, what a wonderfully paranoid little world you people live in! I hear tinfoil can be quite stylish if done right.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > chemtrails