Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, make your voice heard!

Perhaps my last chemtrail thread started

dialogue and research on chemical trails

Perhaps my last chemtrail thread started

Unread postby socrates » Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:20 pm

I put my heart and soul into this topic. That stopped quite a while ago. Chemtrails and the internet simply don't mix. I believe that has been a result of a deliberate strategy.

This dude Jay Reynolds has signed up. I've seen him sign in at least twice yet leave no comment. I think he's second guessing his decision to join this forum. He's known about this place for years. We used to post together at a different website, and the main thing I remember is he always avoided the bread and butter best evidence that chemtrails are not contrails.

There's no hard core proof he is a disinfo agent. But he certainly smells like one. He showed up the exact time chemtrails started being discussed on the net. He worked side by side with the kooky William Cooper, the original Alex Jones. Think about that. Here's a guy whose main schtick has been to ridicule anyone questioning synthetic white-outs as a kook, yet there he was knee-deep in conspiracy theory. Talk about the pot calling a kettle black. Or smoke it. Think for yourselves.

If chemtrails are such an obvious joke of an idea, why has he gone to this much trouble to "debunk?"

These pages have clearly proven that "chemtrails" are more than plausible. I'd say there's greater than a 99% probability chemtrails are real. Unfortunately, chemtrail forums are not.

The internet was originally created by the military-industrial complex. As was weather mitigation originally in the form of environmental modification techniques.

Climate change is now defined as an issue of national security. That means we do not have to be informed on anything attempted "for our own good." But that doesn't prevent anyone from observing anomalies, asking tough questions, and demanding accountability.

How can persistent contrails be said to form, when necessary atmospheric conditions aren't present? According to NASA's Patrick Minnis' own words as the troll Canex at Chemtrail Central, the margin of error for a skewed humidity reading from weather balloons can be fixed. Basically, so-called persistent contrails have formed, even when that maximum margin has been tacked on, and there still wasn't enough humidity to account for the event. That is fact.

I'm glad Minnis admitted to me through email that he was indeed posting at Chemtrail Central, as much of a dive of a website as there has ever been. Basically, Patrick Minnis proved that chemtrails and contrails are not the same thing. Though, obviously that wasn't his intention. Nor did he expect to be outed as an insidious plant posing as a regular guy with atmospheric science as a hobby.

All Jay Reynolds can hope to do here is drop links sending newbies towards convolution. Or he can try to twist the topic back towards the realm of enigmas. Perhaps he'll do his mocking routine or decide to not make even one post.

What he can't do is stop anyone from skimming through this top section and locating that best evidence.

This is what I think happened. Jay noticed that this website was showing up on page 2 of google results for his name. That is going on despite this forum having slown down to a trickle. His initial reaction was he better sign up and do what he can to "debunk" AAANI. However, there is simply too much here that makes sense. On a level playing field, he can't win.

Where does he start? Will he end up directing more traffic here than he'd like to? He also knows this isn't his own turf, and I wasn't just some run-of-the-mill chemmie. I did a lot of homework, and the grades turned out pretty good.
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Perhaps my last chemtrail thread started

Unread postby socrates » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:35 am

I've deleted to delete Jay Reynolds.

I wrote to him:

Sent: 03 Aug 2011 03:00 pm
From: socrates
To: Jay Reynolds
Hello cousin. I'm assuming you know I was Jeff Reynolds at DBS. Anyway, I saw you logged in a few times and not post.

Here was his reply:
Re: Hi

Sent: 07 Aug 2011 07:09 pm
From: Jay Reynolds
To: socrates

I am working on a major debunk of "What In The World Are They Spraying"(WITWATS).
Yes, I mean the whole movie will be shown as tinfoil.
Let me know if you want to know more, shoot me an email.
I am curious about one thing, when I destroy WITWATS, who will you blame for it, will you see it as a psyops plan or just some greedy, some innocent, and some foolish folks that got taken in by tinfoil?
I mostly visit your site because of the DBS archives you have!
It's been very helpful. Do you think that Ottenhoff has the whole site archive available for sale?

This is my reply he'll now only see if he checks out this thread, which I doubt.

Re: Hi

Sent: 07 Aug 2011 08:43 pm
From: socrates
To: Jay Reynolds
Well, to be honest I'm not looking for anything from you. This forum has slowed to a trickle. No, I wouldn't say it's a psyop. If you're here mostly because I have some DBS archives, then please acknowledge that as your primary reason for signing on. I'm not looking to be ridiculed, and I won't do that to you either. I do understand it would take you quite a while, indeed months to counter the best stuff on these pages. That would be a lot of work for what is a place that probably gets little traffic. So if you're just here to do your thing on that movie, fine, you're more than welcomed. But I want you to be on your best behavior, and perhaps when all is said and done, you can be on your way. No, I'm not going to email you.

I've changed my mind. I'm not going to let him sign onto this forum simply to spew out his boring schtick. Maybe that video was bad. I don't know, and I don't care. There's plenty on this forum that debunks crazy believers and other misnomers coming from this side of the debate. I don't need some nasty, snot-nosed blowhard coming here to serve his own agenda without taking the time to address the best evidencee found on this website. That dude is a broken record. He ignores the best evidence, such as how so-called persistent contrails have formed when there wasn't the necessary humidity level to account for them. He never gives an inch on enmod or geoengineering. To a guy like him, this is all akin to saying the moon is made out of cheese.

He thinks people who think not all contrails are natural contrails are delusional. He has an agenda. He was not willing to debate honestly. He never has. I would not be surprised if he is on some kind of payroll with his main role being to keep this topic pinned down in the zeitgeist as simply not plausible. Oh yeah it's plausible.
Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Return to Frankensteinian Atmospheric Shenanigans

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests