[SteveX]

Ad.Johnson

I have entered this thread in an open honest fashion. I have declared my stance and stated my personal opinion from the outset. I have not stated, "chem trails do not exist." I remind all here that this fact has been overlooked.

My motives for entering this thread were based on the thought that proof positive was required for sceptics like myself to get on board. It seems some are confused, and I don't mean to be condescending, by the difference between a sceptic and a non-believer.

Johnson. In effect you are asking me, a self-confessed and open-minded sceptic, to prove my case. I am not the plaintiff here. It's your side of the argument that has brought the charges of chem trails. That's bye the bye as I'm not here to debate "if" or "not" chem trails exist. Again, this fact seems to be overlooked.

I'm opened minded to viewing any poignant and validated evidence. I am not persuaded by logbooks of fly byes, hear say or web links with outlandish, ineffective and plain wrong rhetoric. Neither am I persuaded by paranoia and or ignorance.

Gentlemen, I was fully aware, that upon entering this thread, that my stance could be conceived as controversial. My opinion of scepticism has not been changed thus far. My stance is as it was but I apologise for any misconceptions and failure on my part to avoid controversy. I wish you well with you endeavour’s and, as not to divert your inspiration before this thread slides further into one of honour, I respectfully withdraw.

Good luck.