I am going to jump, feet first, into this attempt at discrediting David's questions. To Flint: you said "anything unknown might be thought as evil". Not so! The clouds are "unnatural". You do not take a beautiful, cloud free day and turn it into a hazed cloud covered sky, to block out the beauty, for no reason. The reason is not "seeding the clouds" to produce rain. We have not had rain for forty days and forty nights (to quote a phrase). We do not automatically assume it to be an evil action, we just keep looking for logical reasons. If the Government lets your Grandmother die because she cannot pay for her needed medication, why in the Hell would they lay out big money for cloud seeding? They are not that humane, never mind the hungry children in the U.S. E.H., are you by chance an M.D.? My family and I have learned that many M.D.'s have very closed minds when it comes to looking outside their small arena of learned treatment and medical treatment alternatives that is outside their scope, hence, some die, or live a suffering physical life, when there were alternatives that offered hope and physical improvement.When MD's cannot escape the confines of their own educated walls, what hope is there for them to look outward? David, you can call them Contrails, Chemtrails, or ACAEOUCAP, any which flavor you choose. But I see them (trying to find a trend, saw they didn't fly on two Sundays in a row), what does that mean? I don't know about the chemical spray thing, after all I am still living and breathing. But I am MAD AS HELL about some human having the power and technology to turn a beautiful clear day into a cloud covered formation, and no rain results. It isn't natural...

-- Name (Ch@nger.com), May 31, 2000.

-- Rain falling in (your@arena.org), June 01, 2000

Answers

HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The folks in Los Alamos wished it would have rained... I wish it would rain... Tinderbox city... That is NM right now....

Tornadoes anyone?

The humidity is so low here lately that DRY LIGHTNING has caused fires in southern NM that are almost a large as that bitch of a Gubmint screwup. Hell, it was burning east of Santa Fe early this week... I just hope the idiots don't light up the forest east of ABQ or we might have a REAL problem... just my rant...

Know any good rain dancers??

growlin' at the TV...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

Sorry, Dog, it seems we've gotten all your rain and humidity here in Oregon. It's supposed to be our dry season (yes, Bunky, there really IS a dry season in Western Oregon. It just doesn't seem like it after nine months of rain :)

I personally think that what Name Changer, or whatever the poster's name is, is seeing are NOT a horrible government plot, and I don't think any human has the power to turn a beautiful clear day into a cloud covered formation. At least not deliberately. I think maybe we've been putting so many jetliners into the airspace that we've affected the amount of moisture up there to the extent that it often becomes saturated by the addition of jet exhaust, thus forming these unusual clouds. I believe it is a pollution issue, and/or a population issue, not a government plot issue. I've been seeing these strange, jet caused, clouds for at least ten or fifteen years. I don't like it either, and would certainly like a credible explanation and a credible solution.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), June 01, 2000.

And some here say that the posters on ezboard are weird? This Chemtrail seems pretty weird and paranoic to me.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), June 01, 2000.

JoseMiami--Yes, but at least here only a few, such as Hawk, actually believe in something as paranoid as Chemtrails. Here, at least, a few people are willing to point out that a belief in Chemtrails is symptomatic of a severe disconnect from reality.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 02, 2000.

E.H.,

That was rather rude. You are implying that my theories about chemtrails are paranoid, and represent a "disconnect from reality".

How so? Please elaborate.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 02, 2000.

That's what I figured you'd say. Nothing.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 02, 2000.

I'm going to repost what I posted on the other thread E.H., since you obviously didn't put much thought into it. I'll add a few links for support.

"They are definitely real, and definitely intentional. In my judgement, they could be one of the following, in order of most likely...

1. An attempt at reducing or slowing the rate of global warming.

2. Experimentation with a type of reflective OTH (over the horizon) missile detection or defensive security system.

3. A very mild, very gradual innoculation to build immunity to anthrax."

*****

McCain says there's 'mounting evidence' of global warming

Putin proposes joint US-Russian missile shield

Preparing for the worst: America practices counterterrorism drills

*****

GLOBAL WARMING.

MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM.

THREAT OF BIOLOGICAL TERRORIST ATTACK.

There you have it, undeniably 3 of the MOST important issues currently being discussed in the political arena, and high-priority PRIMARY concerns of our government. ALL are in the interest of PROTECTING the people, not destroying them. How is that "paranoid"? How is it a "disconnect from reality" to think that the government would be taking steps to alleviate these concerns?

THIS criticism, coming from the same guy who said that he thinks the government are trying to kill children and elderly citizens??? Haaa! NOW who is the one being paranoid?

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 02, 2000.

Sorry you don't like my opinion, Hawk. But, I do firmly believe that anyone who believes that the persistent contrails frequently seen as a result of airline traffic are the result of a deliberate program to spray some foreign substance for some unknown purpose by some unknown government agency have become a little disconnected from reality. Perhaps more than a little disconnected. They live in a world in large part of their own creation which frequently has little relationship to reality.

There is a fine line between healthy skepticism or suspicion and paranoid. There is a less clear line between being a little paranoid and being a down right nut case. In my opinion, belief in Chemtrails crosses the first line easily and hovers near (if not across) the second line. It requires starting with the assumption that something bad MUST be going on, and then working backwards to find a conspiracy based cause.

That's almost as weird as, say, arguing that the Y2K bug could (or even probably did) cause various airline crashes and MD-80 defects in early 2000. Which is to say, very very weird.

Well, you did ask for my opinion. Now you've got it.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 02, 2000.

E.H.

I have to agree with Hawk that his suggestions are reasonably possible and don't think that they necessarily represent "paranoid" thinking.

Just because you haven't experienced "chemtrail" type contrails doesn't mean that something isn't going on in other areas of the U.S. I personally have seen some pretty wierd stuff in the last few months that doesn't fit in with the regular contrails that we are used to.

Our government has a long history of experimenting on us without our knowledge and consent.

The more I think about it, the more Hawk's scenarios make sense.

Hawk,

I believe that I am the culprit who first suggested the business about killing off "useless eaters", translated: the elderly and infirm. Although given in jest, it's not totally outside the realm of possibility, either. We've got some pretty bad people in positions of great influence in this country.

-- Lurker2 (Lots@to.lurk.for), June 02, 2000.

Actually, Lurker2, I live in Minnesota. Perhaps because of the generally lower temperatures around here, persistent contrails are reasonably common. I've seen those things for as long as I can recall; at least 20 years. If the guvmt is spraying us, it' been doing so for a very very long time.

Chemtrails is classic internet hysteria. They've been around since jet airplanes were invented. No one thought anything of it. Then, a few articles on the 'net, and everyone with a paranoid streak is posting photos whenever they appear.

And, no, Hawk's theories don't make sense. Not a bit of it. Let's take that Contrails to stop global warming crapola. Does cloud cover reduce temperatures? Don't know -- neither does Hawk. I do know that cloudy skys at night trap heat and raise temperature. And, what percentage of the earth's surface are covered by "Chemtrails" at any given time? You wanna bet that it's no where close to even .00001%

But, let's not get into that, O.K. That was my original point on Chemtrails. Logic is for people who have formed logical theories and can be influenced by additional information. The Chemtrail crowd is so far out to lunch that any amount of explaination is a waste of time.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 02, 2000.

For an alternative view of chemtrails/contrails by someone who has done actual research, you can look here.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 02, 2000.

I don't see how asserting that chemtrails cannot exist, is any more rational than claiming that every cloud-like formation is a chemtrail.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), June 02, 2000.

Yes, David L, Chemtrails COULD exist. And, yes, David L., there COULD be a Santa Clause. And, North Koreans COULD be hiding under your bed right now (and if you look, and they are not there, they COULD have just gone out for a beer and will be right back). And there COULD be non-Y2K compliant chips controling MD-80 Jack screws. And Elvis COULD still be alive (and, in fact, running the Chemtrail spraying program). And the earth COULD be destroyed by a comet tomorrow. But the fact that something COULD occur does not mean that there is any evidence that is will occur or has occured, or that rational people should make plans based upon the possibility.

People that believe anything that COULD possibly happen are generally nuts in one fashion or another. Usually Paranoid.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 02, 2000.

E.H., I have not seen evidence of Santa Claus, but I have seen formations in the sky that do not have the characteristics of "normal" contrails, which observations I have described in some depth on another thread. I don't claim to know what they are, but your saying that they had to be contrails would be more credible if you would offer an explanation of the details I reported.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), June 02, 2000.

E.H.

And there COULD be some benign government program responsible for at least one of these reported sightings. Some of the flight patterns have been nonstandard and apparently purposeful. I hope you aren't saying that such patterns haven't occurred, simply because the purposes and motivations attributed them are, uh, unlikely. The fact that some such patterns have occurred is a matter of public record. As Jack Vance wrote, the mystery relates to the solution as the foam relates to the beer.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 02, 2000.

Another viewpoint about chemtrails from down OZ way:

Link

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 02, 2000.

Flint -- in your most recent post on another thread, you say "And I see no reason to sweep the whole experience under the carpet and "move on", pretending I was never fooled. I'm MUCH more interested in doing better next time, whatever next time might be. Yes, it's a lot easier to ignore our mistakes rather than examine them. IMO, it's also stupid."

Well, Chemtrails falls into the "doing better next time" area. Work on it. Chemtrail believers are being fooled. I'm not "saying that such patterns haven't occurred." They've occurred since I was a kid in Minnesota in the 1960s -- X's, checkerboards, the whole mess. And, back then, when you saw the strange patterns in the sky, you knew the weather was going to change (usually for the worse). This is still good advice -- those weird contrail patterns (at least in Minnesota) mean a moisture saturated sky which is on the point of change. And, such a change around here usually means rain. For whatever its worth, there have been a couple of "Chemtrail" posts on this forum recently from people who claimed to be from Minnesota. And, recently, we just got lots and lots of rain (with major flooding in Wisconsin and Southern MN)

The only thing that has changed 40 years later is that now, when there are persistent contrails, and then it gets cloudy and the weather changes, is that various nuts on the Internet assume the "Chemtrails" caused the change, rather than merely reflecing a change in the weather.

Crap like David L's comment that "I have seen formations in the sky that do not have the characteristics of "normal" contrails, which observations I have described in some depth on another thread. I don't claim to know what they are, but your saying that they had to be contrails would be more credible if you would offer an explanation of the details I reported" does not help. This begs the question. Does any abnormal weather pattern even suggest that man is behind it? I've seen "wall clouds," the precursors to tornados, only once in my life. I don't assume the guvmet caused it. In the far North of Minnesota, around the Canadian border, I still see the green lights of the Aurora Borialis only infrequently. When I see them, does this mean that the guvmet is beaming electrical impusles into my brain?

People that see strange formations in the sky, and assume that the guvmt is behind it are: (1) a little disconnected from reality, and (2) give the government way to much credit for its weather modification abilities.

Just my thoughts. But, don't become a Chemtrailer. You can still be saved. Tell me, please, that you are not a Chemtrail nut! You seem otherwise so rational.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 02, 2000.

We can slice it and dice it, twenty seven ways. When I was a kid, I used to watch those planes and their plumes. Those plumes went away in a very short time. Not so, today. WHO stole my sunshine while I slept for years? WHO has the audacity and the power to steal my God Given Sun filled morning? E.H., I am still breathing, I don't automatically subscribe to the theory of someone trying to kill this physical body (scripture sez "Remember, there is nothing, another human can do to you"). I could give a shit less. But it seems my life's purpose has been to deliver truth, when others looked at me as if I had grown two heads, when all I sought, was to deliver the truth (as I was given). Am I perfect?, not by a long shot.....

-- Rain falling in (Name Ch@nger.com), June 02, 2000.

I's say that Rain Falling In summarizes the Chemtrails argument as well as anyone. And, I'm not going to disagree with him. As I've said before, Chemtrail people do not operate on any logical plane that I can communicate with. Perhaps others will be more successful.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 02, 2000.

E.H., I witnessed their being sprayed, as described in this excerpt from my March post.

"One example, I caught an aircraft making a trail (heading approximately north) that was parallel to and the same length as five trails already in that part of the sky, and all but one lined up like the vertical members of a split rail fence. (One was at a slightly wrong angle, but still did not intersect with any of the others.) Moreover, they stopped just short of another set of trails that ran east/west, so the truncation of the trails is hard to attribute to atmospheric conditions."

I neglected to mention here is that I had also seen several of the other trails of this group of six being created, possibly by the same plane. (There seemed to be enough time for one plane to circle back and make the next run, but I didn't actually time it.)

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), June 03, 2000.

Well, my heavens, David L. Six whole airplane contrails! Parallel to each other! My my, that certainly proves that they were spraying something, doesn't it? You must be a big boy and live in a big city, if you have six whole airplanes going in the same direction all at once.

Yes, I see your point. Obviously, if this was just normal civilian air traffic, the contrails would intersect. But (sorry if I'm being ignorant here, but I'm new to Chemtrail enlightenment), wouldn't intersecting chemtrails cause problems, like big flaming pieces of airplane falling out of the sky?

But wait. At the Chemtrail web sites. When the trails cross or overlap, isn't that proof of spraying too? Way cool. No wonder this is the conspiracy theory for the new millenium. If the trails are parallel, obviously that's proof of purposefull intent, which means spraying. And, if the trails cross, thats a "spray pattern." I love it.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 03, 2000.

David- Did you even bother to read the website "hmmm" linked to?

EH- There's no use in arguing with the chemtrail believers. I've done so before and have learned they simply turn a deaf ear to logical explanations. You said it best... "It [belief in "chemtrails"] requires starting with the assumption that something bad MUST be going on, and then working backwards to find a conspiracy based cause."

This is copied from an EZboard post written by a guy called "Fishspeaker". It is obvious he knows of what he speaks...

Re: Chemtrails vs. Contrails

The major misconception about contrails is that the airplane is traveling through a homogenous atmosphere. This is far from the truth. There are many currents and layers to the atmosphere, each with varying humidities and temperatures. Contrails are a result of the hot gases expelled by the jet engines interacting with the atmosphere. When you see a contrail, you are actually seeing the condensation of the water vapor that is in the atmosphere. Based on the temperature and moisture content, the contrail can change from moment to moment.

Also, the paralax phenomena makes it very difficult for someone on the ground to easily determine if two planes in the same general area are flying at the same altitude. Two planes, flying at different altitudes across the same area of sky will display different contrail characteristics because they are not flying through the same air. Currents at different altitudes are traveling in different directions, thus moving the contrails in different ways. If the air is moving slowly, the contrail will not scatter as fast and appear to be firmer and longer lasting. Fast moving air will disperse the contail faster, giving it a feathery look.

Also, the phenomena of regularly spaced contrails is a natural result of the air currents carrying the contrail with it. If there is a regular route that planes follow, you will get regularly spaced contrails across the sky even though all of them were created by planes following the same route. Think of it like this: a bridge over a flowing stream. You line up ten people to cross the bridge at 30 second intervals. As they do, they drop little yellow plastic ducks into the stream. Each person creates a 'contrail' in the stream as they cross. Someone, looking down from a nearby hill will see 10 regularly spaced 'contrails' in the stream.

Now, take that further and assume there are two different altitudes that planes can fly at on the route, say from Atlanta to Cincinnati. The wind at 25,000 feet is moving north and the wind at 30,000 feet is moving west. Ten planes fly that route at each level. Suddenly, you have a sky crosshatched with contrails. Watch out, they're sprayng you.

The concern with contrails being more prevelent today than they were in the past, the characteristics being different, etc. are also natural phenomena. There are more planes flying today than in the past. The engines have different performance characteristics than they did in the past. The atmosphere has different characteristics than it did in the past. The air today has more pollutants in it. These pollutants (as well as dust, pollen, etc.) are what water vapor in the atmosphere condense on when the contrails are formed. More pollutants = thicker and wider contrail.

Engines are more efficient today than they were in the past. More efficient means the exhaust is hotter and more dispersed. This too causes contrails to appear differently than they did in the past.

Remember, the atmosphere is *not* homogenous.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.

Ya gotta get a kick outta these people who report seeing "chemtrails" and then try to tell you at what altitude/distance the planes were flying. These are probably the same people who believe skywriting is accomplished by the pilot flying his plane up and down. Here's a clue for them- skywriting is created by flying HORIZONTALLY, not vertically as most people would guess. If a novice observer is tricked by that little optical illusion, how can you ever take their "estimate" of the altitude of a plane/chemtrail seriously?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), June 03, 2000.

Yes, CD, I had read hmm's link, and it seemed to rule out a number of possible explanations, though what I had observed did not seem to be discussed in particular. But I also noticed that the writer's dismissal of biological or chemical agents being sprayed, does not seem to be at the same level of scholarship as the rest of the article:

"It is not necessary, and would be a general waste of time, to apply a biological agent over the vast miles of sparsely inhabited countryside of this nation. Some reports have come from the east coast, where high altitude spraying of a biological or chemical agent would simply drift out over the Atlantic ocean and affect no one. Common sense and logic would suggest that such an attack would take place at night, and over a populated area, or be carried out at ground level with a contagious agent."

So the writer seems to be arguing that since he can see no purpose in spraying such agents over sparsely populated areas during the day, it's simply inconceivable.

The Fishspeaker excerpt does seem pretty authoritative. Given the variability of the atmosphere which he describes, it does seem a bit unusual that I was able to observe six trails with the uniformity of distance between them, uniformity of length (I'd say to within 1%), northern endpoints coming to within 1% of an imaginary perpendicular line, and southern endpoints coming to within 1% of another imaginary perpendicular line. If the sky were a canvas, the trails could hardly be painted any more precisely.

As I might have mentioned earlier, the northern end of these trails ceased around 10 seconds of flying time short of a particular perpendicular trail, and did not reappear on the other side of that perpendicular trail (at least, for the distance I could see beyond that trail). Now maybe these aircraft were flying several thousand feet above (or below) the perpendicular trail, and it just happened that at that flying altitude, the aircraft's trail naturally became invisible before passing over (or under) the perpendicular trail, and remained invisible for miles. (Oops, guess I should say nautical miles.)

Certainly it could all be coincidence, as could the similar characteristics found among some of the couple hundred other trails in the sky at the same time. I'm not saying they were chemtrails and I'm not saying they were contrails, I'd just like to get an idea of how likely it is for a presumably random process in nature to produce such precision.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), June 03, 2000.

I'm glad to see you at least keep an open mind to the possibility that what you are seeing is nothing sinister, David. It's obvious you are researching the subject in a rational manner, and I commend you for that.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.