Chemtrails

[Gary H]

Not everyone knows what Chemtrails are, so please google them if you don't
know. I have noticed quite a few of them in the skies recently. I know they
have been going on for quite some time now, however I have recently become
really interested in them, trying to figure out what they are, as everyone
else is. Do other people notice these as well? What are your thoughts about
them, does anyone know anything about them??

Gary

[Mike Horwath]

Gary H <***@removethisvisi.com> wrote:
: Not everyone knows what Chemtrails are, so please google them if you don't
: know. I have noticed quite a few of them in the skies recently. I know they
: have been going on for quite some time now, however I have recently become
: really interested in them, trying to figure out what they are, as everyone
: else is. Do other people notice these as well? What are your thoughts about
: them, does anyone know anything about them??

Are you sure your tinfoil hat is all the way on?

Is it sealed with metalic gaffer tape?

Did you remember to upgrade to the heavy duty foil that was released a
week ago? Yah, that blue colored tinfoil. That's much better than
the silver kind.

Contrails...Chemtrails are just a consipracy theory...

--
Mike Horwath ***@iphouse.net
ipHouse - Welcome home!

[WDS]

Gary H wrote:
> ...Chemtrails...

Oh goodness, is that crap conspiracy theory still around?

[Gary H]

I guess when you run across Government websites such as this....

http://www.asp.bnl.gov/

http://www.db.arm.gov/cgi-bin/IOP2/selectExecSummary.pl?iopName=sgp2003aerosol&person_id=

It really makes it easier to believe that they really are spraying using
planes and that it's not a conspiracy theory afterall.... To each his own.
I'm no scientist just your average citizen and have become really curious
about these "Trails". Doing as much research as I can, I truly believe this
is not a "crap conspiracy theory".

"WDS" <***@seurer.net> wrote in message
news:***@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gary H wrote:
>> ...Chemtrails...
>
> Oh goodness, is that crap conspiracy theory still around?
>

[WDS]

Gary H wrote:
> I guess when you run across Government websites such as this....
>
> http://www.asp.bnl.gov/
>
> http://www.db.arm.gov/cgi-bin/IOP2/selectExecSummary.pl?iopName=sgp2003aerosol&person_id=
>
> It really makes it easier to believe that they really are spraying using
> planes and that it's not a conspiracy theory afterall.... To each his own.
> I'm no scientist just your average citizen and have become really curious
> about these "Trails". Doing as much research as I can, I truly believe this
> is not a "crap conspiracy theory".

So what you are saying is that this government conspiracy is publishing
their results on the web? Did you read what those experiments were
actually doing?

[k***@gmail.com]

It's now 2015, and I would like to know what you think now about chemtrails?

[Bert]

In news:912bb17c-19d3-4d68-8ebd-***@googlegroups.com
***@gmail.com wrote:

> It's now 2015,

That's what they want you to think.

--
***@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[John Robinson]

Gary H <***@removethisvisi.com> wrote:
: What are your thoughts about
: them, does anyone know anything about them??

My thoughts are that they are 'contrails', and anyone who refers to them as
'chemtrails' really needs to get a hobby. And a grip!

--
John Robinson
"E=mc^2 (+/- 3dB)"

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
John Robinson <***@visi.com> wrote:

> Gary H <***@removethisvisi.com> wrote:
> : What are your thoughts about
> : them, does anyone know anything about them??
>
> My thoughts are that they are 'contrails', and anyone who refers to them as
> 'chemtrails' really needs to get a hobby. And a grip!

People who live in Minnesota mostly do not know what people are
talking about when they talk about Chemtrails. I used to think
that chemtrail people were nuts, until I saw them for myself out
west.

Contrails happen from evaporation when aircraft fly cross country
at high altitudes. When people talk about chemtrails, they are
talking about unmarked military transports that lay down a cross
hatch patter on spray from a very low altitude. After a short
period of time, the spray dissipates and forms a uniform haze over
the area.

Contrails are water vapor. They come from airplanes that fly so
high that you can hardly see them with a naked eye. Chemtrails
come from airplanes that fly very low. The spray is a liquid,
but it feels oily, and it is certainly not water vapor. Contrails
happen in a more or less random fashion and go away relatively
quickly. Chemtrails go down in a regular pattern spaced a few
miles apart, are put down in straight lines, and they do not go
away (rather, they form a haze).

You are free to think whatever you want to. But once you see it
happening, there is no doubt that chemtrails are real. Why it is
being done, what it is, or why it happens on the coasts and the
western dessert more often is all a mystery.

-john-

--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

[Howard Beale]

"John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-***@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...

> You are free to think whatever you want to. But once you see it
> happening, there is no doubt that chemtrails are real. Why it is
> being done, what it is, or why it happens on the coasts and the
> western dessert more often is all a mystery.

I know a guy who's kind of deep into these and other conspiracy theories,
and he's defintely onto the chemtrails one.

My problem with this one is that the government can't keep much of anything
a real secret; how are they pursuing a massive chemical spraying program
without someone leaking the details? There would have to be thousands of
people involved -- pilots, ground crews, etc.

And where are all the environmental sciences people on this one? Wouldn't
they be able to detect it with all their high-tech monitoring equipment?
Surely they'd squeal like a stuck pig if there was even an iota of
believable evidence about it.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
"Howard Beale" <***@grasslake.net> wrote:

> My problem with this one is that the government can't keep much of anything
> a real secret; how are they pursuing a massive chemical spraying program
> without someone leaking the details? There would have to be thousands of
> people involved -- pilots, ground crews, etc.

Past history does not support that point of view.

Case in point, the atomic bomb. The bomb required tens of thousands
of people, required building several secret cities, required building
one of the largest buildings on earth, required pulling most of the
silver out of Fort Knox, and it required a special airplane (B-29)
to haul it. Yet, prior to the bomb being dropped, the public was
unaware of it. Even the vice-president didn't know about it until
FDR passed away.

Case in point, the stealth fighter. The USAF built and deployed
a 50 plane force of F-117 aircraft, and flew them out of a secret
base in western Nevada for several years before they were made
public. Even when they were made public, the same day as the B-2
was introduced, there was so much confusion with the stealth bomber
that few people realized that the F-117 was a different aircraft,
and that it was already operational.

Case in point, the Greenbrier Resort. Everyone suspected that the
government had secret bunker where they could retreat to in the
event of World War 3. People guessed that it had to be within a
close range of DC, yet far enough away to be out of the blast
radius. The specific location remained secret for decades, despite
being located at one of America's oldest, most famous, and luxurious
resorts.

I can go on and on and on. We could talk about the Glomar
Challenger, the U-2 aircraft, the 22 mile long runway at Area 51,
the US Navy tapping Soviet communications lines in Soviet harbors,
etc. The fact is that the Government is often very good at keeping
secrets, especially when it goes to one of its places where it can
be alone.

-john-

--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

[Wayne Marsh]

John A. Weeks III wrote on 9/22/06 9:54 PM:

> Past history does not support that point of view.

But the current zeitgeist DOES support the view that no large government
venture can stay secret for long. The cases you cite happened when it was
generally recognized that some government secrets should stay secret, for
the good of all. If some reporters and photographers in 1944 had tried to
publish stories about strange government goings-on in the New Mexico desert,
no paper or magazine would have published them.

Today a hundred little would-be Woodwards and Bernsteins and Daniel
Ellsbergs would be all over it, blogging and yakking on TV and publishing
books and filling tabloids.

Does all of this make us safer from encroaching Big Brotherism, or does it
make us more vulnerable to those who want us all dead? I suspect we'll know
the answer in the next few years.

Wayne Marsh Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
***@mac.com

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <C13AA08A.493F9%***@mac.com>,
Wayne Marsh <***@mac.com> wrote:

> Does all of this make us safer from encroaching Big Brotherism, or does it
> make us more vulnerable to those who want us all dead? I suspect we'll know
> the answer in the next few years.

It seems that the current government stamps everything "top secret",
and tries to burry it forever. As an example, the government still
has a large file on Amelia Erhart that it refuses to release on grounds
of national security. That is the type of thing that starts conspiracy
theories. First they tell us what happens, and then the say case
closed, but anyone who tries to investigate it finds all kinds of
problems with the official story, and finds the source material is
still secret some 70 years later.

Perhaps we will know soon. The Mayan Calendar, which has proven
to be remarkably accurate for such an ancient device, runs out
in 2012. That gives you 6 years to prepare for the end of time.

-john-

--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

[Howard Beale]

"John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-***@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Howard Beale" <***@grasslake.net> wrote:
>
>> My problem with this one is that the government can't keep much of
>> anything
>> a real secret; how are they pursuing a massive chemical spraying program
>> without someone leaking the details? There would have to be thousands of
>> people involved -- pilots, ground crews, etc.
>
> Past history does not support that point of view.

But most all of those examples represented activities against either wartime
enemies or cold-war enemies, not actions against the American people. Those
involved in developing nukes and other weapons systems believe they were
helping the American people defeat the enemies of freedom (and yes, likely
at that level of patriotism). And many of these actions took place when
there was faith that the government was doing the right thing.

Spraying poison or spraying something controversial even if the ultimate
goal is protecting Americans (like the 1950s tests spreading
chemicals/radioactivity) is a lot different, especially in an era where the
only people who trust the government are the people who run the government.

And the people most likely to detect this -- your ecologists and other
environmental science people -- are probably nearly last on the list of
people likely to feel gung-ho about some covert government/military program
spraying *anything*.

And then there's the examples of secrets kept poorly if at all -- Watergate,
MK-ULTRA, etc. And even your examples of secrets kept are examples of
secrets no longer kept. You may keep a secret for a short while, but
forever?

[Mark Mitchell]

On 2006-09-23, Howard Beale <***@grasslake.net> wrote:
>
> "John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
> news:john-***@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Howard Beale" <***@grasslake.net> wrote:
>>
>>> My problem with this one is that the government can't keep much of
>>> anything
>>> a real secret; how are they pursuing a massive chemical spraying program
>>> without someone leaking the details? There would have to be thousands of
>>> people involved -- pilots, ground crews, etc.
>>
>> Past history does not support that point of view.
>
> But most all of those examples represented activities against either wartime
> enemies or cold-war enemies, not actions against the American people. Those
> involved in developing nukes and other weapons systems believe they were
> helping the American people defeat the enemies of freedom (and yes, likely
> at that level of patriotism). And many of these actions took place when
> there was faith that the government was doing the right thing.
>
Not to mention the simple objection; if _they_ are spraying something that
the public would object to, why in the hell leave these miles long trails?

Where are the trails in cloudy weather?

Just silliness.

Mark

[Henry Blaskowski]

John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> Case in point, the stealth fighter. The USAF built and deployed
> a 50 plane force of F-117 aircraft, and flew them out of a secret
> base in western Nevada for several years before they were made
> public. Even when they were made public, the same day as the B-2
> was introduced, there was so much confusion with the stealth bomber
> that few people realized that the F-117 was a different aircraft,
> and that it was already operational.

I can't speak to your others because I have no specific knowledge of
them, but I assume they are as accurate as this one. I worked in
the defense industry at this time, but had no specific clearances
and didn't work on any program related to the Stealth, but the stealth
fighter was common knowledge for years before it was publicly acknowledged.
If the public knew nothing of it, it was due to apathy, not the
gov't ability to keep secrets.

The reason contrails are more common on the coasts is because the
population is denser there, forcing ATC to create different types
of traffic patterns than in The Great Flyover. If there is a greasy
feel, well, that's just New Jersey.

[WDS]

Henry Blaskowski wrote:

> The reason contrails are more common on the coasts is because the
> population is denser there, forcing ATC to create different types
> of traffic patterns than in The Great Flyover. If there is a greasy
> feel, well, that's just New Jersey.

Contrails are very common over southern MN as we seem to be under a
major east-west flyway. Sometimes I can see 4 or 5 jets at once
leaving contrails and frequently they spread out into hazy clouds. If
they are "chemtrails" I guess they must be spraying the crops.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <john-***@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, John A. Weeks III writes:

>Case in point, the atomic bomb. The bomb required tens of thousands
>of people, required building several secret cities, required building
>one of the largest buildings on earth, required pulling most of the
>silver out of Fort Knox,

What the silver used for?

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.

[Joe User]

"Michael Stemper" <***@siemens-emis.com> wrote in message
news:***@walkabout.empros.com...
> In article <john-***@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, John
> A. Weeks III writes:
>
>>Case in point, the atomic bomb. The bomb required tens of thousands
>>of people, required building several secret cities, required building
>>one of the largest buildings on earth, required pulling most of the
>>silver out of Fort Knox,
>
> What the silver used for?
>
> --
> Michael F. Stemper
> #include <Standard_Disclaimer>
> Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
> Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.

Silver was used in the caulutron devices at Oak Ridge, Tenn for seperating
Uranium 235 from Uranum 238.

[Mike Horwath]

John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
: being done, what it is, or why it happens on the coasts and the
: western dessert more often is all a mystery.

Desert needs lube, ma'man!

--
Mike Horwath ***@iphouse.net
ipHouse - Welcome home!

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

Mike Horwath <***@iphouse.net> wrote:
> John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> : being done, what it is, or why it happens on the coasts and the
> : western dessert more often is all a mystery.
>
> Desert needs lube, ma'man!
>

It is a reflective polymer to combat global warming! It is in our interest to
allow this to proceed ... very quietly.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

[Mike Horwath]

Thomas T. Veldhouse <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Mike Horwath <***@iphouse.net> wrote:
:> John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
:> : being done, what it is, or why it happens on the coasts and the
:> : western dessert more often is all a mystery.
:>
:> Desert needs lube, ma'man!
:
: It is a reflective polymer to combat global warming! It is in our interest to
: allow this to proceed ... very quietly.

Dude, you have already been told that there is no such thing as global
warming.

Get on the bandwagon or go work for the TSA...wait...that might be the
same thing...

--
Mike Horwath ***@iphouse.net
ipHouse - Welcome home!

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

Mike Horwath <***@iphouse.net> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Mike Horwath <***@iphouse.net> wrote:
> :> John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> :> : being done, what it is, or why it happens on the coasts and the
> :> : western dessert more often is all a mystery.
> :>
> :> Desert needs lube, ma'man!
> :
> : It is a reflective polymer to combat global warming! It is in our interest to
> : allow this to proceed ... very quietly.
>
> Dude, you have already been told that there is no such thing as global
> warming.
>
> Get on the bandwagon or go work for the TSA...wait...that might be the
> same thing...
>

;-)

No such thing as global warming ... but there is good money in fighting it.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <john-***@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
"John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:

> The spray is a liquid,
> but it feels oily, and it is certainly not water vapor.

So sample are being collected. Stop with the vague paranoid conspiracy
shit and just *analyze* what it is. Then tell us all what new way the
government has found to fuck over its citizens. Then tell us all what
the MN connection is.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

[stshaffer]

John A. Weeks III wrote:
Chemtrails go down in a regular pattern spaced a few
> miles apart, are put down in straight lines, and they do not go
> away (rather, they form a haze).
>
> You are free to think whatever you want to.
>

I think we're all insane in some small way, and this is yours.
All the digital cameras in all the towns and counties in the world, and
the pictures of even one of these is...where?

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <09IRg.204734$***@attbi_s72>,
stshaffer <***@aol.com> wrote:

> John A. Weeks III wrote:
> Chemtrails go down in a regular pattern spaced a few
> > miles apart, are put down in straight lines, and they do not go
> > away (rather, they form a haze).
> >
> > You are free to think whatever you want to.
> >
>
> I think we're all insane in some small way, and this is yours.
> All the digital cameras in all the towns and counties in the world, and
> the pictures of even one of these is...where?

That is one thing that is different about the Chemtrail activity
from so many of the other conspiracy topics is that it is so well
documented. All it takes is a few google searches. The most
credible is the weather wars web site, written by a professional
meteorologist and major TV station weather reporter.

-john-

--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

[Henry Blaskowski]

John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> That is one thing that is different about the Chemtrail activity
> from so many of the other conspiracy topics is that it is so well
> documented. All it takes is a few google searches. The most
> credible is the weather wars web site, written by a professional
> meteorologist and major TV station weather reporter.

I've seen the photos, they are quite beautiful at times, but
nothing unlike the contrails I see every day coming off commercial
jets. Seriously, if there are chemicals, where is the reputable
scientist measuring them and reporting the results? Hint: if the
"scientific expert" is wearing a tinfoil hat and stockpiling cans
of beans, he may not be an actual expert.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
***@remove_this.visi.com (Henry Blaskowski) wrote:

> John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> >
> > That is one thing that is different about the Chemtrail activity
> > from so many of the other conspiracy topics is that it is so well
> > documented. All it takes is a few google searches. The most
> > credible is the weather wars web site, written by a professional
> > meteorologist and major TV station weather reporter.
>
> I've seen the photos, they are quite beautiful at times, but
> nothing unlike the contrails I see every day coming off commercial
> jets. Seriously, if there are chemicals, where is the reputable
> scientist measuring them and reporting the results? Hint: if the
> "scientific expert" is wearing a tinfoil hat and stockpiling cans
> of beans, he may not be an actual expert.

Again, you don't know your history very well. In the late 1700's
and early 1800's, there were stories of rocks falling from the
sky. They were referred to as "thunderstones" because some
thought that they were formed by thunderstorms. At the time,
anyone who believed in rocks falling from the sky was considered
to be a nut case. The church persecuted such people because there
was no place in theology for God to throw rocks down from heaven.
Even Thomas Jefferson chimed in on the subject, saying something
like he would sooner believe a drunken Englishman than someone who
speaks of thunderstones.

As it turned out, a major meteorite hit France in the first decade
of the 1800's, and rocks were found at the impact site. After a
number of such documented events, it was formally established
that meteorites do in fact exist, and rocks do fall from the sky.

Just because something seems a bit fringe today doesn't mean
that there isn't something to it. And it is your government
that is telling you to stockpile cans of beans--the federal
health officials are saying that you need to be prepared to spend
two weeks at home without going outside in PANFLU hits.

-john-

--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

[Henry Blaskowski]

John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> Just because something seems a bit fringe today doesn't mean
> that there isn't something to it.

Just because something IS fringe doesn't make it true. In fact, it
makes it more likely that it is false.

Your meteorite example is totally unrelated. The discovery of
previously unobserved phenomena in the natural world is in no way
similar to a theory that involves the secrecy of thousands, a radical
explanation of an easily explained phenomenon, and a total lack of
evidence that should be readily obtained if there were any factual
basis to the claim.

If they are dropping stuff on us, measure it and tell us what it is.
If nobody can do that, it is a kook theory, easily dismissed as
tinfoil hat fantasy. Reality matters.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
***@remove_this.visi.com (Henry Blaskowski) wrote:

> If they are dropping stuff on us, measure it and tell us what it is.
> If nobody can do that, it is a kook theory, easily dismissed as
> tinfoil hat fantasy. Reality matters.

It is so easy to dismiss things that you don't know much about.
But keep in mind who we are dealing with here...the US Government.

If someone told you that the government as gassing people in
several major cities, would you dismiss that? It turns out to
be true--in 1953, the US Army exposed poorer sections of several
major cities, including Minneapolis, to zinc cadmium sulfide,
a very dangerous gas containing heavy metals.

If someone told you that the government was testing prototype
chemical warefare agents on domestic populations, would you
dismiss that, too? Again, it turns out to be true. The army
sprayed a black section of St. Louis with a chemical weapon
agent to see how far and fast it would spread. The army even
called out the cops, not to stop the test, but to keep the
locals from stealing the equipment.

If someone told you that the goverment was kidnapping people
and shooting them up with psychotic drugs, would you dismiss
that, too? Again, it turns out to be true. The CIA ran a
project to test mind control drugs, and did so on 6 human
subjects who were not told the truth about the drugs.

One can go on and on about the awful things that the government
has done in secret, and now the stuff is coming out and we are
finding that it was true. It isn't that much of a strech to
think that the government could pull a few KC-135's off of the
flight line at Beale now that the SR-71 is retired, and shuffle
them around the world to run experiments with various aerosol
agents. In fact, it would be all too easy for them, so I would
be more suspect if you tried to say that they were not doing
such a thing.

-john-

--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

[Henry Blaskowski]

John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> It is so easy to dismiss things that you don't know much about.
> But keep in mind who we are dealing with here...the US Government.

Supporting one kook theory with other kook theories doesn't do much
for your credibility. If chemtrails are real, all somebody needs to
do is collect whatever is falling from the sky, measure it, and
report it, and the media would LOVE, absolutely EAT UP, any excuse
to attack the current administration. The reason no such story has
turned up is because no credible reason to believe in chemtrails has
ever turned up. None. And for something that would be VERY easy to
prove if it were true, that is damning enough evidence.

[Mike Horwath]

Henry Blaskowski <***@remove_this.visi.com> wrote:
: Supporting one kook theory with other kook theories doesn't do much
: for your credibility. If chemtrails are real, all somebody needs to
: do is collect whatever is falling from the sky, measure it, and
: report it, and the media would LOVE, absolutely EAT UP, any excuse
: to attack the current administration. The reason no such story has
: turned up is because no credible reason to believe in chemtrails has
: ever turned up. None. And for something that would be VERY easy to
: prove if it were true, that is damning enough evidence.

The media would love that?

Or just Comedy Central?

Media seems to just be a mouthpiece...and some of it is damn funny!

--
Mike Horwath ***@iphouse.net
ipHouse - Welcome home!

[Mark Mitchell]

On 2006-09-26, John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
> ***@remove_this.visi.com (Henry Blaskowski) wrote:
>
>> If they are dropping stuff on us, measure it and tell us what it is.
>> If nobody can do that, it is a kook theory, easily dismissed as
>> tinfoil hat fantasy. Reality matters.
>
> One can go on and on about the awful things that the government
> has done in secret, and now the stuff is coming out and we are
> finding that it was true. It isn't that much of a strech to
> think that the government could pull a few KC-135's off of the
> flight line at Beale now that the SR-71 is retired, and shuffle
> them around the world to run experiments with various aerosol
> agents. In fact, it would be all too easy for them, so I would
> be more suspect if you tried to say that they were not doing
> such a thing.
>
My objections(s) have nothing whatsoever to do with "Our kindly Uncle Sam
would never do such a thing", more like "The bastard is far more competent
than that."

If you want to covertly spray chemicals, why in the hell would you spray in
such a way as to leave great gaudy trails in the sky, visible to _hundreds_
of square miles of people, when it would be barely more difficult to
simulate in less obvious ways.

Mark

[k***@gmail.com]

The last post was in 2006 on this issue. I Am curious on what your take is on it today. From horizon to horizon, all across the nation, chemtrails are no longer a conspiracy theory, it is indeed a terrifyingly real deal. Yet, still they want to act like it doesnt exist. Please respond asap.

[Moe DeLoughan]

On 5/7/2015 12:58 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> The last post was in 2006 on this issue. I Am curious on what your
> take is on it today. From horizon to horizon, all across the
> nation, chemtrails are no longer a conspiracy theory, it is indeed
> a terrifyingly real deal. Yet, still they want to act like it
> doesnt exist. Please respond asap.
>

Up your medication and read up on jet contrails. Your paranoia is
getting the better of you.

[Jim Manson]

"John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:

>In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
> ***@remove_this.visi.com (Henry Blaskowski) wrote:
>
>> John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > That is one thing that is different about the Chemtrail activity
>> > from so many of the other conspiracy topics is that it is so well
>> > documented. All it takes is a few google searches. The most
>> > credible is the weather wars web site, written by a professional
>> > meteorologist and major TV station weather reporter.
>>
>> I've seen the photos, they are quite beautiful at times, but
>> nothing unlike the contrails I see every day coming off commercial
>> jets. Seriously, if there are chemicals, where is the reputable
>> scientist measuring them and reporting the results? Hint: if the
>> "scientific expert" is wearing a tinfoil hat and stockpiling cans
>> of beans, he may not be an actual expert.
>
>Again, you don't know your history very well. In the late 1700's
>and early 1800's, there were stories of rocks falling from the
>sky. They were referred to as "thunderstones" because some
>thought that they were formed by thunderstorms. At the time,
>anyone who believed in rocks falling from the sky was considered
>to be a nut case. The church persecuted such people because there
>was no place in theology for God to throw rocks down from heaven.
>Even Thomas Jefferson chimed in on the subject, saying something
>like he would sooner believe a drunken Englishman than someone who
>speaks of thunderstones.
>
>As it turned out, a major meteorite hit France in the first decade
>of the 1800's, and rocks were found at the impact site. After a
>number of such documented events, it was formally established
>that meteorites do in fact exist, and rocks do fall from the sky.

Which is why your example shows that chemtrails are most likely
nothing.

Once there was physical evidence of meteorites the scientific
community altered it's judgment and accepted their existence.

With all of the alleged spraying over the past 30+ years why has there
been no chemical analysis showing what is being sprayed? All you had
to do, assuming you felt oily residue, is scrape some off of your skin
and have it analyzed. Apparently nobody in 30 years has bothered.

No physical evidence in 30+ years in spite of claims that the
frequency of spraying is extremely high? I write it off as fringe.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Jim Manson <***@Manson.com> wrote:
> With all of the alleged spraying over the past 30+ years why has there
> been no chemical analysis showing what is being sprayed? All you had
> to do, assuming you felt oily residue, is scrape some off of your skin
> and have it analyzed. Apparently nobody in 30 years has bothered.

Actually, that has been done. It turns out to be a carrier and
an aerosol. The carrier sometimes makes it to earth in densities
large enough to collect. But the aerosol does not, and that is
the interesting chemical.

-john-

--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 ***@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

[Jim Manson]

"John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Jim Manson <***@Manson.com> wrote:
>> With all of the alleged spraying over the past 30+ years why has there
>> been no chemical analysis showing what is being sprayed? All you had
>> to do, assuming you felt oily residue, is scrape some off of your skin
>> and have it analyzed. Apparently nobody in 30 years has bothered.
>
>Actually, that has been done. It turns out to be a carrier and
>an aerosol. The carrier sometimes makes it to earth in densities
>large enough to collect. But the aerosol does not, and that is
>the interesting chemical.

Where does the analysis appear?

[WDS]

Jim Manson wrote:
> "John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <***@4ax.com>,
> > Jim Manson <***@Manson.com> wrote:
> >> With all of the alleged spraying over the past 30+ years why has there
> >> been no chemical analysis showing what is being sprayed? All you had
> >> to do, assuming you felt oily residue, is scrape some off of your skin
> >> and have it analyzed. Apparently nobody in 30 years has bothered.
> >
> >Actually, that has been done. It turns out to be a carrier and
> >an aerosol. The carrier sometimes makes it to earth in densities
> >large enough to collect. But the aerosol does not, and that is
> >the interesting chemical.
>
> Where does the analysis appear?

Back when this flared up the first (?) time a few years ago I went out
and read a bunch of web sites that had info on this sort of stuff.
Most of it was utter crap (pictures of planes leaving perfectly normal
contrails but labeled as "sprayers", obviously doctored photos, etc.)
but there was one anlysis of residue found after a military plane flew
overhead and it was a kerosene/paraffin mix with some traces of
alkylated phenols, dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid, and some other stuff.
That is, it was jet fuel. Of course the web site didn't mention that.
Planes dump fuel sometimes when they are making landings.

[Greg Hansen]

WDS wrote:

> Jim Manson wrote:
>
>>"John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>>>Jim Manson <***@Manson.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>With all of the alleged spraying over the past 30+ years why has there
>>>>been no chemical analysis showing what is being sprayed? All you had
>>>>to do, assuming you felt oily residue, is scrape some off of your skin
>>>>and have it analyzed. Apparently nobody in 30 years has bothered.
>>>
>>>Actually, that has been done. It turns out to be a carrier and
>>>an aerosol. The carrier sometimes makes it to earth in densities
>>>large enough to collect. But the aerosol does not, and that is
>>>the interesting chemical.
>>
>>Where does the analysis appear?
>
>
> Back when this flared up the first (?) time a few years ago I went out
> and read a bunch of web sites that had info on this sort of stuff.
> Most of it was utter crap (pictures of planes leaving perfectly normal
> contrails but labeled as "sprayers", obviously doctored photos, etc.)
> but there was one anlysis of residue found after a military plane flew
> overhead and it was a kerosene/paraffin mix with some traces of
> alkylated phenols, dinonylnaphthylsulfonic acid, and some other stuff.
> That is, it was jet fuel. Of course the web site didn't mention that.
> Planes dump fuel sometimes when they are making landings.
>

Why do they dump fuel?

It would be marginally interesting to learn whether all of the
chemtrails are near and roughly aligned with airports...

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

Greg Hansen <***@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> Why do they dump fuel?
>
> It would be marginally interesting to learn whether all of the
> chemtrails are near and roughly aligned with airports...

Often, they do not want to land with fuel laden tanks. Emergencies, bad
weather, lots of reasons.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

[Mystic_River_5]

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Greg Hansen <***@tcq.net> wrote:
>
>>Why do they dump fuel?
>>
>>It would be marginally interesting to learn whether all of the
>>chemtrails are near and roughly aligned with airports...
>
>
> Often, they do not want to land with fuel laden tanks. Emergencies, bad
> weather, lots of reasons.
>
Most airplanes are not designed to land with the amount of weight that
results from a full passenger/cargo load plus a full fuel load. If a
plane has to land shortly after take-off for any emergency, they either
fly around in big circles to burn off fuel or the fly to an unpopulated
area (e.g. over the ocean) and dump their fuel if they have to land in a
hurry.

[Craig A. Finseth]

In article <***@enews1.newsguy.com>,
Greg Hansen <***@tcq.net> wrote:
...
>Why do they dump fuel?
>
>It would be marginally interesting to learn whether all of the
>chemtrails are near and roughly aligned with airports...

Airplanes often are designed with lower maximum weight limits for
landing than for taking off. Normally, the only way that airplanes
lose weight during flight is by consuming fuel.

If an airplane takes off, runs into problems early on and has to land
right away, it may be over its maximum landing weight, so it has to
dump fuel to land safely. (Depending on the situation, it may just
circle to burn the fuel rather than dump it.)

If something is wrong with, say, the landing gear (e.g., it won't
deploy and lock), a plane will _definitely_ dump as much fuel as
possible prior to what may be a crash landing.

I'm not a pilot, but I expect that dumping fuel is somewhat tricky and
so it is something that (military) pilots (especially) must practice.

Craig

[Howard Beale]

Craig A. Finseth wrote:

> I'm not a pilot, but I expect that dumping fuel is somewhat tricky and
> so it is something that (military) pilots (especially) must practice.

While I imagine that you don't want to fly through a fuel vapor cloud,
how hard could it be?

The biggest issue would be balance and compensating for the decrease in
mass, which probably isn't rocket science.

And given what my pilot/NWA employee neighbor tells me about the the
glass cockpits in newer planes (can takeoff and land automagically), I'm
sure there's a "dump fuel" widget that takes care of pretty much everything.

[Craig A. Finseth]

In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
Howard Beale <***@grasslake.net> wrote:
>Craig A. Finseth wrote:
>
>> I'm not a pilot, but I expect that dumping fuel is somewhat tricky and
>> so it is something that (military) pilots (especially) must practice.
>
>While I imagine that you don't want to fly through a fuel vapor cloud,
>how hard could it be?

I don't see how this is relevant.

>The biggest issue would be balance and compensating for the decrease in
>mass, which probably isn't rocket science.

Neither is flying a plane. All I said was that it might take practice.

>And given what my pilot/NWA employee neighbor tells me about the the
>glass cockpits in newer planes (can takeoff and land automagically), I'm
>sure there's a "dump fuel" widget that takes care of pretty much everything.

Well, not all planes have such buttons. Especially ones from 30 years
ago. Also, a lot of pilot training is to handle cases where the
buttons don't work.

After all, if everything is working fine, you don't actually need a
pilot these days: the planes can, in fact, fly themselves.

Craig

[Greg Hansen]

Craig A. Finseth wrote:
> In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
> Howard Beale <***@grasslake.net> wrote:

>
>>And given what my pilot/NWA employee neighbor tells me about the the
>>glass cockpits in newer planes (can takeoff and land automagically), I'm
>>sure there's a "dump fuel" widget that takes care of pretty much everything.
>
>
> Well, not all planes have such buttons. Especially ones from 30 years
> ago. Also, a lot of pilot training is to handle cases where the
> buttons don't work.

In these days of GPS navigation, pilots still practice with map and
slide rule. But, from what I understand of the F-16 "Lawn Dart", if the
electronics go out the pilot is in trouble. Fighter planes these days
are deliberately made to be unstable, which makes them more maneuverable
but more difficult to fly manually.

[Thomas T. Veldhouse]

Greg Hansen <***@tcq.net> wrote:
> Craig A. Finseth wrote:
>> In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Howard Beale <***@grasslake.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>And given what my pilot/NWA employee neighbor tells me about the the
>>>glass cockpits in newer planes (can takeoff and land automagically), I'm
>>>sure there's a "dump fuel" widget that takes care of pretty much everything.
>>
>>
>> Well, not all planes have such buttons. Especially ones from 30 years
>> ago. Also, a lot of pilot training is to handle cases where the
>> buttons don't work.
>
> In these days of GPS navigation, pilots still practice with map and
> slide rule. But, from what I understand of the F-16 "Lawn Dart", if the
> electronics go out the pilot is in trouble. Fighter planes these days
> are deliberately made to be unstable, which makes them more maneuverable
> but more difficult to fly manually.

I believe the F-22, when it finally arrives late and over-budget, will not be
able to fly without computer control at all ... no manual control options
what-so-ever.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

[Mark Mitchell]

On 2006-09-26, John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Jim Manson <***@Manson.com> wrote:
>> With all of the alleged spraying over the past 30+ years why has there
>> been no chemical analysis showing what is being sprayed? All you had
>> to do, assuming you felt oily residue, is scrape some off of your skin
>> and have it analyzed. Apparently nobody in 30 years has bothered.
>
> Actually, that has been done. It turns out to be a carrier and
> an aerosol. The carrier sometimes makes it to earth in densities
> large enough to collect. But the aerosol does not, and that is
> the interesting chemical.
>
I don't think that means what you think it means;

From http://www.webster.com
aero-sol;
1 : a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in gas <smoke, fog, and
mist are aerosols>; also plural : the fine particles of an aerosol
<stratospheric aerosols>
2 : a substance (as an insecticide or medicine) dispensed from a pressurized
container as an aerosol; also : the container for this

Neither of these definitions of the word makes your statement informative.

Mark

[WDS]

Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 2006-09-26, John A. Weeks III <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> > In article <***@4ax.com>,
> > Jim Manson <***@Manson.com> wrote:
> >> With all of the alleged spraying over the past 30+ years why has there
> >> been no chemical analysis showing what is being sprayed? All you had
> >> to do, assuming you felt oily residue, is scrape some off of your skin
> >> and have it analyzed. Apparently nobody in 30 years has bothered.
> >
> > Actually, that has been done. It turns out to be a carrier and
> > an aerosol. The carrier sometimes makes it to earth in densities
> > large enough to collect. But the aerosol does not, and that is
> > the interesting chemical.
> >
> I don't think that means what you think it means;
>
> From http://www.webster.com
> aero-sol;
> 1 : a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in gas <smoke, fog, and
> mist are aerosols>; also plural : the fine particles of an aerosol
> <stratospheric aerosols>
> 2 : a substance (as an insecticide or medicine) dispensed from a pressurized
> container as an aerosol; also : the container for this
>
> Neither of these definitions of the word makes your statement informative.

I think he's referring tot he jet fuel thing. If I remember corerctly
the people who analyzed it asserted that the jet fuel (which they
didn't name as such) was a "carrier" of some unknown thing that they
didn't get a sample of (darn!) what was the real "aerosol" ("active
ingredient" I guess).

[Hell Toupee]

"John A. Weeks III" wrote:

> That is one thing that is different about the Chemtrail activity
> from so many of the other conspiracy topics is that it is so well
> documented. All it takes is a few google searches. The most
> credible is the weather wars web site, written by a professional
> meteorologist and major TV station weather reporter.

Sorry, not credible at all. Expertise in one area (meteorology) does
not translate into expertise in another, unrelated area (chemical
warfare, chemistry). By the way, the weatherman (Scott Stevens) you
cite also proposed that Hurricane Katrina was deliberately caused by
the Japanese Mafia in retaliation for the US' atom bombing of Japan.

Respect his opinion on chemtrails now, or are you beginning to wonder
how many degrees off plumb the guy really is?

By the way, he's not working as a weatherman any longer.

HellT

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <john-***@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
"John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:

> That is one thing that is different about the Chemtrail activity
> from so many of the other conspiracy topics is that it is so well
> documented.

Then I ask you: what has analysis of these "oily" chemicals shown them
to be? And, again, what does this have to do with Minnesota?

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

[b***@comcast.net]

I gave in to curiousity and did a Google search on chemtrails. Umm,
after two minutes of reading the FAQ on
http://www.rense.com/general4/fre.htm, I realized that anyone who
believes in this stuff is probably wearing a double-layered tinfoil hat
as well. An blurb from the page:

"Many theorize that it s part of a clandestine operation to implement
the New World Order (NWO) by eliminating society s "useless eaters" and
the infirm and/or to reduce the population to a support level for the
"elite"."


Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <john-***@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> "John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> > That is one thing that is different about the Chemtrail activity
> > from so many of the other conspiracy topics is that it is so well
> > documented.
>
> Then I ask you: what has analysis of these "oily" chemicals shown them
> to be? And, again, what does this have to do with Minnesota?
>
> --
> My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
> heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

[Craig A. Finseth]

In article <***@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<***@comcast.net> wrote:
>I gave in to curiousity and did a Google search on chemtrails. Umm,
>after two minutes of reading the FAQ on
>http://www.rense.com/general4/fre.htm, I realized that anyone who
>believes in this stuff is probably wearing a double-layered tinfoil hat
>as well. An blurb from the page:

>"Many theorize that it s part of a clandestine operation to implement
>the New World Order (NWO) by eliminating society s "useless eaters" and
>the infirm and/or to reduce the population to a support level for the
>"elite"."

At the risk of poking a (very) dead horse, this quote leads one to wonder:

1) How does one reconcile the concepts of "clandestine" and
"eliminating a large fraction of the population?" Wouldn't
eliminating tens of millions of people be noticable?

2) Since the states that this happened over are those that
traidionally _support_ the government, why would the government kill
off their supporters and leave the ones that cause the trouble?

3) Since they've apparantly been doing this since the 1960s (from the
site), do we really have much to worry about from any organization
that has apparently bungled the job for 40+ years?

I think I'll put my energy into being concerned about real problems.

Craig

[WDS]

Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <john-***@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> "John A. Weeks III" <***@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
> > That is one thing that is different about the Chemtrail activity
> > from so many of the other conspiracy topics is that it is so well
> > documented.
>
> Then I ask you: what has analysis of these "oily" chemicals shown them
> to be?

Jet Fuel. See the other part of this discussion.

[k***@gmail.com]

Hey, just curious on what you believe now about chemtrails. Its been over 9 years since this post has been commented on. So please, if you would, I'd love to know your opinion now.

[Joe User]

> "Michael Stemper" <***@siemens-emis.com> wrote in message
> news:***@walkabout.empros.com...
>> In article <john-***@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> John A. Weeks III writes:
>>
>>>Case in point, the atomic bomb. The bomb required tens of thousands
>>>of people, required building several secret cities, required building
>>>one of the largest buildings on earth, required pulling most of the
>>>silver out of Fort Knox,
>>
>> What the silver used for?
>>
>> --
>> Michael F. Stemper
>> #include <Standard_Disclaimer>
>> Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
>> Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
>
Silver was used in the caulutron devices at Oak Ridge, Tenn for seperating
Uranium 235 from Uranum 238.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

Joe.