Matthew Lewis

Seems that Jane's, Testors and Monogram all had some info about its existence, even if not all of their info was correct. From the same page What would they be denying unless there were rumors and questions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117 Is that the best refutation of my argument you can manage? Stealth technology had been operational since 1983, in development for at least a decade prior, and the best Janes could manage was a "grainy photo" in 1988!!! Stealth technology represents a prima facie example that thousands of people can preserve a huge secret over a long period of time. And thus it disproves the oft-quoted argument that once a sizeable number of people know something, it cannot be kept secret, and therefore major conspiracies are impossible. Why the perceived hostility? I wasn't trying to refute your argument. I'm just here to add info so calm down ok? If you had bothered to actually check the link, the photo was not from Jane's, it seems that it was released by the Air Force. Jane's had info in the "1980's". They don't say when exactly. The whole point is though that there was SOME info that had gotten out because there was rumors and question about it sometime in the 80's. How does this disprove the idea that major conspiracies are impossible? (not something I was arguing for by the way nor really care about) I'm not sure how the existence of stealth aircraft is a conspiracy. One of the main planks of those who use the "conspiracy theory" label to discredit investigative reseach is that events involving, or known to, a sizeable number of people over a period of years cannot be kept secret. And therefore conspiracies are impossible. Stealth was categorically and officially denied throughout the 80s until it was finally admitted in 1988. It is therefore prima facie evidence that thousands of people can be privy to a secret for years and years without that secret leaking in any substantial form. As Cook states, professional defence & aerospace journalists (including those from Janes), had heard whispers of Stealth, but they were all amazed when the technology itself was revealed. Again, not something I was arguing for nor really care about. Now that you seem to want to dwell on it, I do however see a big difference between the existence of stealth and a conspiracy. One involves a new aircraft and the other involves the murder of thousands of people. Not sure why you can't see the difference. I'll just leave it at that. It still also shows that something was leaked. Not all of the thousands involved kept quiet.

Seems that Jane's, Testors and Monogram all had some info about its existence, even if not all of their info was correct. From the same page What would they be denying unless there were rumors and questions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117 Is that the best refutation of my argument you can manage? Stealth technology had been operational since 1983, in development for at least a decade prior, and the best Janes could manage was a "grainy photo" in 1988!!! Stealth technology represents a prima facie example that thousands of people can preserve a huge secret over a long period of time. And thus it disproves the oft-quoted argument that once a sizeable number of people know something, it cannot be kept secret, and therefore major conspiracies are impossible. Why the perceived hostility? I wasn't trying to refute your argument. I'm just here to add info so calm down ok? If you had bothered to actually check the link, the photo was not from Jane's, it seems that it was released by the Air Force. Jane's had info in the "1980's". They don't say when exactly. The whole point is though that there was SOME info that had gotten out because there was rumors and question about it sometime in the 80's. How does this disprove the idea that major conspiracies are impossible? (not something I was arguing for by the way nor really care about) I'm not sure how the existence of stealth aircraft is a conspiracy.

How secret was it really? Since the internet wasn't around then, any rumors would have taken longer to spread. I did find this though on wikipedia Seems that Jane's, Testors and Monogram all had some info about its existence, even if not all of their info was correct. From the same page What would they be denying unless there were rumors and questions? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117

The idea of the Aurora is interesting. Officially the SR-71 was retired because they could use satellites to provide enough coverage. Of course satellite orbits are known and objects can be covered or hidden when they pass. I think the retirement had a lot to do with budgetary concerns as the SR-71 was extremely expensive to operate. As for the Aurora, if it exists, would it have to be hard to see visually? It is supposed to travel over 5 times the speed of sound at well over 100,000 feet. Who would see it anyway? At that altitude the human eye wouldn't be able to make it out anyway.

How do you know they were "chemplanes" and not normal commercial craft as it is a known fact that any plane that flies high enough when conditions are conducive to persistent contrail formation will leave a persistent contrail? How do you know they weren't at different altitudes? Did you have any tests run on the contrail they left? If not then how do you know it was some mythical "chemtrail"? Thanks for the humor Jack. Do commercial aircraft fly side by side a few hundred yards apart in formation at the same altitude...and then abruptly change course at the same time? Of course not. Jack That goes back to the second question which was how do you know they weren't at different altitudes? Do you have radar to check? You do realize of course that it is impossible to tell if two planes are at the same altitude with the naked eye right? They could have been 5,000 feet apart for all you know. Another possibility is they were military aircraft leaving normal contrails. That also is known to happen from time to time. How do you know they weren't normal contrails? Did you test them?

How do you know they were "chemplanes" and not normal commercial craft as it is a known fact that any plane that flies high enough when conditions are conducive to persistent contrail formation will leave a persistent contrail? How do you know they weren't at different altitudes? Did you have any tests run on the contrail they left? If not then how do you know it was some mythical "chemtrail"? Thanks for the humor Jack.

What is your problem? I backed you up by said you were NOT misinformed and that Colby was wrong about that. But everything else Colby said was the same as you. So please explain how he or I "know-nothing" when he said the same thing you did and I added nothing new and just pointed out the fact you were saying the same thing. Again, why the hostility? Its really sad that you have to resort to an ad hominem even when you are being agreed with.

I find it amazing that in Texas you have to register either Democrat or Republican before you can vote. Is this true of other states? Who are the third party candidates standing in this election? Will any cause problems for McCain or Obama. Jack and Peter are misinformed. A Texas voter registration form can be seen here http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/vr17.pdf There isn’t even a space to say what party you belong to. Texas has an open primary system i.e. any voter can vote in any party’s primary (but only for one party per year). In the past they had closed primaries where you could only vote in the primary of the party you registered in. I seriously doubt they had a law forcing people to register as the member or one of the 2 parties to vote in general election as it would violate the 13th Amendment and presumably federal statues. At this point it is to early to tell if 3rd party or independent candidates will hurt Obama or McCain. Nader was one of the main reasons Bush got elected in 2000. It is Colby who is misinformed. I have voted in Texas for 60 years. He has never voted in Texas. I have not seen a voter registration form in 60 years, because you register ONCE, and it is automatically renewed every year by the state (or it may be every 2 years, I'd have to look). Your voter certificate arrives by mail from the state. The voter certificate allows one to choose which party to vote for by going to THAT party's polling place and voting. Once you vote, you are BOUND TO THAT PARTY FOR THE LIFE OF THAT CERTIFICATE, because the certificate is rubber-stamped VOTED DEMOCRAT or VOTED REPUBLICAN. ONLY IN GENERAL ELECTIONS CAN YOU VOTE FOR A DIFFERENT PARTY, Since only Democrats and Republicans hold primaries, those are the only two parties one can vote for until the general election. Texas prohibits crossover voting except in a GENERAL ELECTION. In a general election, you may vote for any candidate. Colby should stick to subjects he knows, which are few. Jack How is what he said different from what you are saying? You are not forced to register as a member of a particular party in order to vote in a GENERAL election, only in a primary. And he said that any voter can vote in any party's primary (but only for one party per year). This coincides with what you just said (shouted) which was "BOUND TO THAT PARTY FOR THE LIFE OF THAT CERTIFICATE" assuming the certificate is valid for one year which you even siad you thought it was. He said nothing wrong except for including you as one of the misinformed because you did previously state that one may vote for anyone in a general election but that is a simple mistake as you did not clarify the point that one does not have to register for a particular party to vote in a general election only primaries. So why the hostility? Lighten up Jack.

I used the plural "deaths" because I didn't recall the details of all of them. I'm not trying to stretch anything, I'm just not going back to look them all up. I did remember that there was some general agreement that one of the deaths should have been looked into, and that is the one that you say you "would really call associated." So let's amend what I wrote to "death" instead of "deaths" that should have been looked into and was not. Agreed. I assumed you meant all of them as there are some that think they are all connected. I'm sorry. Some of those deaths are quite a stretch to think they were connected though. As for how it all happened, my impression was and still is, especially after they failed their recent nuke procedures inspection, that they had become complacent, hadn't been following their checklists, and pretty much just let their standards drop in the past few years.

The "associated" suspicious deaths. You mean the six reported in this thread here? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...46&hl=minot Two of them, "associated" only because they happened to be stationed at the same base, died more than a month before the incident. One of the suicides, "associated" only because the death occured on the same day, was stationed in Florida, neither the starting nor ending location of the flight, and was a weather forecaster, an unrelated careerfield. He was on a trip to Portland at the time and his body was found in Washington. Both locations still having nothing to do with the starting or ending locations of the flight. The other suicide was of a security forces airman that was stationed at Minot. The last two were a husband and wife who while riding on a motorcycle attempted to pass a van in a no-passing zone (not a smart thing to do in any vehicle and especially dangerous in a motorcycle which is less visible than a car), and the van made a left-hand turn, striking them. I see one, the suicide of the security forces airman, that I would really call associated. I guess if you really want to stretch your definition of "associated" then they others might fit then. But if you have to reach that much then one could find "suspicious" "associated" deaths for any incident.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne both fired in connection to nuke incident. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_..._force_shake_up

Pity that site is blocked on the network I'm on. I could go for some humor.

Do we know for sure the sign wasn't knocked down by some unrelated event? Could it have been down before September 11? Perhaps related to the construction? Why should we assume the sign was knocked down by the engine? Why is engine in quotes? Are you now questioning whether it is an engine at all?

What do the arrows show? Did the FBI in fact paint them? They appear to be construction related to me.

Like you need an excuse to keep posting. Do you not realize that this is a DISCUSION forum where people reply and discuss things? Or do you think its your own personal blog? There's humor in your post but not in the picture. Too bad you'll never get the joke. I'm sorry Jack. I just can't take anything you say seriously anymore. Not after you made a point of insisting that the textbook must be about your "chemical trails" simply because of the name. Then when I gave you a hint that it was about something different, did you do any research of your own to find out what it was really about? No, you simply believed what some poorly researched website told you because it told you what you want to believe. Then even after you find out it is just a basic introductory Freshman chemistry textbook, you still insist you must be right. It still makes me chuckle when I think about all of it. I even gave you some hints so you could save some measure of dignity but you just can't ever admit you might be wrong about something can you? I pity you Jack. I really do.

Sure Jack. Or it could be a general first year basic chemistry course covering the same chemistry subjects any other university would as it appears that it is. Do you have any evidence it is not? It is a 100 level class. At almost any university that is a basic introductory class. The classes get more in depth as the numbers go higher with 300 and 400 level classes being more of a concentration in a specialty and 500 and 600 level classes usually left for Grad school. The book was called "Chemtrails". You do know that "Chem" can be short for chemistry right? I think it is hilarious that you and others jumped to the conclusion it was about the "chemtrails" you describe when the book was clearly a basic Chemistry course book. As for the rest of your post, do you have any evidence that any of that is being used? Or that it could be used on the scale you think it is? So far the evidence for "chemtrails" is contrails that don't look how those unfamiliar with the science think they should. And of course the single best evidence they could get, a sample taken and tested directly from a trail, has been conspicuously avoided for years. Also hilarious. Thanks for the humor Jack.

OH...as an Air Force officer, did you take these courses? Chemtrails, chemistry 131 manual, fall 1990 (SuDoc D 305.19:C 42) by U.S. Department of Defense Publisher: Department of Chemistry, U.S. Air Force Academy; (1990) ASIN: B00010J3NO Chemtrails, Chemistry 131 manual, fall 1991 : course policies and laboratory manual (SuDoc D 305.19:C 42/2) by U.S. Department of Defense Publisher: Department of Chemistry, U.S. Air Force Academy; (1991) ASIN: B00010AM02 Chemtrails: Chemistry 141 & 142, Fourth Edition CB (Applications & Concepts in Chemistry) by United States Air Force Academy" Inquiring minds want to know. Jack Are you questioning my motivations for posting again Jack? I'm sure you could figure out the answer to your own question if you bothered to do the research. My biography states that I was 27 in 2005 (when it was posted). Note that those classes were offered in 90 and 91. Using math, how old was I then? How would I take classes at the Air Force Academy (which I didn't even attend by the way) while in high school? And lets think about this. If this is some supposed global military operation, why would the classes only be offered for two years? Why not still have them? And chemistry? I never much cared for chemistry. I doubt I would have taken them anyway. And the rest of my post which you ignored as usuall. (reformatted for readability) Many, many sites around the internet cite the "chemtrails" reference in Air Force Academy literature but never more than the title page is shown. Why does nobody show the text? Because it doesn't deal with the "chemtrails" the "chemtrail" believers are referring to. It is a similar term but nothing more and certainly not proof of some global conspiracy. Remember, persistent contrails have been observed since aircraft could fly high enough to make them. They are observed from both military AND COMMERCIAL aircraft. They are explained by science. Is it impossible for something like "chemtrails" to exist? No, but on the scale proposed and considering the science behind normal contrail formation it is extremely unlikely. Every single "chemtrail" observation can be explained by science. Making the leap to assuming it is some secret government program and anything other than normal contrails is not supported by any science and is simply an emotional argument. Facts behind persistent contrails Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics. Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear. Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns. Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953. The National Airspace System of the United States is oriented in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000-foot increments of elevation (1000 feet after the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in 2002-2004). Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails. More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market. Again, why haven't any "chemtrail" researchers sampled and tested something directly from a trail? If they actually found something, this would be the single best evidence behind "chemtrails" and would bring me to their side as well. Are they afraid of what they won't find? Why did the Air Force title the textbooks CHEMTRAILS? Why didn't they title them PERSISTENT CONTRAILS? Jack Why do you assume the books are about persistent contrails? Have you read them? Again, many, many sites around the internet cite the "chemtrails" reference in Air Force Academy literature but never more than the title page is shown. Why does nobody show the text? Because it doesn't deal with the "chemtrails" the "chemtrail" believers are referring to. It is a similar term but nothing more and certainly not proof of some global conspiracy. Why are you swallowing what some site tells you without doing the research for yourself? If... ...you did not attend the AF Academy ...you did not take the course ...you did not read the books ...how are you able to tell us what the course is about and what the books say? ...and how do you know that the course is not still being taught? Jack Its called research Jack. When I first heard about the books over 4 years ago I looked into it. You might want to try it sometime. These are general chemistry courses that any first year student in college would take. I may have misspoke by implying the courses are no longer offered (chemtrails was not the name of the course just the book) but the books are definitely no longer used. They are out of print. They were general chemistry books with a clever title. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Chemtrail...40378248/?itm=4 http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:Hp8GS...;cd=2&gl=us

Not a single one of your pictures can not be explained by the long established science behind contrail formation. How do you know they contain chemicals when they could easily (as explained by science) be normal contrails? How do you know they were "chem planes" when normal commercial traffic is often observed leaving these trails? Do you believe that persistent contrails do not exist? I observed about ten planes in a ten-minute period. All were flying either n-s or e-w on NO established air routes. All but one were spraying intermittent bursts of chemical. Two were flying together in parallel formation. It was well past the peak time for DFW traffic, and none were in that pattern anyway. I know what I saw. You do not. Your make-believe assumptions do not fly. Jack Calm down Jack. You're coming off a bit frantic. How do you know they were not on established air routes? Are you aware that ATC can tell a pilot to take a jet where ever they want? How do you know they wre spraying chemicals? Did you sample it? How do you know the planes flying parallel were not still following legal separation guidelines (1000 ft min altitude separation). Why would you think traffic at 30,000+ feet has anything to do with DFW traffic? Are you not aware that planes can fly over a city and not stop there? Are you not aware that DFW is not the center of the universe? I know that every single picture you have posted on this thread can be explained by science which I have studied and you obviously have not. Your hand-waving pseudoscience won't fly. Calm down Jack.

Not a single one of your pictures can not be explained by the long established science behind contrail formation. How do you know they contain chemicals when they could easily (as explained by science) be normal contrails? How do you know they were "chem planes" when normal commercial traffic is often observed leaving these trails? Do you believe that persistent contrails do not exist?

The absurdity of your answer is self-evident. Any person can charter a plane. Compared to the notoriety they would gain from exposing a huge conspiracy the cost would be minimal. That no one has yet to do it speaks volumes. If the weather condition allowed particles to settle to earth, then how did these trails persist in the air? Do you not see the circular logic in all this? I have ignored no tests. I've seen them. The absurdity of assuming that something they collected on the ground must have come from a trail 30,000 feet in the air instead of the many possible local ground level sources is absolutely laughable. Aluminum and barium are both common industrial pollutants. That you accept their testing without question speaks volumes. You find it convenient to assume their research was anything but deceptive and sloppy.

OH...as an Air Force officer, did you take these courses? Chemtrails, chemistry 131 manual, fall 1990 (SuDoc D 305.19:C 42) by U.S. Department of Defense Publisher: Department of Chemistry, U.S. Air Force Academy; (1990) ASIN: B00010J3NO Chemtrails, Chemistry 131 manual, fall 1991 : course policies and laboratory manual (SuDoc D 305.19:C 42/2) by U.S. Department of Defense Publisher: Department of Chemistry, U.S. Air Force Academy; (1991) ASIN: B00010AM02 Chemtrails: Chemistry 141 & 142, Fourth Edition CB (Applications & Concepts in Chemistry) by United States Air Force Academy" Inquiring minds want to know. Jack Are you questioning my motivations for posting again Jack? I'm sure you could figure out the answer to your own question if you bothered to do the research. My biography states that I was 27 in 2005 (when it was posted). Note that those classes were offered in 90 and 91. Using math, how old was I then? How would I take classes at the Air Force Academy (which I didn't even attend by the way) while in high school? And lets think about this. If this is some supposed global military operation, why would the classes only be offered for two years? Why not still have them? And chemistry? I never much cared for chemistry. I doubt I would have taken them anyway. And the rest of my post which you ignored as usuall. (reformatted for readability) Many, many sites around the internet cite the "chemtrails" reference in Air Force Academy literature but never more than the title page is shown. Why does nobody show the text? Because it doesn't deal with the "chemtrails" the "chemtrail" believers are referring to. It is a similar term but nothing more and certainly not proof of some global conspiracy. Remember, persistent contrails have been observed since aircraft could fly high enough to make them. They are observed from both military AND COMMERCIAL aircraft. They are explained by science. Is it impossible for something like "chemtrails" to exist? No, but on the scale proposed and considering the science behind normal contrail formation it is extremely unlikely. Every single "chemtrail" observation can be explained by science. Making the leap to assuming it is some secret government program and anything other than normal contrails is not supported by any science and is simply an emotional argument. Facts behind persistent contrails Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics. Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear. Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns. Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953. The National Airspace System of the United States is oriented in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000-foot increments of elevation (1000 feet after the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in 2002-2004). Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails. More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market. Again, why haven't any "chemtrail" researchers sampled and tested something directly from a trail? If they actually found something, this would be the single best evidence behind "chemtrails" and would bring me to their side as well. Are they afraid of what they won't find? Why did the Air Force title the textbooks CHEMTRAILS? Why didn't they title them PERSISTENT CONTRAILS? Jack Why do you assume the books are about persistent contrails? Have you read them? Again, many, many sites around the internet cite the "chemtrails" reference in Air Force Academy literature but never more than the title page is shown. Why does nobody show the text? Because it doesn't deal with the "chemtrails" the "chemtrail" believers are referring to. It is a similar term but nothing more and certainly not proof of some global conspiracy. Why are you swallowing what some site tells you without doing the research for yourself?

OH...as an Air Force officer, did you take these courses? Chemtrails, chemistry 131 manual, fall 1990 (SuDoc D 305.19:C 42) by U.S. Department of Defense Publisher: Department of Chemistry, U.S. Air Force Academy; (1990) ASIN: B00010J3NO Chemtrails, Chemistry 131 manual, fall 1991 : course policies and laboratory manual (SuDoc D 305.19:C 42/2) by U.S. Department of Defense Publisher: Department of Chemistry, U.S. Air Force Academy; (1991) ASIN: B00010AM02 Chemtrails: Chemistry 141 & 142, Fourth Edition CB (Applications & Concepts in Chemistry) by United States Air Force Academy" Inquiring minds want to know. Jack Are you questioning my motivations for posting again Jack? I'm sure you could figure out the answer to your own question if you bothered to do the research. My biography states that I was 27 in 2005 (when it was posted). Note that those classes were offered in 90 and 91. Using math, how old was I then? How would I take classes at the Air Force Academy (which I didn't even attend by the way) while in high school? And lets think about this. If this is some supposed global military operation, why would the classes only be offered for two years? Why not still have them? And chemistry? I never much cared for chemistry. I doubt I would have taken them anyway. And the rest of my post which you ignored as usuall. (reformatted for readability) Many, many sites around the internet cite the "chemtrails" reference in Air Force Academy literature but never more than the title page is shown. Why does nobody show the text? Because it doesn't deal with the "chemtrails" the "chemtrail" believers are referring to. It is a similar term but nothing more and certainly not proof of some global conspiracy. Remember, persistent contrails have been observed since aircraft could fly high enough to make them. They are observed from both military AND COMMERCIAL aircraft. They are explained by science. Is it impossible for something like "chemtrails" to exist? No, but on the scale proposed and considering the science behind normal contrail formation it is extremely unlikely. Every single "chemtrail" observation can be explained by science. Making the leap to assuming it is some secret government program and anything other than normal contrails is not supported by any science and is simply an emotional argument. Facts behind persistent contrails Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics. Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear. Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns. Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953. The National Airspace System of the United States is oriented in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000-foot increments of elevation (1000 feet after the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in 2002-2004). Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails. More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market. Again, why haven't any "chemtrail" researchers sampled and tested something directly from a trail? If they actually found something, this would be the single best evidence behind "chemtrails" and would bring me to their side as well. Are they afraid of what they won't find?

As has been explained before, and ignored multiple times by you, air masses are not always uniform and as such conditions for contrail formation may be intermittent. Again, explained by science, that you have also chosen to ignore.

Many, many sites around the internet cite the "chemtrails" reference in Air Force Academy literature but never more than the title page is shown. Why does nobody show the text? Because it doesn't deal with the "chemtrails" the "chemtrail" believers are referring to. It is a similar term but nothing more and certainly not proof of some global conspiracy. Remember, persistent contrails have been observed since aircraft could fly high enough to make them. They are observed from both military AND COMMERCIAL aircraft. They are explained by science. Is it impossible for something like "chemtrails" to exist? No, but on the scale proposed and completely ignoring the science behind normal contrail formation it is extremely unlikely. Every single "chemtrail" observation can be explained by science. Making the leap to assuming it is some secret government program and anything other than normal contrails is not supported by any science and is simply an emotional argument. Facts behind persistent contrails Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics. Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear. Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns. Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953. The National Airspace System of the United States is oriented in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000-foot increments of elevation (1000 feet after the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in 2002-2004). Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails. More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market. Why haven't any "chemtrail" researchers sampled and tested something directly from a trail? If they actually found something, this would be the single best evidence behind "chemtrails" and would bring me to their side as well. Are they afraid of what they won't find?

Oh, no doubt there are ongoing experiments in weather modification. Just not of the scale that is proposed for "chemtrails", especially when these "chemtrails" can be seen coming from regular commercial traffic as well. The USAF even has a weather modification squadron. It consists of IIRC 4 C-130s, prop planes, not the jets people see leaving persistent contrails at high altitudes, and they do cloud seeding, within existing clouds, the way cloud seeding has always been done.