Matthew Lewis

When The Army Owns The Weather - Chemtrails & HAARP

Author: Bob Fitrakis

Humans have long sought to control the weather. Early people learned how to make fire and modify their micro-environments; rain dances and other rituals to alleviate droughts are part of our folklore. So news that the government is engaged in secret experiments to control the weather should come as no surprise -- especially after a long history of "cloud seeding," "atom splitting" and cloning revelations.

In fact, a vast majority of people would be shocked to learn that this orphan of the cold war is still in practice. As the U.S. and former Soviet Union spent trillions of dollars on their militaries, their commitment to mutually assured destruction led to extensive experimentation with the use of weather as a weapon. In 1977, the Saturday Review cited a CIA report hinting that the U.S. government already had the power to massively manipulate the weather for war purposes.

As the Soviet Union disintegrated, a 1993 Isvestia article suggested the U.S. might want to partner with the Russians in peddling their top-secret technology to the world. Oleg Klugin, a high-ranking KGB officer, bragged of his involvement in geophysical weapons research to a London newspaper. The grid patterns of jet chemtrails now spotted throughout the Western world are likely the application of these technologies to new military and civilian uses.

or they could be persistent contrails which are perfectly explained by science instead of the pseudoscience behind "chemtrails"

The military is not attempting to hide its long-term goals. "Weather is a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" is a white paper that can be found on a Pentagon-sponsored website. The paper's abstract reads: "In 2025, U.S. aerospace forces can 'own the weather' by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies towards fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighters tools to shape the battle space in ways never before possible In the U.S., weather modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications."

Wired magazine wrote about the paper and extensively quoted physicist Bernard Eastlund in its January 2000 article "Activate Cloud Shield! Zap a Twister!" The article detailed the military's plan for "made-to-order thunderstorms" and "lightning strikes on demand."

Same school project that was mentioned before. No evidence that anything suggested in the project is actually being done and plenty of evidence that it is not.

Eastlund managed programs for Controlled Thermal Nuclear Research for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission from 1966 to 1974; he was a key researcher in the 1980s' Strategic Space Initiative (aka Star Wars). Since 1996, Eastlund served as CEO and president of Eastlund Scientific Enterprises Corporation. The company boasts on its website that it specializes in "weather modification" and "tornado modification" among other high-tech services.

So they do weather modification. So what? Weather modification in this context consists of cloud seeding, not miles long mythical "chemtrails"

Eastlund considers the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in Alaska a smaller version of what he envisions for weather modification. In response to Michael Theroux of Borderland Sciences -- who asked Eastlund whether the HAARP station could affect the weather -- Eastlund replied: "Significant experiments could be performed The HAARP antenna as is it now configured modulates the auroral electrojet to induce ELF waves and thus could have an effect on the zonal winds."

Nothing like adding in another conspiracy theory to try to make the first seem more legitimate. What does this have to do with mythical "chemtrails"?

At the Space 2000 Conference and Exposition on Engineering, Construction, Operations and Business in Space, sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Eastlund outlined his plan for zapping tornados with an electromagnetic radiation beam from the proposed Thunderstorm Solar Powered Satellite he's developing with the help of the European Space Agency and Jenkins Enterprises.

Again, what does this have to do with "chemtrails"? Sounds like a good idea to try to prevent tornados, if it works.

U.S. patent number 6315213, filed on November 13, is described as a method of modifying weather and should concern the public. A scientist from Wright Patterson Air Force Base acknowledges that planes are spraying barium salt, polymer fibers, aluminum oxide and other chemicals in the atmosphere to both modify the weather and for military communications purposes. The patent abstract specifically states: "The polymer is dispersed into the cloud and the wind of the storm agitates the mixture causing the polymer to absorb the rain. This reaction forms a gelatinous substance which precipitate to the surface below. Thus, diminishing the cloud's ability to rain."

How many patents have actually been made into working products or processes? Note it says though that the "polymer is dispersed into the cloud". How does that have anything to do with "chemtrails" which are done in clear sky?

How much credit should an anonymous scientist be given? How do we know his statement wasn't just made up?

Answering the age-old question, Who'll stop the rain?: Apparently our government and a few of their closest friends in the military industrial-complex. The emergence of Edward Teller promoting this startling technology is more than scary. (Teller was the father of the H-Bomb and grand promoter of Readi Kilowatt, our perky little radiation friend from the '50s; one of his bright ideas from the '50s was to create harbors by nuking our own coastline.) The April 24 New York Times reported that Teller "has promoted the idea of manipulating the Earth's atmosphere to counteract global warming." The computer simulations on the use of aluminum oxide to counter global warming come from the Lawrence Livermore Weapons Laboratory, where Teller serves as director emeritus.

There should be little doubt that this would be a priority for the government -- or for for-profit military contractors. While 2001 was the second-hottest year on record (1998 holds the record as the hottest year), the nine hottest years on record have occurred since 1990. But why would the government conduct anti-global warming experiments in secret?

Starts with a little poisoning the well about Teller. The idea to use nukes to create harbors wouldn't be too bad if you could get around the long lasting radiation problem. I'm guessing the idea came before the radiation was fully understood.

Not every year has been hotter though and one must remember that our record-keeping has become more accurate. Heck, scientists can't even agree on whether or not global warming is even happening!

Still no evidence provided that aluminum oxide is being used, or that it is in the trails seen in the sky from commercial and military planes alike that are explained by science.

Investigative reporter William Thomas holds that there's a link between the recent increase in asthma, allergies and upper respiratory ailments and the chemtrail spraying. Sound crazy? Remember, it sounded absurd when reports first came out that the government had conducted radioactivity experiments on U.S. citizens and released radiation from nuclear plants to test the effect on civilian populations. It sounded bizarre when news first filtered out that the government was engaged in the MK-Ultra mind-control experiments using LSD. The CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency admit they were responsible for many of the UFO sightings in the 1950s in order the explain away experimental military technology.

From public documents to mainstream news accounts, the record is filled with reports of weather-modifying technology left over from the Cold War. Now we have a right to know what, if anything, the government plans to do with it.

Claims that there's a link between the recent increase in asthma, allergies and upper respiratory ailments and the chemtrail spraying but don't show us the evidence? How can one establish a link to something done 30,000 feet up that takes weeks to settle and has never been sampled and tested? How can they prove any increase isn't from some other source like local pollution or vaccines hundreds of other more likely things?

Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12342

I note that the "article" is taken from the Columbus Alive "newspaper". Having grown up in Columbus, OH I know that Columbus Alive is just a small step about the Enquirer.

Once more:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=144030

When will someone actually gather evidence of these so-called "chemtrails"?

Why haven't they done so already? Would it be because they won't risk having their beliefs challenged?

That's exactly why they don't do it. Deep down they know there is no proof that the contrails are anything other than contrails but that doesn't stop the fear mongering.

Jim Marrs on Chemtrails:

http://www.worldgathering.net/stop/

Http://www.worldgathering.net/stop/

Http://www.worldgathering.net/stop/index.html

Jack

(it seems that from this forum, the link does not work; try typing it in)

The site is blocked on the network I'm on as a "Spam Email URLs" so I can't view it. I wouldn't be surprised if it is like everything else that pushes "chemtrails", light on evidence and science and heavy on handwaving and pseudoscience.

And that causes three big Xs in the sky at noon?

Jack

Short answer: yes, it can.

What are the odds of three big chemtrail Xs in the same location within an hour, all caused

by two planes on identical perpendicular courses at the same time? Maybe a million to one?

Jack

Since "chemtrails" are mythical, I'd say the odds are much greater than a million to one for three big "chemtrail" Xs. Persistent contrails on the other hand would be extremely likely given the conditions. That's something you'd know if you actually looked at the science behind it all.

When I awoke this morning, the Texas sky was a deep unclouded blue.

By the time I drove to lunch, 4 to 6 chemtrail planes were at work, spraying

huge Xs in the sky.I saw a total of 3 Xs, all approximately over south Fort Worth,

all of which rapidly morphed into fast moving cirrus clouds by the high westerly

winds aloft, spreading out toward Dallas. After a two month hiatus, chemtrails

have returned to Fort Worth.

Jack

And wouldn't you know it, the conditions over the Dallas/Fort Worth area today were extremely conducive to the formation of persistent contrails. Funny that.

Note the relative humidity with respect to ice or RHI is often well over 100% often as high as 130% to 145% (60% or greater good for persistent contrail formation)

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cont_p...25&engEff=2

Interesting that nobody has "debunked" the govt documents in the video yet.

Jack

"chemtrails in the sunset..."

Interesting that some of us actually have a life and can't constantly respond to Jack. Google video is blocked on the network I'm on so I can't see it anyway. Jack you seem disappointed that you're not immediately being debunked. If you want a quicker response then maybe you should consider paying somebody.

Regarding the picture, I just see persistent contrails. Where are these "chemtrails" you keep speaking of?

No excuse...I posted two of the relevant govt documents. Address them.

Jack

I did Jack (even before your demand). Calm down. I've seen them before, years ago. As I already mentioned, I have a life. I also already mentioned that I am deployed and as such I have less time to access the internet than I usually do. Again, calm down.

I just watched an exellent documentary on CHEMTRAILS. Click on...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=80...881114646406827

Included are two government documents which say it all.

One actually uses the word CHEMTRAILS.

The other sets out the govt reason for CHEMTRAILS.

Here are the two frame grabs described above (but watch the video).

Jack

Based on what I can see in the frame grabs (the video is blocked on the network I'm on), the document is Owning the weather by 2025, part of a much larger school project. Yes, school.

” Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, A Research Paper Presented To Air Force 2025 by Col Tamzy J. House et al. (August 1996): http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-1.htm”

(link is not current, here is a link to the whole project http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/ )

What was not said is where this paper came from. Notice the “AU” in the link. That stands for “Air University”. Air University is the section of the Air Force responsible for all professional military education. For a paper written by a Colonel, it was most likely written at Air War College (AWC). AWC is attended by Lt. Cols and Cols in preparation for squadron and wing command and to move on to General. It is a 10 month school in which they are awarded a Master’s degree upon completion. Many papers are written by many students there every month. Very, very few (much less than 1%) are ever followed or paid attention to. What about the other hundreds of papers on that site? Should we believe everything in those is being implemented too? More importantly, where is the funding for this supposed massive chemtrail project? Where is the other research? If the Air Force were to really want to own the weather by 2025, there would be many more papers and hard research, not just one paper. I encourage others to find the many other parts of the 2025 project. Also note this disclaimer

"The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government."

Some of the stuff contained in there is laughable, (the weather paper as well as the entire project) especially considering the massive budget cuts being faced in the Air Force right now and of course the lack of planes necessary to perform this massive operation as I have mentioned in previous posts. Not to mention that there is plenty of proof in pictures that commercial as well as military aircraft leave persistent contrails aka "chemtrails" and happen to do so on days when the weather is conducive to formation of persistent contrails. Imagine that. Why would you need some mythical "chemtrails" to make clouds when all you have to do is have any traffic (commercial or military) just fly higher to increase the chances that persistent contrails would form?

The first screen grab though appears to show the bill that was submitted to the House mentioning "Chemtrails" by Dennis Kucinich. It is interesting to note that subsequent versions of the bill did not have "chemtrails" in it. Apparently somebody came to their senses and realized the folly of outlawing something that has no proof of its existence. Nobody knows who put the term there in there in the first place. Perhaps one of Kucinich's staff that helped to write it was taken in by the "chemtrail" tripe found on the internet? Perhaps Kucinich himself? It still means nothing as it provides no proof of any existence.

Interesting that nobody has "debunked" the govt documents in the video yet.

Jack

"chemtrails in the sunset..."

Interesting that some of us actually have a life and can't constantly respond to Jack. Google video is blocked on the network I'm on so I can't see it anyway. Jack you seem disappointed that you're not immediately being debunked. If you want a quicker response then maybe you should consider paying somebody.

Regarding the picture, I just see persistent contrails. Where are these "chemtrails" you keep speaking of?

As aviation experts, maybe Lewis and Burton will explain what this aircraft part does.

Jack

At this stage, I don't know - but I think it could be a spray head which was used in airborne icing tests. That's just a guess, and may be wildly wrong, but it might be. Give me some time to look it up and see what it was.

De-icing tests. A single tanker that had the refueling probe temporarily modified. Odd that some claim it is for "chemtrails" aka persistent contrails when those are clearly seen coming from the engines.

I don't know what it is, but I doubt it is used for chemtrails. Lewis is likely correct that it is a refueling probe.

Sloppy research which misidentifies equipment muddies the waters.

Jack

Sloppy research? Or deliberately deceptive? I first saw the images a few years ago and it was determined then exactly what it was used for. Those pushing the images should have no excuse by now to have corrected their mistake. That many of them refuse to do so says something.

Stanford University addresses Chemtrails...

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/geomanhattan.pdf

Jack

Jack,

Can I ask you to quote what that quoted article had to do with what you are insist are "chemtrails"? I don't have the time to read through the whole thing (86 pages), so I did a word search instead. "Chemtrails" - zero results. "Contrails" - zero results.

Just what is it saying?

If I have not searched correctly, please point me to the section on "chemtrails". Thanks.

I read it. Anyone who is interested is invited to read it.

Jack

I would but I'm currently deployed and the page is blocked on the network as a "Personal Page".

As aviation experts, maybe Lewis and Burton will explain what this aircraft part does.

Jack

At this stage, I don't know - but I think it could be a spray head which was used in airborne icing tests. That's just a guess, and may be wildly wrong, but it might be. Give me some time to look it up and see what it was.

De-icing tests. A single tanker that had the refueling probe temporarily modified. Odd that some claim it is for "chemtrails" aka persistent contrails when those are clearly seen coming from the engines.

Example of chemtrailus interruptus. The chemplane operator turns the spray on and off,

resulting in dashed lines. I have witnessed this numerous times. Contrails don't turn on

and off.

Jack

Why couldn't it be a contrail? As has already been explained (and likely ignored) not all air is uniform. Would you expect the air over a lake to always be the same as the air over a plain or the air over a forest, or the air over a city? It varies in temperature, pressure, humidity, etc. Any meteorologist would agree. It looks like the plane went though a part of the sky where the temperature of the air was slightly warmer. Totally explained by science.

It's been nearly three hours without an immediate Lewis debunk.

Prediction: He will claim the image is photoshopped, since it cannot

be a contrail.

Jack

Sorry to disappoint you but i just got off a 20 hour flight (and I do have a life) and was unable to view your humor. Why would I think it was photoshopped? I've seen it happen too and it is perfectly predicted by science and able to be understood by any of those willing to take the time to learn.

More fingers, as the chemicals settle out of the chemtrail to a lower level.

Wind and turbulence.

How do you know there are any chemicals in these trails? Has anyone ever tested samples directly from the trails?

Yes. The ingredients are mainly barium and aluminum oxide.

Jack

Wrong. Nobody has ever tested a sample collected directly from a trail. Every single test has been from a sample collected on the ground. What kind of contamination do you think you'd get from a sample collected on the ground? How is it possibly considered good research to assume that something collected on the ground came from a contrail 30,000 feet upand not the many more likely local sources? That is sloppy research at best and deceptive at worst. Don't you find it odd in the least that after so many years (some believers say "chemtrails" started in the late 90's even though persistent contrails have been proven to exist since before WWII) no one has bothered to collect a sample directly from a trail? The single best evidence they would have and they just haven't bothered to even try it? Show me a sample proven to be collected in situ, with a chain of custody, and analysed without bias that still shows something not found in regular jet exhaust and I'll be right there beside you.

Until then, thanks for the humor Jack.

More fingers, as the chemicals settle out of the chemtrail to a lower level.

Wind and turbulence.

How do you know there are any chemicals in these trails? Has anyone ever tested samples directly from the trails?

Some Chemtrails develop what researchers refer to as "fingers".

Jack

Looks like the effects of wind.

How are those that ignore 60+ years of meteorological science researchers?

Not all chemtrails are horizon to horizon. Many are just short bursts of

spraying, as these two parallel planes demonstrate.

Not all air masses conducive to the formation of persistent contrails are horizon to horizon. Sometimes air conditions at altitude vary. Would you expect the air over a lake to always be the same as the air over a plain or the air over a forest, or the air over a city?

Explain this:

http://www.carnicom.com/anomalies1.htm

Jack

Looks somewhat like a lens flare. Hard to tell with all the digital artifacts. Of course based on the other stuff I've seen come from Carnicom it could very likely be fake. One can't rule out that there might be some new exotic aircraft but that proves nothing about mythical "chemtrails" as we know that persistent contrails can be formed by any airplane that can fly high enough.

Here is an odd one where three chemplanes followed a single path, but at the end of

it branched off in three different directions.

Jack

It looks like a holding pattern. Happens with commercial traffic often.

Here is a really strange chemtrail photo...

...what appears to be an "LX" with a line thru it, along with

a prismatic sun dog of the oily chemicals in the upper air.

Jack

How do you know they are oily? Has anyone taken samples from them? Can't you get prism and rainbow effects simply from water?

What I see is contrails forming in a smaller air mass that is conducive to their formation. Remember, not all air is uniform. Would you expect the air over a lake to be the same as the air over a plain or the air over a forest, or the air over a city?

Thanks for the humor Jack.

Evergreen Company* announces

747 aerial spraying system, 2006

*(Evergreen is a favorite name for CIA proprietary front companies and those who like pine trees. Any proof this company is a CIA front or are you just slandering an entire company on a whim?)

The Evergreen Supertanker demonstration tour is being rescheduled while the system undergoes additional refinement. Please check back regularly for updates.

Evergreen International Aviation’s aerial application experience goes back to 1924. Evergreen continues its legacy of leading the industry by combining over 70 years of firefighting experience with over half a million hours of 747 experience to develop the world’s next generation of aerial application platforms—the Evergreen Supertanker.

Evergreen has invested 3 years and over $40 million of its own money to develop a multi-mission aerial application platform capable of responding to firefighting, weather modification, biochemical decontamination, and oil spill response missions worldwide.

The Supertanker will perform emergency response missions to save lives, natural resources, homes, and communities. The Supertanker can do this while saving the U.S. government and industry millions of dollars.

Evergreen is honored to offer the Supertanker to emergency response professionals that are working tirelessly to protect Americans from the threat of fire and other catastrophic events.

Mission Profiles Include:

• Firefighting

• Weather Modification

• Biochemical Decontamination

• Oil Spill Containment

Press Release:

Evergreen International Aviation to Showcase 747 Supertanker at Demonstrations Nationwide

March 27, 2006

Photo of plane dropping fire-retardant chemicals for firefighting...

Congrats Jack, you've found proof of aerial firefighting. How does this have anything to do with "chemtrails"? Persistent contrails or if you insist "chemtrails" are always observed at high altitudes, not the low altitude in the picture. They are also observed coming from the engines (exactly where the jet exhaust is, imagine that) and not from the belly of the plane. So again, how does this have anything to do with "chemtrails"? the only thing close in that article is the mention of weather modification which most likely refers to cloud seeding. In fact, I've found a few other sites that mention that as well

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/altss/printstory/local/12024

http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4885840

Cloud seeding is nothing like a "chemtrail" or persistent contrail. The biggest difference of which is it takes place in previously existing clouds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

One thing to note, there are huge problems with spraying anything at 25,000-30,000 feet (instead of the low altitudes this system is designed for). First, it would be impossible to aim as any particulates could take at the least days and at the most months to reach the ground. Second, by the time it does reach the ground it will have dissipated to such low concentrations that one would be lucky to even be able to detect it. At such low concentration, it would be worthless. Finally, by the time it does reach the ground, it will have been exposed to so much sunlight that it will likely have become inert. Nobody would spray something like that from high altitudes. It just doesn't work.

Thanks for the humor Jack.

Thanks for posting the excellent CHEMTRAIL photo. Had not seen that one.

Sorry, Jack, it is a photo of persitent contrails. And more than that, it is proof that persistent contrails have been around for decades instead of starting in the late 90's like "chemtrail" believers like to make up.

and I notice you ignored the questions I posted. Typical.

What else is it supposed to look like when air traffic crosses paths? Are you trying to imply that normal air traffic should not cross paths? How are these supposed to be different from persistent contrails which have been known to exist since airplanes could fly high enough?

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report...ca-wr-l-474.pdf

Like this photo from 1967

Also see this page

http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-...ding-contrails/

with pics and stories dating back to the 40's.

Here is my favorite of the chemtrail photos taken from my house. This picture

was made at 6:46 pm on June 22, 2006.

It shows a jetliner heading east in a DFW landing approach. Somewhat higher is

a chemplane heading west laying a twin trail. Two planes, same photo...one a

chemplane, the other a jetliner.

Jack

And you give the reason for it yourself in your own description. The planes are at different altitudes and thus in different air conditions. It is not surprising that one is in contrail conducive conditions and the other is not. Why should it be? Especially as the sky at the altitude of the contrail plane is already showing cirrus clouds. How do you know it is a "chemtrail"? Has anybody tested a sample taken directly from the trail?

Predictable response.

What you mistakenly call CIRRUS CLOUDS are DISSIPATING CHEMTRAILS which I watched being laid

earlier. Winds aloft spread them rapidly. I had watched them being laid, which is why I went in the

house to get my camera. I was there. You were not. Please cite references regarding the different

air conditions that day at different altitudes. I gave the exact time of the photo. Surely you can

provide statistics regarding the "different air conditions" on that date and location. "Guesses" are not

research. The photo is evidence. Your speculation is not research.

Jack

It is only a predictable response because it is true. What you mistakenly call DISSIPATING CHEMTRAILS are CIRRUS CLOUDS regardless of how they were formed unless you can show me a chemical analysis of a trail collected in the trail that shows something other than normal jet exhaust byproducts. Do that and I'll change my opinion that minute. The lower plane not leaving a contrail that you said was landing at DFW would be under 10,000 feet. Persistent contrails are extremely, extremely unlikely at that altitude under any conditions (the air is too warm, air temperature drops about 3 degrees Celcius per 1000 feet altitude). The photo is evidence of a persistent contrail left by the higher plane. The presence of any chemicals unrelated to normal jet exhaust has never been proven.

Here is the results of your request/demand ( which you likely won't believe anyway).

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cont_p...25&engEff=2

Well gee, the relative humidity with respect to ice or RHI was well above what is necessary to expect persistent contrails. That link is to an air pressure of 225 mb or about 25,000 feet. The highest pressure that site goes up to is 400 mb which is about 20,000 feet. That isn't low enough to see the humidity conditions that would affect a plane landing at DFW as previously mentioned it would be below 10,000 feet. Not that it matters because as also previously mentioned the air below 10,000 feet would be too warm. For those interested, the RHI at about 20,000 feet or 400 mb pressure for that date and time is here

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cont_p...00&engEff=2

My "speculation" is based on years of personal research and information gathered while acquiring two degrees in aviation. It is also plain common sense to know that two planes at obviously two very different altitudes would be in different air conditions.

Here is my favorite of the chemtrail photos taken from my house. This picture

was made at 6:46 pm on June 22, 2006.

It shows a jetliner heading east in a DFW landing approach. Somewhat higher is

a chemplane heading west laying a twin trail. Two planes, same photo...one a

chemplane, the other a jetliner.

Jack

And you give the reason for it yourself in your own description. The planes are at different altitudes and thus in different air conditions. It is not surprising that one is in contrail conducive conditions and the other is not. Why should it be? Especially as the sky at the altitude of the contrail plane is already showing cirrus clouds. How do you know it is a "chemtrail"? Has anybody tested a sample taken directly from the trail?

Chemtrails galore, all over the sky, forming huge checkerboard pattern.

Jack

Chemtrails gone berserk.

Jack

Gridwork at sunset...checkers anyone?

Jack

All looks like normal contrails to me. Especially considering the FACT that persistent contrails can, do and have been known to exist since planes could fly high enough (as shown by the WWII pictures and study I have posted, the pictures dating back to before WWII, the stories from pilots and navigators during WWII, the newspaper articles dating back multiple decades). Also to consider is the fact that persistent contrails have increased due to newer more powerful jet engines outputting more water vapor allowing more contrails to form. These engines also allow jet traffic to fly higher on average putting the jets in areas where persistent contrail formation is more common. And of course jet traffic in general has increased. Also to note is that one can predict where persistent contrails will form based on nothing more than weather reports, and one can match the majority of flights leaving persistent contrails to commercial flights in any one of the programs available that show commercial flights in near real time.

How do you know these are "chemtrails" Jack? Has anybody tested any samples taken directly from them? Why not?