contrails=aircraft smog (please read) : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I have posted here descriptions of strange contrail sightings in my area. However, after doing some research and watching the commercial aircraft traffic, I am convinced that they are just caused by aircraft emmisions in certain atmospheric conditions. I think they are a problem because they cloud up an otherwise blue sky and they may affect the climate. I do not believe the gubmint is spraying us. Contrails are reported all over Europe. Please look at some of the following scientific links in Europe.

Contrail 1
Contrail 2
Contrail 3

Actual satellite photos:

Contrail formation and observations

-- nobody (, February 02, 2000


--bd, same problem here in VA with illness after spraying. I go out to walk the dogs around my small back yard, and can hear neighbors in 2 different houses coughing at the same time. Weird, but there are LOTS of sick folks here.

-- Hokie (, February 02, 2000.

There were persistant north-south contrails ALL DAY here in the san francisco bay area. they did not dissipate at all, very much BELOW 10,000 feet, maybe closer to 5-7,500.

Only 3 or 4 contrails, if it's plane traffic, how do you account for the fact that there were only 3 or 4?? There mustbe hundreds of flights, why only a few contrails, why not 100's.

Perhaps it's mind control, i could not think of sex or money all day...

-- INever (, February 03, 2000.

United States Senate Testimony before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs May 6, 1994

Open Air Testing with Simulated Biological and Chemical Warfare Agents

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

By Leonard A. Cole, Ph.D.

My name is Leonard A. Cole, and I teach science and public policy at Rutgers University in Newark. My research interests include biological and chemical warfare policies, and I have written in particular about testing done in the U.S Army's biological defense program.

I appreciate your invitation, Senator Rockefeller, to testify about experiments involving simulated biological and chemical warfare agents. These agents, which the army calls simulants, are intended to mimic more lethal bacteria and chemicals that might be used in actual warfare.

As described in my book, Clouds of Secrecy, the army began a program in 1949 to assess the nation's vulnerability to attack with biological weapons. During the next 20 years, the army released simulant agents over hundreds of populated areas around the country. Targets included portions of Hawaii and Alaska, San Francisco, St. Louis, Minneapolis, New York City, Washington, D.C., Key West, and many other cities. The purpose was to see how the bacteria spread and survived as people went about their normal activities.

Evidence suggested that the tests may have been causing illness to exposed citizens. Nevertheless, as army spokesmen subsequently testified, the health of the millions of people exposed was never monitored because the army assumed that the bacteria and chemicals were harmless.

Vulnerability testing continues at Dugway Proving Ground, 70 miles from Salt Lake City. Several smaller communities are closer to the base, and Dugway itself is home to hundreds of civilians and military personnel and their families. The stated purpose of the tests is to evaluate biological detector systems and protective gear.

Since tests involve spraying simulants outdoors, it is important to understand how much risk they pose to humans who are exposed. Official statements have not always been dear on this matter. A July 1993 news release by the Dugway Public Affairs Office indicates that "no specific safety controls or protection are required for testing with simulants." The statement implies, erroneously, that the simulants are harmless.

In fact, during 45 years of open air testing, from time to time the army has stopped using certain simulants for reasons of safety. In each instance the army belatedly recognized they could be causing disease and death, although such information had long been available in the medical literature. This was the case in the 1950s when it ceased using the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus as a simulant. The fungus had long been known to cause aspergillosis, a disease that can be fatal. Similarly, in the 1960s the army stopped using zinc cadmium sulfide, a chemical that had been known for years to cause cancer.

In the 1970s, the bacterium Serratia marcescens, a source of infections that can lead to death, was taken out of service as a simulant. And in the 1980s, dimethyl methylphosphonate, a chemical known as DPP, was removed from use as a simulant because of its carcinogenic and other toxic potential. I understand that one of today's witnesses, Earl Davenport, was exposed to DMMP at Dugway in 1984 and may still be suffering health problems as a result.

Indeed, simulants now used at Dugway continue to pose risks. The chemical ethylene oxide, which is present in some of the mixtures used in outdoor spraying, is a known carcinogen. The bacterium Bacillus subtilis, while not generally seen as dangerous, is cited in medical textbooks as able to cause serious infections. In truth any microorganism that seems harmless under some circumstances may cause illness under others.

Exposure to high concentrations of any microorganism can be critically dangerous to people in weakened conditions. The elderly, the very young, people with AIDS and others who have weakened immune systems are more susceptible to life threatening infections. Nevertheless, the army has not monitored the health of citizens who may have been exposed during its tests while maintaining that its bacterial agents cause no harm.

In addition to people who are unwittingly exposed to the army's bacteria and chemicals, human research subjects may not be receiving appropriate information. A test at Dugway in November 1993, for example, raises important questions in this regard. The test was intended to assess the ability of chemical agents to penetrate protective clothing.

Test subjects wore special outer garments and were then sprayed with chemicals in simulated battle conditions. An army Environmental Assessment before the test indicated that some of the chemicals could be toxic. Yet the consent form that the subjects signed in advance of the test said nothing about any of the chemicals.

Subsequently, two of the test subjects said they were asked to sign another consent form sometime after the test had been completed. The second form described the chemicals. But having the subjects sign a consent form after an experiment, rather than before, makes little ethical sense. The procedure renders meaningless the notion of informed consent.

Finally, several physicians at the University of Utah Medical School in Salt Lake City continue to express concern about the tests at Dugway. They do not feel they have information that would enable them optimally to handle infections and complications that might be caused by the tests. Dugway officials have thus far not satisfied their concerns either about field tests involving simulants or indoor tests with highly pathogenic agents.

These are a few of the disconcerting issues associated with testing at Dugway. If such tests must continue, several policy suggestions seem appropriate:

--Inform people in the area before each test that they may be exposed to the army's biological and chemical agents.

--For a substantial period after each test, monitor the health of the exposed population.

--Provide comprehensive information in understandable language to human subjects before they participate in any test.

--Fully inform the neighboring medical community about the nature of each test and its possible medical complications.

--Above all, strive for safety, candor, and openness.

-- Hokie (, February 03, 2000.


Er, um...personally, I think it is more likely that it is flu/cold season, and your neighbors gave it to each other.

I am a licenced private pilot, a former military flight officer (inactive for now), and a lover of everything connected to flying since I can remember. I have been watching the sky since I first saw an airplane.

On all the pictures I have seen (i.e., so-called chemtrails pictures on the web), and all that I have personally observed, what I see is contrail patterns similar to those that I have observed all of my life. Sometimes the patterns are relatively rare, depending on unusual weather conditions, upper-level winds, and moisture content of the atmosphere at the flight level of the aircraft producing them. But they appear to be CONtrails to me, nevertheless.

This is not a flame; I simply disagree with your interpretation of what you are seeing.

One important point: if your premise is that you are being sprayed, the amount of "agent" delivered to your area would greatly depend on the altitude at which the agent was delivered. If it sprayed from a high flight level, unless the agent had significant mass (rain-drop sized, or as a solid object, which opened to disperse at a relatively low level), whatever was sprayed over your area would be likely come to ground level MANY miles away from your location. This is why crop dusters fly so low.

Also, ask yourself, why would the the PTB spray the population? To innoculate us? It would be more efficient to introduce innoculants into the water and food suppy, don't you think? Or include perhaps to these agents in more conventional routes, like flu vaccines. Or in air conditioning systems, for that matter.

I just can't see associating contrails (chemtrails?) with incidence of illness as being a likely concordance.

Just my oppinion, FWIW.


-- Spindoc' (, February 03, 2000.


I read with interest your post from Leonard A. Cole, Ph.D.

Quick question: at what altitude were these experiments conducted?


-- Spindoc' (, February 03, 2000.

what is so frightening to me is how those who do not think them to be anything other than contrails are so causal about it! hello!!? if they turn out to be your so called `NORMAL` contrail....wake up for gods sake! they are so thick now that they are turning clear blue skys to cloudy days all over the country! do you REALLY believe we are to just say `oh well it`s just those airlines doing a great business`? ..[and by the way they are poisoning our water and our children are breathing `it` into their lungs] whatEVER these turn out to be they are poisoning our future, and we OUGHT to be mad as hell over it!

-- mutter (, February 03, 2000.

I'm madder than hell, too. I'm in a family of pilots, I know what normal contrails look like, how they are formed and why and I know some of this crazy looking stuff I'm seeing over my head is NOT normal. Even my skeptical husband is getting a little suspicious of all those "contrails" Whether it's bio spraying or weather control efforts, we need to know, and in my humble opinion, it needs to be stopped Now.

-- just momma (, February 03, 2000.

nobody and spin doc: people have repeatedly reported, and some have photographed, these planes that leave chemtrails as flying low, as flying back and forth, side by side, and creating patterns that are either big Xs (which I reported here seeing over No. Virginia recently...and I was a USAF pilot/FAA inspector wife during & after Vietnam...and they don't look anything like what we'd observe in our constant sky-watching!) or a huge tic-tac-toe type board laid out in the sky. See the photos of both the planes and the patterns on half a dozen contrail/chemtrail websites. Also, the planes aren't spewing this stuff out of the usual place, but out of some sort of distributing mechanism on the wings, as well as on the tail. Finally, these don't look like regular contrails at all, but are closer to the earth by far, are "puffy", spread out and don't dissipate like contrails, and hang there far, far longer than any contrail you've ever seen. If you live, as I do, outside Washington, DC, you see constant air travel from the major airports and military bases which abound here...and you KNOW when you are seeing something entirely different from the norm.

An open mind doesn't mean one is "losing it." It means being willing to explore all possibilities...some of which are unthinkable.

-- Elaine Seavey (, February 03, 2000.

I saw 3 today over Austin,Tx east to west,trail dissipated quickly..last week saw 4: 2 n>s 2 e>w trails broke apart slowly,formed fuzzy,wispy looking clouds over much of sky..

-- george (, February 03, 2000.

ALWAYS question!

-- jeile (, February 03, 2000.

The trails I observed yesterday in an area on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada's SE of Sacramento did not appear to be random flights passing through the area. It appeared to be a very structured pattern of coverage, with delivery of the substance beginning toward the west and moving eastward, the bands running in a north/south direction and laid out in very straight ribbons. When I got back to the office, I took several employees out in the parking lot to see what was taking place, and we watched as some of this material was being distributed. Everyone agreed that this activity looked very extraordinary. Later in the afternoon, the bands dissipated into a light cloud cover over the entire area. At dusk, as I drove down a ridge-top road overlooking the Sacramento valley, the cloud cover had completely disappeared, but this whole area appeared to be enshrouded in a thick, grey looking substance which marred an otherwise perfectly clear horizon.

-- Sharon L (, February 03, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California My Chemtrails Page

Spindoc', please check out my chemtrail photos and tell me these look like contrails to you.

nobody, when I look at the "clouds" in those satelite photographs at your last link in the post which originates this thread, they scream chemtrails to me... line after parallel line. It would be interesting to know if they are. I've also seen another such satelite photo, but it's not as good as this one. Somebody said it's normal to see clouds lined up like this. Not in my experience, it's not.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), February 04, 2000.

Elaine, your request for us all to keep an open mind regarding the contrail issue is well taken. I could believe in just about anything if a good factual case is presented. What stops me from buying into the premise that we are being intentionally sprayed, for whatever reason, is this:

Who would be controlling this program and how would they isolate themselves, their families, and their loved ones from exposure? This would have to include a massive amount of people from administrators, pilots, ATCs, ground support, and on and on. How could anything of this scope stay a secret for long?

If these chemtrails were isolated in a few areas I might give this some credence. But according to incoming reports on this forum, this is happening everywhere- from large metropolitan areas to the sparsely populated countryside.

For these reasons I will state that this is one conspiracy we can dismiss.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), February 04, 2000.


You are wasting your time. Some of the people putting forth this theory are friends [the virtual kind]. That doesn't mean that I agree with them. Scientific arguments don't work. Common sense doesn't work. Logic doesn't work. Best to ignore and enjoy their company.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (, February 04, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ