Report Chemtrails., page 3

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
they documented spraying over 239 cities...
it was chemical weapons tests... (using a far less harmful agent- BUT STILL!)

Ah I see. Heck, they tested actual chemical weapons on troops on board ships to 'see what happens' too.

would it finally shut up the scoffers, that laugh at chemtrail CTists?

Lets not worry about people that laugh at ideas, they're having an irrational reaction within their own ignorance. My concerns, anyway, about chemtrails, isn't that 'the government wouldn't do it' (of course they would), but rather, is it actually happening. How do we distinguish between a contrail and a chemtrail, for example? Some people suggest that any contrails that are more or less long lived are chemtrails, I don't think that that is an acceptable criteria. Others have suggested that, when there is chemtrail activity, there will be unusual chemicals and compounds that filter down to the land below, but I haven't seen any rigorous tests of that.

the whole point of bringing it up, is that it is truly ignorant to laugh at or dismiss claims of present chemtrails due to lack of historical evidence- because suprise- we now have it!

I think AR's major issue here is, where are the reports, as mentioned below:

www.kfor.com...
"Among the hundreds and hundreds of tests that the army did, Stillwater, Oklahoma was targeted," said Cole, an expert on the Army's development of biological weapons. In some cities reports indicate Americans actually died because of the testing.
Government records show florescent particles of zinc cadmium sulfide were released in Stillwater in 1962.

Clearly, its not going to be a single report, so we're somewhat dependant upon the quality of research that Cole does, but I see no reason to discount him or to state that he is making it up.
But, again, cropdusters is one thing, secret devices attached to passenger jets, using the phenomena of contrails to cover up their spraying, is another.

Also, Leonard Cole (reporters primary source) is the well renowned and respected author. He has acheived acclaim, and uncontested status as a Bioterrorism expert.
Here is a bit on his creditials via a book review of his book on the anthrax attacks

Looks like Leonard Cole should get an account here.

but in this day and age, I believe you have to start "believing" somewhere...

Well, it would be warranted to question his research, rather than accept it out of hand. AR does have a point, there are lots of people out there that are incomptent, but get stuff published. But I think that the onus is on anyone claiming that there is a lie to at least show that its reasonable think that there is a lie, not merely say that the claims are incredible, and thus not worth beleiving.

airplane spotters should be able to notice similar planes taking off from the same airport- in the same direction, at the relitive same velocity, and attaining the same altitude ..., and then document, how one leaves a contrail, and the other doesn't...

Now this, this might be worth something. There are people out there that have made a hobby of recording what flights leave an airport and when. IF those people could be convinced that it'd be worth their while to record local airconditions, or even, given that they are probably airline enthusiasts and have access to such information, air conditions at the planes altitude, and then mark if there is a contrail, that might provide some data worth mining.
But simply noting, at random, that there is a contrail, isn't all that useful, imho. If it could be made more systematic, then it might prove useful.

I don't accept ANY source that asks me to simply have "faith" that they are telling me the truth,

Anything other than your own personal research has to be accepted with a certain degree of 'faith'. You are saying that Cole is fabricating the existence of these reports, and that the reporter that wrote the article either didn't look at Cole's reports, or that he is in cahoots with him, correct?

especially when it deals with something so unbelievable.

What is unbeleivable about this? I agree that its a big leap from the government using crop dusters to test materials in the atmosphere to secret Chemtrails from passenger jets. But the concept that the government would test hazardous chemicals without people's knowledge certainly isn't unbeleivable. Also, in the case mentioned in the article, the substance wasn't necessarily toxic, at least not without information about its concentration for a person on the ground. They said that the government wanted to know if, say, the soviets flew a jet over a city, and released a toxic cloud, would it show up on radar, or otherwise be detectable, so that they sprayed some chemicals. What is unbeleivable, on its face, about that?
It'd be reasonable for the government to experiment with that kind of technology, if for no other reason than to be able to thwart, detect, or respond to such an attack.

Affirmative Reaction
Why are they [gov documents] not included in the story?

Well waitaminute, why would they be? When a newspaper makes a report about a bill passing into law in congress, they don't attach the bill.