Rain contained human white blood cells

Never heard of this one before. Nice find, OP.

However, I'm puzzled by the report. It looks like it was translated into another language and then back-translated into English, so as this event happened in the US I figured there ought to be a report in better English with less ambiguity.

Here we go: "Unsolved Mysteries" @ the Wikia: The Oakville Blobs

I won't quote it all here as that's against T&Cs, but anyone who wants to read an easy-to-follow version of this event can view it at the link I've given.

To date, the mystery hasn't been solved and allegedly, no samples of the blob material have been retained. I find that latter point a bit strange. If the stuff is that mysterious, you'd think they'd store some of it away for future study. But that's just using logic, I guess.

reply to post by Under Water

I was thinking the same thing. And that is the logical approach.

Following on from that, the next stage in the logical approach is that "officialdom" didn't need to keep samples for further testing because they already knew what it was.

They don't tell us everything they know about, after all.

reply to post by Skada

Some might see your statement as far-fetched. I don't. I go with what's in front of me, and in the US version of the report that I linked to, it concludes:

While the air force confirms that they were doing practice bombing runs over the Pacific in August 1994, they deny knowledge of the substance or any involvement in creating or dispersing it. The locals of Oakville are skeptical of this; prior to the rain, many Oakville residents noticed a significant - almost daily - amount of slow-moving military aircraft in the skies above their town. Some believe Oakville was the site of a military experiment, designed to test a new biological weapon or to test the possible damage a biological attack on US soil could do.
No samples of the substance exist today.

(Bolding and underlining mine; link to source for the purposes of ATS T&Cs HERE.)

Now, while the classic chemtrail argument often seems to be based around aircraft flying under conditions where contrails often occur anyway -- making the arguments rather difficult (to put it one way) for both sides, this particular case makes me wonder.

What's the best way to spread a chemtrail, if anyone actually wanted to do it and make it "effective" in whatever way it's supposed to be effective? Most likely slowly, at lower altitude -- simply because lower altitude means less total air volume, thus giving better coverage over a more compact land area. It also possibly means no visible trails to alert anyone watching. Or, if there are any, they could be interpreted as contrails only.

I'm still on the fence in the chemtrail debate. On the fence, not behind a wall. However I have to admit that when we have a case of weird stuff falling from the sky and people in the region falling ill, just after some days of "significant" slow-flying military aircraft in the same area, I cannot just ignore that information and totally exclude some possible military/govt involvement in this weird event.

Okay, such involvement isn't "proven" but it can't simply be cast aside as irrelevant either. I feel it has to be considered. I'd rather be shaken to my foundations by truth than live comfortably with a posssibly misguided but cosy belief, and to be honest this one has shaken me up quite a bit.

My 2c, FWIW.

reply to post by rickymouse

I'd go for that idea if it were, say, some kind of weird pollution in the local streams or lakes or whatever. Or trees mysteriously dying or similar. But this stuff rained down from the sky. Six times in a span of three weeks.

It's remotely possible that a local business could be involved but you'd suspect they'd have to have at least some connection to aviation and that narrows it down an awful lot compared to farming or some kinds of factories. It's also hard to see how or why a local business would or could do something like that.

reply to post by Opportunia

If it happened just the once that might be plausible, except for the fact that FAA regs require such waste from planes to be dyed blue and this stuff was clear. (It's mentioned in the report I linked to.)

The other factor is this happened six times in the same rather small region over a three-week period, and that would be a pretty hard trick for the airlines to pull off -- from the point of view of repeatedly hitting just that one area and (apparently) nowhere else, I mean.

reply to post by Bedlam

That's an excellent point you raise about determining if a blood cell is in fact human or not. After reading your post I began thinking about the fact that various mammals are used in lab testing, including primates.

How difficult would it have been almost two decades ago to tell the difference between the blood cells of a (non-human) primate and a human? I understand it was doable, if the right tests were available and the assumptions for testing were broad-based enough as well. But even so, could an erroneous result be obtained, with the lab workers doing the test/s getting an indication the cells were human but in fact they were not?

Also, were they likely to have used DNA testing? I know it came into use in criminal cases around the mid 1980s, but does it seem probable to you that they'd use it to test some weird gunk that fell from the sky?

I don't know as it's not my field. I feel you have more knowledge on this than I ever will, hence the barrage of questions!

Seems there's room for more digging on this one.

reply to post by rickymouse

By mentioning a possible involvement of a local business, you raised a concept that was worth considering and I hope everyone reading appreciates that. I certainly do. It doesn't matter if it (perhaps) turned out to be an unlikely scenario; a bit of lateral thinking such as you applied is always good.