posted 10-28-2000 08:32 PM            

I saw every kind of contrail imaginable. I saw the ribbed ones, the puffy ones, and I saw AT LEAST 5 that looked like this, - - - -and this ----- ------------- ----.

As the day progressed, the contrails formed light bands of artificial cirrus clouds that slowly drifted out over the Pacific.

This is the third time in the last 2 weeks I have witnessed this exact chain of events. I consider it normal, and I attribute it to the 'out of control' growth of jet engine technology. Twice as many planes...twice as many contrails.

posted 10-28-2000 10:12 PM              

Anyways this came up from Chuck Warren: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb540458&MyNum=931053137&P=No&TL=931053137

Within two days, I had identified the variant pictured as a KC-135E, it's possible origin, and how to check if it was a scheduled operation requiring a NOTAM. http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb540458&MyNum=931210566&P=No&TL=931210566

I contacted TSgt James Hill, a KC-135 tanker boom operator, who said it did look like fuel. He said the booms leak sometimes, and sometimes they do dump fuel. http://www.intellisys.net/users/altusboom/

I also contacted two residents of Magalia, who said they knew nothing of the incident, or any resultant illness/damage. I emailed six environmental groups active in Magalia, including EARTH FIRST!, Sierra Club, and the Friends of the River, asking if there were any problems, but none of them ever responded.

Charles Warren wrote, "There are many more photos. He is sending me the full video and 6 pounds of film he took, including the refueling missions the same day. I will provide as much info as he will allow. These photos are exclusive to Contrail Connection and photographer wishes not to come forward at this time, but will at a later time after I post all the video and photos." http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb540458&MyNum=931096298&P=Yes&TL=931053137

To my knowledge, Warren has never shown that video or still footage, beyond a few frames. At the time, Warren and William Thomas were like spaghetti and meatballs, but nothing ever came out of Thomas, either.

I believe that the video DID NOT show persistent contrails, which at the time was the "definition" touted for "chemtrails". That is also the reason why only 4 images were ever shown out of the video, and why no
further investigation occurred. Though probably a real "fuel out of the tailboom" incident, it did not fit the previously concepualized idea of a "chemtrail", because it really was lower in altitude, did not persist, and no ill effects could be found.

Early this year, I noticed the report below and realized that the guy "Richard" that took the video is almost certainly Richard Malone, who sounds like a true believer, but who has not come forward since with any more information to my knowledge. http://www.sightings.com/general/chemsnake.htm

So, what was touted as "the smoking gun" turned out to be a dud. If anyone knows more, I'd still be interested, but I'd bet dollars to donuts I am correct in this assessment:

The Magalia incident filmed a refueling operation during which a substance came out of the tailboom, probably jet fuel, the appearance of the trail was not persistent, therefore it did not meet the preestablished criteria of a purported "chemtrail".

Lacking such a relationship, it was decided by the Charles Warren that further concentration on the incident beyond display of several frames of video might confuse the issue, and the incident was quietly hushed, was never properly investigated with public disclosure, and only serves to provoke suspicion to this day, especially among those who don't know the whole story.

But now you do though no one else ever told you.

That completes my allotted postings this day.
Hasta la Vista, Baby!

posted 10-29-2000 05:29 PM            

"We are supposedly in the process of investigation, and we need to address each one of the phenomenon represented by these pictures separately and in their own right."

Who made you forum moderator? Since when does your little collection of pictures become the basis for the chemtrail investigation?

posted 10-29-2000 05:37 PM            

I'll let ya in on a secret. You're the skeptic remember. This board, as well as all the other boards, are for Chemtrail activists. They can ask any question they want. If you don't like it, go back to Graceland.

posted 10-29-2000 06:18 PM            

"This board, as well as all the other boards, are for Chemtrail activists."

I guess I missed that part when I signed up to post in here. If that is the case then anyone who doesn't believe in spray planes shouldn't be here.

posted 10-29-2000 07:53 PM              

There are very few ways that you will ever prove a chemtrail hypothesis to the general satisfaction of a skeptical person.

1.Inside information which can be confirmed.

2.Direct in situ collection of a sample of a trail which is analyzed and found abnormal, following a carefully designed protocol and documented completely. It would be best to do this multiple times and be repeatable.

I am wondering if any of you have considered the offer made by "chickie deb"(at carnicom.com), who has been monitoring trail activity near Indianapolis
over the last ten months. She has been able to actually identify the planes flying over making trails(or not), and has come to the conclusion that the contrails(she used to call chemtrails) are normal commercial flights at high altitudes.

She does see military planes leaving contrails, that do not show up on the Flight Explorer software. She has hundreds of photographs taken over the last year which look the same as what you see online called "chemtrails". She now recognizes that these same contrails form behind normal commercial flights.

What she has done is to compare the photographs she had in hand with the trails she now knows are "normal" to contrails she sees coming from normal
commercial flights, planes that can be identified.

She did not need to argue endlessly about trail photos and whether they are normal or not.

She has offered use of her subscription to anyone who wants to try it out. Anyone not willing to do so is not exercising due diligence, or common sense, and may never find the answer they seek.

Jay Reynolds