posted 09-05-2001 01:04 PM            

1. People who believe that contrails are something else and will continue to believe that no matter what;

2. People who believe that contrails are perfectly normal and will continue to believe that no matter what;

3. People who have never heard of chemtrails and wouldn't care either way;

4. People who are open-minded, lean one way or another, and are waiting for more evidence.

My guess is that the bulk of influence-peddlers in this country are in category #4. There's hardly a journalist around who wouldn't love to snag a Pulitzer on the biggest story since the Manhattan Project, but who doesn't want to make a fool of himself if the story's bogus. Give him some reasonable evidence to hang his hat on, and you'll see chemtrails in the New York Times, Washington Post, and WSJ.

So it boils down to 'evidence'.

Now you can argue back and forth over what constitutes 'evidence'. You can say that just a bunch of photographs are sufficient 'evidence'. You can say that it requires anecdotal evidence of sickness to make it 'evidence'. You can say that you must have in-situ collection of contrail samples, or, at the least, an OP-FTIR remote evaluation to make it 'evidence'.

But it when it comes to what's 'acceptable evidence', your opinion doesn't matter, nor does mine. What matters is what the influence-peddlers, i.e., the media, consider 'acceptable evidence' and then give it to them. Admittedly, there are journalists out there, such as Rense, Bell, and Thomas, whose requirements for 'evidence' are more reach-able, but, to be honest, they don't count for much when it comes to getting things done in the US today.

You have to come up with the best evidence available and hope it's enough for the mainstream media.

I'm sure you know that pictures of contrails won't cut it. I've said before that using pictures of contrails to prove chemtrails is like using pictures of Christmas presents to prove Santa Claus. It may be unfair, but that's the way it is.

You probably know that using anecdotal reports of post-contrail sickness won't cut it either. Unless you have statistics, even the non-science reporters won't buy in to chemtrails.

And the idea of in-situ collection or OP-FTIR analyses won't cut it either, even though most journalists would jump on it like sixth-graders on a backyard trampoline - because no one here is going to invest the time and money to do it.

So what's the answer?

Well, we have two tools that might come in handy: Flight Explorer, and the new experimental ADDS data from NOAA. If you can build on Mr. Thermit's excellent research by annotating new data with RH levels present at different altitudes (in real time, of course), you could come up with a report of X number of "contrails" forming at a particular altitude where you can show the RH was at an anomalous-ly low level. This suggests that those particular 'contrails' are made up of something other than H2O and combustion by-products.

Would that be enough to get some of the local editors (science or general) at the papers interested? I'd think so. Maybe it wouldn't, though; but I can't think of anything else that would work. Think about it.