Reguarding the history of chemtrails

I have been avidly reading the website Contrail Science and while reading a article there titled "A brief history of "Chemtrails"" I have noticed one thing about the dates that appear to refernece the earliest chemtrail theory.

Most of them shortly appear after this report by the government was released.

Date: May 14, 1997
Contacts: Dan Quinn, Media Relations Associate
Amy Kushner, Media Relations Assistant
(202) 334-2138; Internet


EMBARGOED: NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE BEFORE 5 P.M. EDT WEDNESDAY, MAY 14


Cold War Chemical Tests Over American Cities
Were Far Below Dangerous Levels


WASHINGTON -- A series of secret tests conducted by the U.S. Army in the 1950s and 1960s did not expose residents of the United States and Canada to chemical levels considered harmful, according to a new report* from a committee of the National Research Council.

The U.S. Army released the chemical compound zinc cadmium sulfide from airplanes, rooftops, and moving vehicles in 33 urban and rural areas as part of a Cold War program to test the way biological weapons might disperse under different conditions. Zinc cadmium sulfide, a fine fluorescent powder, was chosen because its particles are similar in size to germs used in biological warfare, and because its fluorescence under ultraviolet light made it easy to trace. It is not a biological weapon, nor was it thought at the time to be toxic. But residents in affected cities -- including Minneapolis; St. Louis; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Corpus Christi, Texas; and Fort Wayne, Ind. -- became concerned about possible health effects after details of the tests became widely known in the 1990s.

National Academies

This piece of info claims the origions could be older but I'm not sure on what date is accurate. I'm hoping Uncinus will be able to clarify it for me.

It’s also very clear from the article that individual suspicions regarding contrails did not suddenly start in 1999. In fact the article dates it back to 1977 (although later version of this article change it to 1997).

Contrail Science

1977 or 1997?

It does seem to be quite the coincidence that the chemtrail theory flared up within one year of the report from National Research Council which studied the possibility of residents being exposed to harmful levels of chemicals.

Could that report be the catalyst for this entire theory?

Thoughts? Opinions?

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


It REALLY got going after this paper was released from the USAF academy, "Weather as a force multiplier: Owning the weather in 2025", and that was in 1996 or so.

I also see a lot of references to it around here. An important question to ask yourself is this: "If chemtrail believers don't trust the documents from NASA and the USAF that disprove 'chemtrails' (incidentally released in a response to the public response to the aforementioned paper), why do they trust that theoretical paper released by the GOVERNMENT (some students wrote it, btw).

ETA: S&F for analyzing the contrary statements and evidence! That's how we deny ignorance.

I'm pretty sure that 1977 date was an error, and they meant 1997.

It also started right after the NASA SUCCESS program, which gave contrails a bit of publicity in 1996/97. I'm not sure how much impact it had though.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

It REALLY got going after this paper was released from the USAF academy, "Weather as a force multiplier: Owning the weather in 2025", and that was in 1996 or so.

I also see a lot of references to it around here. An important question to ask yourself is this: "If chemtrail believers don't trust the documents from NASA and the USAF that disprove 'chemtrails' (incidentally released in a response to the public response to the aforementioned paper), why do they trust that theoretical paper released by the GOVERNMENT (some students wrote it, btw).

ETA: S&F for analyzing the contrary statements and evidence! That's how we deny ignorance.

edit on 6/23/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

I guess they missed this part.

Disclaimer
2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The
views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or
events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.
This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared

Damn silly if I may say so.

The reason the report from the National Academies stands out to me is becuase of the claim people were sickend by the exposure. The part of the theory about people becoming sick from chemtrails seems to have no other foundation.

Originally posted by Uncinus
I'm pretty sure that 1977 date was an error, and they meant 1997.

Thank you. Those links to the archives are not working for me for some reason. I am at work and the computer here is ehhh.

Originally posted by Uncinus
It also started right after the NASA SUCCESS program, which gave contrails a bit of publicity in 1996/97. I'm not sure how much impact it had though.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

One has to wonder if people truly understand what they are reading. A study on contrails and cirrus clouds is cause for alarm?

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


One of the big issues is they get their information from 'chemtrail' sites, which deliberately take statements out of context. If they bothered to read the sources these sites were referring to, the inadequacy of the 'chemtrail' sites explanation would immediately become apparent.

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

One of the big issues is they get their information from 'chemtrail' sites, which deliberately take statements out of context. If they bothered to read the sources these sites were referring to, the inadequacy of the 'chemtrail' sites explanation would immediately become apparent.

Indeed. I have been reading this link off of Contrail Science, Evolution Of The Controversy, and these guys are liars, plain and simple. If these guys are the source of all of this, its pretty sad.

Inadequacy is damn right.

I have never been to a chemtrail site and now i'm scared to look.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Uncinus
It also started right after the NASA SUCCESS program, which gave contrails a bit of publicity in 1996/97. I'm not sure how much impact it had though.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...

One has to wonder if people truly understand what they are reading. A study on contrails and cirrus clouds is cause for alarm?

Actually it is...well not a state of alarm but considering the albedo of ice crystals in cirrus clouds and contrails is so great, there can be a significant effect on temperatures (especially the diurnal temperature variation which is the difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures) on the surface. For example, when tall planes were grounded on 9/11, the following two days recorded the greatest dirunal temperature variations for years....there's been numerous studies on it. All that cirrus cloud reflects sunlight during the day, and traps in the outgoing UV radiation during the night. You will notice that the difference between maximum and minimum temperatures on cloudy nights is a lot less than it is during clear nights.

The zinc cadmium sulfide story (and related scare stories) did not break in 1997. It's been a recurring story for some time. The 1997 story was just the result of studies saying it was harmless, stories date back to 1981.

1994:
www.nytimes.com...

1988:
Some simulants are proven harmful

1981:
Chemical Spraying in Texas was harmless

1981:
Scientologists: Army Tested Chemicals in 1960s

Amusing that the scientologists were the ones to break the story.

Originally posted by Uncinus
The zinc cadmium sulfide story (and related scare stories) did not break in 1997. It's been a recurring story for some time. The 1997 story was just the result of studies saying it was harmless, stories date back to 1981.

1994:
www.nytimes.com...

1988:
Some simulants are proven harmful

1981:
Chemical Spraying in Texas was harmless

1981:
Scientologists: Army Tested Chemicals in 1960s

Amusing that the scientologists were the ones to break the story.

Wow, great work finding those articles.

Very surprising about the scientologists.

I do have to wonder about those early articles impact though. The limited geographic availibility of some of the papers back in those days has to have limited their readership. By the time the report from the National Academies was made public, the internet was in its early hayday and the range of readership was significantly greater. I'm not discounting their impact early on amoung small circles, just their availibility to a global audience.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


See this news archive search, quite a bit of coverage, but peaked around 1994.

Still, the 1981 story was picked up by the AP, so ran in several papers.

*** PLEASE NOTE ***

This thread topic is "Regarding the history of chemtrails", not your perceptions of each other, or ridicule of one "side" or the other.

Please keep your posts on-topic.


thank you

I would like to bring the agent orange program used by the united states during Vietnam is such a chemtrail program that has been proven and admitted and as this is a thread on a history of chemtrails i thought it should be posted here.

link:en.wikipedia.org...