"At least read the information to find out what is being said before you make a comment on it!"

Actually, i first read about these 'chemtrails' in a flyer I was handed when Kucinich spoke at the Civic last spring. So yes, I'm familiar with the theories.

"Over and over again the documentation clearly, specifically points to massive, Nato wide, geoenineering weather modification programs."

Sure it does. I just read through nearly every link provided on this page and then clicked through from there. I'm sorry, but I found nothing even closely resembling evidence.

Let's take what seems to be your Holy Grail of 'proof' - the Ed Teller paper. Pointing to a single theory published in a journal is in no way evidence that it's proposal is being acted upon. It's just that, a theory shared in the scientific discourse along with the thousands upon thousands of others published each year.

I'm not surprised to find that the following wasn't included among its highlighted sections (emphasis mine) -

'We believe that, prior to any actual deployment of any scattering system aimed at full-scale 1% insolation modulation, **completely transparent and fully international research** in sub-scale could result in public opinion conducive to a reasonable technology-based approach to prevention of large-scale climatic failures of all types. International cooperation in the research phase, **based on complete openness**, is necessary and may be sufficient to secure the understanding and support without which any of these approaches will fail.'

It's ironic that the work of someone searching for a solution to climate change (albeit with a symptom rather than cause approach) is used as 'evidence' of wide-scale poisoning. But again this is simply a journal article, not evidence of any experiment.

Then there is 'Dr' Castle's article, which is primarily based on the Teller paper and the Air Force 2025 website.

You've accused me of not reading the information, but have any of you actually read the Air Force 2025's 'Weather as a Force Multiplier'? I highly doubt it. It is little more than an intellectual fantasy exercise. By 2005 this will happen. By 2015... etc. In other words it is similiar to how early television would show programs that projected flying cars and moonbases 30 years in the future.

Some choice quotes from the authors -

'This scenario may seem far-fetched, but by 2025 it is within the realm of possibility'

'Extreme and controversial examples of weather modification-creation of made-to-order weather, large-scale climate modification, creation and/or control (or "steering") of severe storms, etc.-were researched as part of this study but receive only brief mention here because, **in the authors' judgment, the technical obstacles preventing their application appear insurmountable** within 30 years.'

The only thing that made me even slightly pause was the 'interview' with a member of 'Project Deep Shield'. Maybe if there was some corroborating evidence such as a leaked document it might be feasible, but in abscence of that it smacks of fabrication. If you read it closely it says exactly what someone who wanted to believe in 'chemtrails' would want to hear, as if that person were actual part of the 'project' itself.

So enough with the name calling. If you have some actual evidence I am open to seeing it. Other than that all you have is a theory. What good scientists do when they don't have the facts to prove their theory is to discard the theory. When ideologues come across facts that don't fit their theory, they discard the facts.

So which are you? Have you read the opposing information such as that provided by Harry above?

I reminded of a lyric in the Beatles' Nowhere Man -

'He's as blind as he can be. Just sees what he wants to see.'