News and Commentary from Mobile,Alabama

4656-Fairfax,California adopts resolution declaring the town a Chemtrail-Free Zone

If chemtrails are a hoax or a conspiracy then it's pulling in a lot of credible people. On January 11, 2012 the Fairfax City Council adopted Resolution No. 12-07 , "a Resolution of the Town Council of Fairfax declaring Fairfax a Chemtrail-Free Zone." Understand, this is an instance of an American city government weighing in on the subject of chemtrails, acknowledging their existence and letting it be known they don't want spraying over their city.This is not made-up. You can see their Resolution on their website

One of the main problems with calling chemtrails a hoax or conspiracy is the fact that whatever those planes are doing they aren't trying to hide it. The planes are always spotted in broad daylight and most typically on very clear, sunny days. It's not like UFO's flying under the cover of night, darting in and out of airspace.

Mobile Tribune understands there are people in this world who are ill with a disease we call GCS or Government Conspiracy Syndrome. They think the government is out to get citizens and spend most of their waking hours investigating reports of such. However, just because there are such people does not mean there cannot be instances of government or private enterprise secrecy in regard to these aircraft and the trails they leave behind.

Many people know or understand the flight patterns in their area. Commercial and private aircraft are rigorously scheduled and monitored by the FAA. The question of chemtrails arises when one or more aircraft are spotted along with a pattern of trails that has become a hallmark of what are called chemtrails - a cross or checkerboard pattern of smoke. They might be seen in the middle of the day or at a time when people who are keen to observe closely, don't normally see aircraft in their area.

I personally spotted such a plane a few weeks ago in Mobile,Alabama. What struck me as unusual was the plane was accelerating upward but unlike other aircraft one is used to seeing, it did not level out at a certain altitude and then appear to head in some direction or destination. It appeared to me to have as it's sole purpose just flying around in that one area, and several miles of the blue sky were arrayed with the trails of the plane. The cross shape was apparent. It didn't make sense to me and it made me think about chemtrails. Does that make me a bad person, spreading a hoax, a conspiracy? Because I wonder about something that appears unusual and other people are doing the same thing? At the very least - regardless of whether chemical trails are involved- it is a fact that aircraft are sometimes in the sky with no apparent destination in progress and always with the white cross-shape trails that linger for an hour, sometimes longer. Many people report the aircraft as unmarked.

Please understand I am a dyed in wool skeptic and have not been convinced of the existence of UFO's. But, I am considering chemtrails or as they are more acceptably being called "geo-engineering."

And yes, I understand there are people out there who take advantage of any situation and jump aboard the chemtrail controversy for money and other reasons. Just because you find a website or youtube video on chemtrails does not mean the material they present is authentic or their intentions are good.

The most convincing argument against chemtrails and in favor of contrails ( condensation as opposed to chemicals) is Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article on chemtrails is strong, supported by a number of well-known individuals and organizations. There is a considerable wall of dissent against the existence of chemtrails. I keep an open mind,and I could be convinced in either direction at this point. I currently lean in direction of yes, chemtrails and that the government of several countries are involved.

What it would take to really convince me . . .a video from start to finish of a chemtrail process. I would want to see the planes entering the sky from a noted location. I would like to see the aircraft enter airspace, conduct the spraying and then leave airspace. Does anyone have one of those videos? -Preston Brady III, MobileTribune.com

Tags: CA, GCS, aircraft, chemicaltrails, chemtrails, contrails, fairfax, geoengineering, mobiletribune

Comment

You need to be a member of Mobile Tribune to add comments!

Join Mobile Tribune

Comment by Mobile Tribune on February 13, 2012 at 7:26pm: I watched that video and the reason why "the movement" aren't trying to replicate his results is because if they did they would be replicating images of condensation trails. I guess he meant well but apparently does not understand high altitude air temps and potential longevity of condensation in those circumstances. It was quite interesting to watch even if a few times I got topsy-turvy which I blame on that silly camera.

Comment by Jay Reynolds on February 13, 2012 at 5:03pm: Oh, what did you think about Ken Bradley's video?
Does it give you pause to ask why everyone in the 'movement' isn't trying to replicate or dispute his results?
Ask yourself why, or why not?

Comment by Jay Reynolds on February 13, 2012 at 5:00pm: Preston,

Well, I'm gald you answered, but sad you wouldn't dive right into debate. I have some pretty big fish to fry but will try to fill you in. First of all, study carefully everything at this website:
http://www.contrailscience.com
I is owned by a friend, Mick West, who has devoted quite a bit of time to explain practcally every element of what you need to know. I see you are "moving in the direction of no using "chemtrails", and have skipped right over "geoengineering", and are settling onto "weather modification". Interesting.

The promoters of this have worked very hard to associate themselves away from contrails, then on to chemtrails, then onto geoengineering, and now weather modification. An intersting case study of how propagandists change the meaning of words, in my opinion. You aren't an originator, but have been following someone else's lead.

Let me start by asking you two simple questions:
1. If you had ten minutes before a national audience to show them the best, most irrefutable evidence that what you are seeing is weather modification, or geoengineering, or chemtrails, what would you point to?
Boil it down to its essence, tell me what would you point to, not little snippets, not a connect the dots conspiracy theory, what is the real beef?

2. What source do you consider to be the best single reference which supports the above evidence?
Just one source, who do you trust, who has the experience, who has the best dope in your opinion.

Get back to me. email if you like. thechief762atgmail.com

Jay

Comment by Mobile Tribune on February 13, 2012 at 12:32pm: Hi Jay, First, I want to thank you for your participation in my blog - I consider it healthy to debate such issues and yes you are correct I am new to the subject of weather modification. However, I am catching up! As for the Fairfax resolution it shows as adopted but regardless of whether it was it won't be denied it came up for adoption, right? It's being discussed quite openly in public. My point is this whole "chemtrail" thing is more than just some government conspiracy folks seeing things in the skies. In fact, I am moving in the direction of not using the term "chemtrails" because of it's popular association with unfortunate people who see everything the government does as a conspiracy. I prefer weather modification, and as you will see in many future blogs the process of weather modification is so clearly undeniable that it is covered by respected publications such as News Week and The New York Times. I'm not sure why you are so intent on denying chemical spraying - that's your business, but my business as a journalist is to cover the news and to get to the the truth when I can. Yes, I am, like you, human and you know who said to be human is to err. Yes, I used a photo of a plane that was showing ridiculous contrails. It was absurd the trail of smoke that aircraft left behind. I cited the source from where I used the image and as you pointed out the image actually had another source. I went to that web page and could have easily used their snippet code and still kept the image, but I chose not to do that. So, that's clear now, right? I will probably make other mistakes along the way of my investigation and so you are welcome to apprise me when I do. However, it might be more beneficial to you if you can spend more time disproving the existence of weather modification. If I need an editor I will let you know (LOL.) Thank you for your invite to the debunk site. I went there and see you are a senior member and quite a hero there.Congratulations! I am sure I don't want to participate in that site with that disadvantage. Besides, I have my own publication here, which as you apparently found out receives it's own fair share of page visits and indexing. Just so you won't think I am being prejudiced, I don't participate in any forums on the Internet on this subject or any for that matter, unless it's one of my web sites. I quite frankly don't like the anonymous cloak that many forum users take in order to say unpleasant things they would not say using their real names. I acknowledge that you, I believe, are using your given name. However, on that site even though it appears professionally monitored I would be like the hen falling into a den of wolves, so again, thanks, but no thanks. Anyway, I am not one much for dueling! But again, Jay, carry on here.

Comment by Jay Reynolds on February 13, 2012 at 11:41am: Mr. Brady,

I note that you must be reading my commentary because you took note that I identified an image you posted along with your previous article as a violation of copyright and removed the image. You had used an image of a well known ordinary commercial passenger jetliner to illustarte a purported "chemtrail".

However, you have thus far refused to respond in any way to my challenge for open debate on the subject, a challenge which still stands. You know where to go, why not try your hand at it? I cannot 'bite' you through this LCD screen.....

To answer your question:

"What it would take to really convince me . . .a video from start to finish of a chemtrail process. I would want to see the planes entering the sky from a noted location. I would like to see the aircraft enter airspace, conduct the spraying and then leave airspace. Does anyone have one of those videos?"

Yes, a chemtrails believer named Ken Bradley of Las Vegas Skywatch used careful observation, excellent photography, and flight tracking software to identify 42 "chemtrail" forming aircraft flying overhead on a single day! To quote Bradley:

"42 chemtrail flights over the Las Vegas area on 4-21-2011 are identified. These flights are regular commercial flights carrying passengers and chemtrailing as they enter the Las Vegas air space. This should dispell any reservations people have about commercial jets chemtrailing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvXVvahXw4M

Mr. Brady, you will have to change the title of this article. The Resolution considered before the Fairfax City was NOT passed. Your link simply goes to the Agenda for the meeting, the document there is obviously unsigned and indeed was not ever signed. How did you determine that the Resolution ever passed?
If this is an example of the journalistic research of the Mobile Tribune? I hope not. I'd suggest you call the Mayor and get the facts straight, doesn't this seem like standard practice, something called "primary source"?

It appears that you are relatively new to this issue and do not understand the facts surrounding it. You also have made several errors in judgement and fact which I have pointed out. Why not respond to me openly?
If you are "considering" the issue, why not engage in open discussion about it? I await your participation here, where you can open a new thread and begin:

http://metabunk.org/forums/9-Chemtrails