"All myth and hearsay sites in my experience. Lots of inaccuracies portrayed as fact and nothing credible"
Such absolute statements give the impression that you are not just someone interested in meteorology who suddenly popped up here after the chemtrail insider Sunver posted information about chemtrails.
With each post you make, you look more like someone with an agenda and someone whose "experience" includes a penchant for refuting non mainstream information. An unbiased truthseeker would not make such absolute denials and would have to admit to at least some truth at those sites, no matter how how skeptical their nature.
I have found a lot of pretty wild speculation on a great many non-mainstream sites, but I have seldom found them to be "all myth and hearsay" or to have absolutley "nothing credible".
Chemtrails look like contrails initially, but are much thicker, extend across the sky and are often laid down in varying patterns of Xs, tick-tack-toe grids, cross-hatched and parallel lines. Instead of quickly dissipating, chemtrails expand and drip feathers and mare's tails. In 30 minutes or less, they open into wispy formations which join together, forming a thin white veil or a “fake cirrus-type cloud” that persists for hours.
In order to see, one must first remove their blinders.
Can you show me where it says that I subscribe to a chemtrail conspiracy? I don't know for an absolute fact what is in the chemtrails or what the purpose is, but I have seen and witnessed enough to not believe they are all merely contrails. Nor do I believe they can be explained away as merely chaff with some aluminum in it (though aluminum is linked to some really bad things itself).
More and more people and private labs are getting involved. The early reports, while debatable as to legitimacy in some instances, are not good and I believe we will be seeing more such reports as time goes by.
As for the link in the report, you can't be serious? The iowa family asked their senator about chemtrails and he received the report from the GAO by way of explanation. I would not expect the GAO to include the term "chemtrails" in the report. The admission of "chaff" was damning enough.