"Contrails" vs. Chemtrails From: Val Valerian, Leading Edge Research Group
Subject: Contrail vs Chemtrail
Date: 17 April 1999
...
5. It is also a point that all everyone sees is a series of single chemical trails, not multiple trails as would be produced by the multi-engine aircraft observed, so it would seem that many of these "chem trails" might be coming from the rear of aircraft, not from engines, which again means they could never be "contrails". It is this kind of fact that became evident in the aircraft sightings in New Jersey. Photos of any kind, after the fact, would not make this fact immediately apparent, but the spacing of the trails is too wide to have come from engines, only from a singular source, probably the rear of aircraft. However, there have been sightings of material being sprayed from the wingtips, not the engines, as well, but the spacing of the trails we are seeing is greater than the wing length of most aircraft.
All things considered, it is my personal opinion that we ought to relabel things, get rid of the phrase "contrails", and replace it with something more accurate, like "biochem trails", "biochemical fog", etc. Now, if there start to be more websites out there that label this phenomena properly, for what it really is, people will probably begin to see this whole issue in a more accurate way. Those who try to deliberately confuse the issue with "contrails" are either doing so out of ignorance, it would seem, or because they are part of an agenda which seeks to continue the coverup about this activity. I intend to implement changes on our page relative to this issue. If we don't collectively work together on this aspect of the problem, the whole issue will become more analogous to unidentified aerial craft versus swamp gas, which means that the activity will continue and more people will be compromised. So, a semantic issue can destroy all investigative activities.
