"RK Henry" wrote in message
...
It's amazing how much information is already out there for someone who
bothers to look.

Yeah, but is the information true? Most of those hits are kook sites.

As with all things Internet, you need to judge your sources. A person who
can presumably sift the wheat from the chaff in a Usenet newsgroup (if he
can't he has no business asking the question here...we are notoriously
unreliable) should have no trouble figuring out what among the Google search
hits are legitimate information and which are just full of crap.

I think the Wikipedia might be considered a better source. Sure, the
Wikipedia has its faults, but I think it makes a good-faith effort to
get it right eventually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrails

Wikipedia is usually pretty good. But a person should never trust just one
source, even if that source is something more socially accepted
(Encyclopedia Brittanica, etc.)

I guess a reader could compare all the sites and decide for himself.

Well, yes. Any reader asking for information on the Internet needs to be
able to do that. Furthermore, one of the two links I provided was a search
in this very newsgroup. It's highly unlikely this thread will generate
subsantially different information today than it did the several times it's
already come up before.

Pete