In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

a reply to: OcelotJoe

discussing chemtrails is like exercising your debate skills. When someone can debate why chemtrails are real, and not be shot down after the first sentence, then they have some unique skills. The challenge comes not in denying chemtrails, but in debating about them. Sure they don't exist, but as long as folks refuse to understand basic science and instead focus on how to debate things like a flat earth, or Reptilian overlords, there will always be the skill honing in this forum. Plus, it's much more fun than talking about how screwed we all are because our elected officials care nothing for us, but only about more money. There are enough things in life to be depressed over. Seeing someone try to convince you they have magical abilities to determine chemical analysis at a range of 5 miles with only their eyes makes me smile.

a reply to: network dude

I think hitting the nail on the head is an understatement with that post!

I was getting all cynical about people from reading ATS through the years, its good to see islands of rationality

Maybe we should be talking about how greedy corporations buys power and abuses us? Thats the real conspiracy, and I haven't seen it much discussed here..

a reply to: OcelotJoe

The supreme irony is the fact that, on a site whose motto is deny ignorance and whose purpose is to try, through discussion, to expose the truth about conspiracies, when it comes to chemtrails, the conspirators are the ones promoting their existence. These conspirators endeavour to promote a falsehood in the hope of extracting cash from the gullible with quack cures, orgone machines, admissions to lectures, DVD sales et al. This is the only real chemtrail conspiracy.

Further irony is heaped upon this mess when site members with the knowledge and experience to expose this sham and show the reasons why it's nonsense, you know, the REASON this site exists, rear their heads they are shouted down, abused and accused of being either trusting idiots or Government shills.

I quite frequently laugh out loud at it all.

a reply to: waynos

Hahaha

Oh the irony indeed!

Because anyone suspected of being a chemtrailer in any possible way is generally treated like a voice to be quelled, it's not a fair statement to suggest individuals organizing events and marches are simply profiteers taking advantage of people. It's "gullible" people that helped develop the routine of stigmatizing a segment of the population who want aircraft traffic regulated because of contrails dominating the sky-scape. It's horrid to know that clouds in the sky are no longer a work of nature. Like many environmental issues, apathy is partly responsible for the kind of pollution left behind by jet aircraft and the resulting illness and death attributed to it while a pack of debunkers laugh at chemtrailers talking about toxins in the air. While plans are being drawn for geoengineering experiments they divert attention away from the history of open air testing done without the public's awareness and consent. Ignore the clouds of chemicals already unleashed supposedly as a matter of "national security" even if it's now known the experiments were potentially harmful to individuals and support the REAL PROFITEERS like Bill Gates who likely can't wait to cash in on his investment with Harvard researchers to alter the world's climate and whatever else happens to be altered as a "side effect." The government and the researchers they support already know they will be met with little opposition as long as the voice of dissent is labelled a bunch of chemtrail conspiracy theorists. And the notion that it "educates" the public to provide them with some textbook understanding of what a "normal" condensation trail is and then point up to the sky and claim whatever you see can only be a "normal" contrail?--that not only disarms public vigilance, it's a sham scientific method. You condescendingly chide the public about eliciting unfounded paranoia given your biased use of certain "facts" that are used only to fulfill your roles as "debunkers" -- individuals who right from the start decide something is false and then all evidence gathering proceeds from this basic assumption. That's the real reason it's so hard for most of you to see that these so-called chemtrailers indeed have reasonable concerns.

originally posted by: Petros312
You condescendingly chide the public about eliciting unfounded paranoia given your biased use of certain "facts" that are used only to fulfill your roles as "debunkers" -- individuals who right from the start decide something is false and then all evidence gathering proceeds from this basic assumption. That's the real reason it's so hard for most of you to see that these so-called chemtrailers indeed have reasonable concerns.

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. Everyone of us had to look at the initial conspiracy and decide what we thought about it based on the facts at hand ALONG WITH personal knowledge and experience. It's funny how those of us here who "debunk" chemtrails all seem to have aviation backgrounds of some sort. Meaning that we have been on the inside. We have worked the flightline. We have been on and inside of many planes, fueled many planes, photographed many planes. With all that knowledge, we decided that in order to have a massive conspiracy to spray the Earth without knowledge of folks like us would be very, VERY unlikely.

But as has been explained to you a few times now, the crux of the discussion comes from this:



"them are chemtrails right there. How do I know? Just look at them! I know what I see!"

Those look an awful lot like contrails to me. And, until someone can prove to me that those are not contrails, I will continue to believe they are contrails. And I will continue to deny ignorance that claims otherwise based on nothing but fear.

originally posted by: network dude
It's funny how those of us here who "debunk" chemtrails all seem to have aviation backgrounds of some sort. Meaning that we have been on the inside. We have worked the flightline. We have been on and inside of many planes, fueled many planes, photographed many planes.

--I would think you'd realize by now that I would catch an obvious logical fallacy:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

Listen to me about that "normal" chemtrail in the sky because I'm the expert? I will continue to deny you have a valid argument that somehow justifies stigmatizing the people who are being called "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" based on this line of reasoning.

originally posted by: network dude
With all that knowledge, we decided that in order to have a massive conspiracy to spray the Earth without knowledge of folks like us would be very, VERY unlikely.

--Massive? You're now making an argument in the extreme. There could be ongoing open air testing, similar to the history of experiments you find HERE and HERE. And though the image you show may not be indicative of aerosols sprayed at that particular location, you do not know. Moreover, I demonstrated HERE that it's not just individuals who take photos like that and say "them are chemtrails right there" that are labelled as "chemtrail conspiracy theorists."

a reply to: Petros312

Well, then we agree. There is no massive spray operation going on.
Thanks!

a reply to: Petros312

Petros. YOU are talking about pollution and Geoengineering. I am not. I am specifically talking about chemtrails, which are nothing but a big lie. I thought you had figured that out from an earlier post you made. Maybe I was wrong.

Oh, and if you are going to try and lecture me about what I think and what I do, at least try to be a LITTLE BIT right.

originally posted by: Petros312
Because anyone suspected of being a chemtrailer in any possible way is generally treated like a voice to be quelled, it's not a fair statement to suggest individuals organizing events and marches are simply profiteers taking advantage of people. It's "gullible" people that helped develop the routine of stigmatizing a segment of the population who want aircraft traffic regulated because of contrails dominating the sky-scape. It's horrid to know that clouds in the sky are no longer a work of nature.

Ok I hope you don't mind my joining the debate here a bit, but I was kindof wondering if this was your point about chemtrails: that they are not natural clouds? I mean I'd have to agree with you that they are a byproduct of aviation. The general concensus ion the chemtrail community seem to be that chemtrails have additional chemicals added to them though, added to cause some kind of effect, be it depopulation, mind control, dumbing us down, or whatever the theory du jour happens to be.

Anyway.. so yes, jets do sometimes create trails. Whether they have any net effect at all seems to be a topic that's still being debated. They're kindof a sign of the times. Ships create artificial waves too, and over here in Holland, every tree serves a purpose and most of them have been artificially planted. Crops are being artificially grown in fields that have just that 1 species of crop in them.. I mean that doesn't look natural to me either. I guess we couldn't survive in a all-natural environment anymore.

Like many environmental issues, apathy is partly responsible for the kind of pollution left behind by jet aircraft and the resulting illness and death attributed to it while a pack of debunkers laugh at chemtrailers talking about toxins in the air.

Aircraft pollution isn't the same thing as chemtrails though. When people talk about chemtrails, they imply that additional chemicals have been added, besides the regular pollution. The pollution as a result of burning kerosine is there, whether a contrail is visible or not. And if you're worried about pollution, then jetliners shouldn't be your number 1 worry, since they aren't the biggest polluters anyway

While plans are being drawn for geoengineering experiments they divert attention away from the history of open air testing done without the public's awareness and consent.

Ignore the clouds of chemicals already unleashed supposedly as a matter of "national security" even if it's now known the experiments were potentially harmful to individuals and support the REAL PROFITEERS like Bill Gates who likely can't wait to cash in on his investment with Harvard researchers to alter the world's climate and whatever else happens to be altered as a "side effect." The government and the researchers they support already know they will be met with little opposition as long as the voice of dissent is labelled a bunch of chemtrail conspiracy theorists.

Well if that's what they are being labeled as, then it's a result of their own stupidity. If someone like Michael Murphy makes a documentary which within it's first 2 minutes cloaims that contrails never persist, and therefore anything that does persist has to have something (chemicals) added to make it behave as such.. well then you're kindof digging your own grave. And it just so happens that the entire chemtrail CT is made of sillyness like that.

Remember all those pictures of aircraft equipment that was supposed to be 'spray installations' and 'tanks of chemicals'? Seen all those youtube videos claiming 'chemwebs' (ballooning spiders), pilots forgetting to turn off the chemtrails (jets landing in foggy conditions), etc? I mean after a certain point all you can do is sortof laugh at all the sillyness.

Most chemtrail believers don't know the difference between geoengineering and cloud seeding. They think both look like persisting contrails.

Anyway.. that's the climate in which chemtrail believers sortof become laughing stock. And they have themselves to blame for it, since they jump on every bandwagon that seems to confirm their CT beliefs.

And the notion that it "educates" the public to provide them with some textbook understanding of what a "normal" condensation trail is and then point up to the sky and claim whatever you see can only be a "normal" contrail?--that not only disarms public vigilance, it's a sham scientific method.

Is there such a thing as a 'normal' and an 'abnormal' contrail then? How do you tell them apart? What do they imply?

You condescendingly chide the public about eliciting unfounded paranoia given your biased use of certain "facts" that are used only to fulfill your roles as "debunkers" -- individuals who right from the start decide something is false and then all evidence gathering proceeds from this basic assumption. That's the real reason it's so hard for most of you to see that these so-called chemtrailers indeed have reasonable concerns.

Just speaking for myself here, but I'm wondering what kind of stance you suggest one should take when it comes to subjects like chemtrails? Should we start with the assumption they are true then? I didn't think so either. From my experience. most people here are open to the possibility that chemtrails might be true. But here's the problem:

1: There's a well know and well-researched explanation for contrails
2: Therefore, if you claim that contrails are something else, you need to provide evidence why that is so
3: Such evidence hasn't been presented

If you have evidence that chemtrails are real, then I suggest you cut to the chase and present it. That also saves you from the need to 'defend' your beliefs, since your evidence will speak for itself.. no defense needed.

originally posted by: payt69
1: There's a well know and well-researched explanation for contrails
2: Therefore, if you claim that contrails are something else, you need to provide evidence why that is so
3: Such evidence hasn't been presented

If you have evidence that chemtrails are real, then I suggest you cut to the chase and present it. That also saves you from the need to 'defend' your beliefs, since your evidence will speak for itself.. no defense needed.

In April of 2013, you posted a thread HERE to trap "chemmies" (as you called them) who don't understand that "normal" contrails can persist under certain conditions. You didn't get to trap anyone, but you did get a rational answer regarding the issue in general:

originally posted by: smurfy
I have reason to believe that spraying to improve Earth's albedo is a distinct possibilty, and more so military spraying for their own purposes in selected areas, pretty much where they can get away with it. All the different patents are there for the use of, and it would be ridiculous to say that these patents have not been run experimentally, and I don't mean computer simulations alone. That is the real premise.

That's good enough to have reasonable concern to me, but given you're STILL not satisfied, I'll remind you that further down you wrote:

originally posted by: payt69
I'm fine with you having your own definition of what a 'chemtrail' is or is not, but this thread is about whether a contrail as created by an airliner is capable of persisting without additional chemicals...

So to those people the basic premise IS that normal contrails don't persist. Hence they make thousands of pictures of these 'chemtrails' whenever they occur, and claim that seeing them is indicative of a nefarious program. I hope you're with me so far?

Now if you disagree with that premise, then i don't think this thread is for you..."

--The topic of THIS thread, In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists," is not necessarily about "those people." It's about how individuals who are labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" get treated unfairly by "debunkers," and as indicated in the very first post this is manifested by:

1. Rhetoric in the form of being asked, "Where's the evidence for that" even when it is not possible to obtain evidence of a type that would be irrefutable, e.g., that some chemicals were in the air that wouldn't normally have been there.

2. Debunkers insisting that everyone come to firm conclusions that nothing in the sky is happening involving the use of jet airplanes, and in this way the absence of evidence become the evidence of absence, much like the thinking of New Atheists.

3. Because debunkers know the public is seeking comfort about the possibility of aerosols being sprayed into the sky by jet aircraft, the public is often eager to believe their arguments for this reason, which is easy to exploit (e.g., debunkers use logical fallacies to sound convincing. See above).

4. Debunkers are ignoring the limitations of the scientific method to gather evidence suggesting all is "normal."

If you disagree with that premise, then i don't think this thread is for you...

In April of 2013, you posted a thread HERE to trap "chemmies" (as you called them) who don't understand that "normal" contrails can persist under certain conditions. You didn't get to trap anyone, but you did get a rational answer regarding the issue in general:

lol.. 'Trap' chemmies eh? You sure like to use loaded language. Your language comes accross like you feel like a victim. The reason why I started that thread was because I kept coming accross chemmies (yes I do call them that sometimes) who claimed that contrails aren't supposed to persist, ever. So I wanted to pin them down on that, and try and find out why they thought that to be the case. Obviously, I'm still waiting for an answer, and we've moved on a couple of years in the meanwhile.

originally posted by: smurfy
I have reason to believe that spraying to improve Earth's albedo is a distinct possibilty, and more so military spraying for their own purposes in selected areas, pretty much where they can get away with it. All the different patents are there for the use of, and it would be ridiculous to say that these patents have not been run experimentally, and I don't mean computer simulations alone. That is the real premise.

That's good enough to have reasonable concern to me, but given you're STILL not satisfied, I'll remind you that further down you wrote:

Not sure what you find convincing about that. Patents don't create contrails, and there's no evidence that any of those patents actually work or have been built, never mind installed on thousands of airliners that allegedly 'spray' every day.

originally posted by: payt69
I'm fine with you having your own definition of what a 'chemtrail' is or is not, but this thread is about whether a contrail as created by an airliner is capable of persisting without additional chemicals...

So to those people the basic premise IS that normal contrails don't persist. Hence they make thousands of pictures of these 'chemtrails' whenever they occur, and claim that seeing them is indicative of a nefarious program. I hope you're with me so far?

Now if you disagree with that premise, then i don't think this thread is for you..."

--The topic of THIS thread, In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists," is not necessarily about "those people." It's about how individuals who are labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" get treated unfairly by "debunkers," and as indicated in the very first post this is manifested by:

Ok let's break this down one by one then

1. Rhetoric in the form of being asked, "Where's the evidence for that" even when it is not possible to obtain evidence of a type that would be irrefutable, e.g., that some chemicals were in the air that wouldn't normally have been there.

Why would that be impossible? Chemtrail believers believe that 'they' have been spraying for decennia, so there should be at least something they can point to as evidence? But of course the problem is that no 2 believers even agree on what's being sprayed, who is doing it or how it's being done.

How hard can it be to sample a suspected chemtrail? This German guy Matthias Hancke apparently has done just that a couple of times, but hasn't published his results yet, since he's making a movie about it. Apparently he deems his results (which could be the answer we're all looking for) not important enough to publish them right away.. money needs to be made first from his chemmie movie, you see.

2. Debunkers insisting that everyone come to firm conclusions that nothing in the sky is happening involving the use of jet airplanes, and in this way the absence of evidence become the evidence of absence, much like the thinking of New Atheists.

Well we can't be sure of exactly what is happening, but we can check claims that are being made about supposed 'chemtrails'. So far I haven't seen anything that persuades me to suspect that anything out of the ordinary is happening, never mind anything like what's being claimed by the chemtrail adherants.

Not sure where you want to go with this line of thinking.. What do you suggest the default position should be? Should we assume that anything we can think of is happening, just because it's a possibility? Or should we kindof go with positive evidence of things that we can somehow detect and confirm?

Now if someone makes a claim that we can't detect or confirm it's validity of, but his description and presented evidence looks exactly like a well-known phenomenon.. then what do you suggest we should do? What if this claim implies a global conspiracy with impossible logistics?

Not sure what a New Atheist is.. sounds like a box you wanna stick anyone that disagrees with you in? I'm not an atheist anyway.

3. Because debunkers know the public is seeking comfort about the possibility of aerosols being sprayed into the sky by jet aircraft, the public is often eager to believe their arguments for this reason, which is easy to exploit (e.g., debunkers use logical fallacies to sound convincing. See above).

lol.. well in the case of Chemtrails I think very few people are seeking comfort. People find it much more exciting to believe they're part of a movement that's on top of current events, and to be one of the 'awakened ones' who know what's happening behind the screens, and to tell the 'sheeple' that they need to 'wake up'. It makes them feel special, I guess, which explains why it's so hard for chemtrail believers to look objectively at contrails without all the emotional baggage.

But be that as it may, maybe it'd be a better exercise to find out whether the debunkers are correct or not, and if not, point out where they are wrong. I know Mick West has a long standing challenge to that effect regarding metabunk.. feel free and do your worst!

And are you suggesting that CT's should have free reign, without any criticism? What's wrong with debunking anyway? If people spout bunk, wouldn't you like to find out? Wouldn't you like to be the one who debunks nonsense?

4. Debunkers are ignoring the limitations of the scientific method to gather evidence suggesting all is "normal."

So what method do you suggest we gather evidence with then? Should we gather evidence at all? Or just swallow whatever presents itself on our plate, without any further analysis?

And it's not debunkers who are suggesting all is normal, but chemtrailers who are suggesting all is wrong. Then, when you ask why, they point at clouds (well contrails) and tell you that they're poison. Of course then you ask them why they think so, and if they can present any evidence to show that they're poison, and that's when you are called a debunker and a shill and .. well you know the drill.

See.. It's the chemtrail believers who make the claim. Not the debunkers. The debunkers look at your claim, and conclude that there's no evidence to verify your claim. Of course you're still free to believe whatever you like, but don't expect me to believe the same thing if you can't give me a reason to do so.

Just pointing out the same old argument here among fellow debunkers:

originally posted by: payt69
Chemtrail believers believe that 'they' have been spraying for decennia, so there should be at least something they can point to as evidence...
How hard can it be to sample a suspected chemtrail?

originally posted by: payt69
...we can check claims that are being made about supposed 'chemtrails'. So far I haven't seen anything that persuades me to suspect that anything out of the ordinary is happening...should we kindof go with positive evidence of things that we can somehow detect and confirm? Now if someone makes a claim that we can't detect or confirm it's validity of, but his description and presented evidence looks exactly like a well-known phenomenon...

originally posted by: payt69
So what method do you suggest we gather evidence with then? Should we gather evidence at all?

And the grand daddy of all "evidence" demands typically made by debunkers:

originally posted by: payt69
And it's not debunkers who are suggesting all is normal, but chemtrailers who are suggesting all is wrong...if they can present any evidence to show that they're poison, and that's when you are called a debunker and a shill and .. well you know the drill.

See.. It's the chemtrail believers who make the claim. Not the debunkers. The debunkers look at your claim, and conclude that there's no evidence to verify your claim...

Now, you didn't think that by repeating over and over the "no evidence" claim about toxins in or near a condensation trail that this qualifies as a debate, did you? In fact, you're only validating what I wrote on page 1 above, which should be repeated because of how it's relevant as a continuing mantra among debunkers:

originally posted by: Petros312
1. Where's the Evidence for that?
It is a valuable tool of rhetoric when engaged in a debate to always resort to the question, "Where's the evidence for that," after your opponent makes a statement. The problem with this is that empirical evidence of a scientific type (directly or indirectly observable) is not always possible or practical for someone to attain. Debunkers know this and often use it to their advantage. However, this is not to say that certain evidence derived from research using the scientific method has no place in trying to uncover the truth. The questions are: What specific evidence is RELEVANT? What SOURCE is this scientific research from? Is the evidence CONCLUSIVE or is it only NON-REPLICATED research with no real consensus over the matter? Are there LIMITATIONS in interpreting certain data when used as evidence for something? The above questions are often ignored by individuals who see themselves as champions of the scientific method, and they place unrealistic and heavy demands on others to ignore the above questions and appraise the scientific method to the extent that they can ask, "Where's the evidence for that," whenever it becomes most advantageous for winning an argument.

Plus, this is not an accurate statement:

originally posted by: payt69
it's not debunkers who are suggesting all is normal...

--On the contrary, that's all I see debunkers do is assert the notion that all contrails are only "normal" contrails, and they do this with no empirical evidence for the assertion. They make a leap of faith about how "normal" all jet aircraft activity and subsequent contrail formation is. Don't waste your time cut and pasting yet another quote about the constituents of a "normal" contrail because that does not prove what someone suspected was deviant about increased contrail activity in some region was only the result of "normal" jet aircraft activity. You simply do not know this based on presenting information about a "normal" contrail. Yet, what debunkers typically will do after their cut and paste explanation is then assert the mistaken assumption that only chemtrail conspiracy theorists require empirical evidence to support that there is something in the air , and that's only a strategy to win an argument.

Be careful with that statement in italics before you respond.

[double post-moderators please remove]

originally posted by: Petros312

--On the contrary, that's all I see debunkers do is assert the notion that all contrails are only "normal" contrails, and they do this with no empirical evidence for the assertion. They make a leap of faith about how "normal" all jet aircraft activity and subsequent contrail formation is. Don't waste your time cut and pasting yet another quote about the constituents of a "normal" contrail because that does not prove what someone suspected was deviant about increased contrail activity in some region was only the result of "normal" jet aircraft activity. You simply do not know this based on presenting information about a "normal" contrail. Yet, what debunkers typically will do after their cut and paste explanation is then assert the mistaken assumption that only chemtrail conspiracy theorists require empirical evidence to support that there is something in the air , and that's only a strategy to win an argument.

Be careful with that statement in italics before you respond.

While I do assume the risk of being persecuted for how I post this information (which seems to be much more important then what I say) I'll try to convey a response.

I can say that I personally don't demand that all contrails must be regular contrails. What I have said and continue to say is that from a scientific standpoint, the explanation of contrails and how they form and persist seems to fit most, if not all of the pictures, movies, and descriptions of contrails/chemtrails that I have seen. While I do admit it's possible for them to not be contrails, thus far, I have seen no evidence that would make me think otherwise.

This only includes the white puffy lines in the sky that form behind planes. Since none of us have any idea what Petros312 thinks the chemtrail theory is, there is no point in discussing it.

originally posted by: network dude
Since none of us have any idea what Petros312 thinks the chemtrail theory is, there is no point in discussing it.

I agree no point in a debate with debunkers, but it should be noted that the basics of chemtrail conspiracy theory is explained in my thread here: In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists Part 2.

And I covered through select quotes who qualifies as chemtrail conspiracy theorist, what they supposedly believe, and the sources that are stigmatizing a select group of people to create a social reality.

Now, you didn't think that by repeating over and over the "no evidence" claim about toxins in or near a condensation trail that this qualifies as a debate, did you? In fact, you're only validating what I wrote on page 1 above, which should be repeated because of how it's relevant as a continuing mantra among debunkers:

You're not exactly going out of your way to prove the opposite though. Do you have evidence for chemtrails? If so, bring it on. If not, well... I rest my case.

originally posted by: Petros312
1. Where's the Evidence for that?
It is a valuable tool of rhetoric when engaged in a debate to always resort to the question, "Where's the evidence for that," after your opponent makes a statement.

Seems like a legit question to me. Especially if some person claims that pretty much all airlines are involved in a global opration to spray whatever it is they're spraying at cruise altitude. You'd need to bring me some evidence to convince me that that's what's happening. But apparently asking for evidence to you is just a tool of rhetoric, which may explain why you have so little of it. Rhetoric on the other hand you seem to have no problem with.

The problem with this is that empirical evidence of a scientific type (directly or indirectly observable) is not always possible or practical for someone to attain. Debunkers know this and often use it to their advantage. However, this is not to say that certain evidence derived from research using the scientific method has no place in trying to uncover the truth. The questions are: What specific evidence is RELEVANT? What SOURCE is this scientific research from? Is the evidence CONCLUSIVE or is it only NON-REPLICATED research with no real consensus over the matter? Are there LIMITATIONS in interpreting certain data when used as evidence for something?

Well look up a few scientific papers dealing with contrails, and see how the measure up to your criteria.

Then have a look at some chemtrail claims, and do the same.

Spot the difference?

I'm not even sure what scientific data you're disputing. Do you think a contrail can persist? If so, then how do you deal with chemtrail believers who claim the opposite? This seems to be the core of the whole chemtrail myth, so it's a pretty important claim. Do you think it holds up to scientific scrutiny, or even cursory knowledge of meteorology?

I mean this is basic science we're talking about here. Water particles freezing in cold saturated air. Not some kind of long shot antigravity science or anything, just basic stuff. Yet it's being disputed by chemtrail believers, who seem incapable of understanding what a cloud or a contrail is.

The above questions are often ignored by individuals who see themselves as champions of the scientific method, and they place unrealistic and heavy demands on others to ignore the above questions and appraise the scientific method to the extent that they can ask, "Where's the evidence for that," whenever it becomes most advantageous for winning an argument.

Well I don't see why it's unrealistic to ask questions about the claims that are being made. I always assume that those claims are based on something we can go and check for ourselves.

If you claim that contrails can't persist for example, then I want to know what you base that notion on, and how come a cirrus cloud at the same altitude CAN persist, given that both consist of the same substance.

--On the contrary, that's all I see debunkers do is assert the notion that all contrails are only "normal" contrails, and they do this with no empirical evidence for the assertion. They make a leap of faith about how "normal" all jet aircraft activity and subsequent contrail formation is.

Well the empirical evidence has been established for some 70 years now. We know what a contrail looks like and how it behaves. So if someone comes up to me and tells me that he/she saw something weird that couldn't possibly be a contrail, and then goes on to provide images or descriptins that describe the exact behaviour of a contrail.. well then I remain unconvinced. How many times haven't we seen those pictures of persisting contrails and patterns of contrails being presented as evidence for chemtrails?

And it always turns out that these people know close to nothing about aviation, air routes, meteorology and the conditions up there at cruise altitude, jet engines, etc. In fact that seems to be a prerequisite for being a chemtrail believer. It was all too obvious again the other day when Ian Simpson from lookup.org was giving a lecture on chemtrails in front of scientists. He admitted that he can't prove any of the stuff he's presenting and that he knows very little about the technical aspects of airliners (bypass ratios and pylon drains, specifically).

(see discussion here: www.metabunk.org...)

It's presentations like that that convince me that there's nothing to the chemtrail myth. And I've yet to see anything better, though I've looked at a lot of things and am familiar with most of the claims.

Don't waste your time cut and pasting yet another quote about the constituents of a "normal" contrail because that does not prove what someone suspected was deviant about increased contrail activity in some region was only the result of "normal" jet aircraft activity. You simply do not know this based on presenting information about a "normal" contrail.

And according to you, what exactly IS a 'normal' contrail then?

Anyway, because indeed we can't know whether something abnormal was happening based on claims alone is why we need evidence. If soemone claims that there were more than normal contrails, or contrails that behave in a way untypical of a contrail, then make sure you record such an event in any way you can so we can find out what's happening. That's called evidence.

Yet, what debunkers typically will do after their cut and paste explanation is then assert the mistaken assumption that only chemtrail conspiracy theorists require empirical evidence to support that there is something in the air , and that's only a strategy to win an argument.

Don't you think there should be a mechanism to sift the weed from the chaff? If so, what mechanism should that be?

originally posted by: payt69
Do you have evidence for chemtrails? If so, bring it on. If not, well... I rest my case.

--Main point of my prior post again went right over your head. If YOU have no evidence for what you claim is just a normal contrail in the sky, then, well... I rest MY case.

BTW, Nice job cutting up my posts but not quite addressing what I'm actually saying in each quote. That's what someone does when they want to appear to be debating someone, pretending to dissect what someone wrote, but they're really not doing this at all. And really, MORE links to metabunk.com? I see these links so often it makes me think this forum is just an affiliate of the other web site.

originally posted by: payt69
I mean this is basic science we're talking about here. Water particles freezing in cold saturated air. Not some kind of long shot antigravity science or anything, just basic stuff. Yet it's being disputed by chemtrail believers, who seem incapable of understanding what a cloud or a contrail is.

--You talk about the "basic science" of contrail formation (where's the typical EPA pamphlet for "proof" of how basic it is?) but you skip right over the limitation of the scientific method for investigating this "stuff" as you called it. You overgeneralize about 70 years of research which is BS; it has been known that jet aircraft can make contrails since WWII -- a time when jet engine design was rather different. You're just stigmatizing chemtrail conspiracy theorists like everyone else does, lumping a very wide range of people who get labelled as such into a category of faceless ignorant people. You have nothing new to say. You're also oversimplifying how it isn't "basic" science at all to predict persistent condensation trail formation, which remains unreliable, but it's a moot point within the context of this thread.

When I said above, "... what debunkers typically will do after their cut and paste explanation is then assert the mistaken assumption that only chemtrail conspiracy theorists require empirical evidence to support that there is something in the air..." , your response indicates my point went right over your head, because your agenda here is to "debunk" a chemtrailer, not to understand that chemtrail conspiracy theorists as well as "debunkers"--the debunkers who in one way or another tell everyone that all jet aircraft activity and subsequent contrail formation is "normal"-- BOTH sides have the burden of evidence to actually investigate what is in the air.

a reply to: Petros312


So, if asking for evidence is unfair as there is none, what is the basis for believing in chemtrails? Why would a person look at the sky and think they are looking at a trail that has been deliberately sprayed?

I think we sometimes talk at cross purposes because you seem to include geo engineering and weather modification in your own definition of a chemtrail. Whilst most websites dedicated to the subject have embraced these topics too in recent times, chemtrails are very specifically the long white trails we see across the sky from aircraft.

What is the reason to think one or several of those are NOT contrails?

originally posted by: Petros312
your response indicates my point went right over your head, because your agenda here is to "debunk" a chemtrailer, not to understand that chemtrail conspiracy theorists as well as "debunkers"--the debunkers who in one way or another tell everyone that all jet aircraft activity and subsequent contrail formation is "normal"-- BOTH sides have the burden of evidence to actually investigate what is in the air.

no, both sides do not. The believer side thinks there is something nefarious up there, we think it's ice crystals. I don't need to prove to myself that they are ice crystals. I can use logic and know that the cirrus clouds right next to the contrails are ice crystals and they look similar and hang out at the same altitudes. So until I start to fear the clouds, I don't need any further proof.