The Chemtrail Hoax

a reply to: DerekB

I guess you missed the part where it's called a cumulus cloud? I even bolded it to show you that it's a cumulus.

And you obviously think that it's just a single pole of a cloud lol. That's just funny.

BTW, where's your EVIDENCE that chemtrails exist? (And no, "looking up" is not evidence)

a reply to: DerekB

Many of which have cumulus in that name. I guess that's just coincidence, right?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Where is your evidence that chemtrails don't exist? You can't prove that all the trails seen are at 30,000 ft. or higher.
I already told you that cumulus clouds are named partly by appearance, that is why they have different names and height classifications, duh.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No not coincidence, but they would all have the same name if they were all the same at the same height. Why did they bother to give them different names and add on's to cumulus?

a reply to: DerekB

It's down to the people who claim "they do exist" to prove it. The same claims that have been around since the 90s, yet not a shred of evidence apart from "that cloud looks weird".

Yes, different classifications of.........wait for it........cumulus clouds. The thing you're dismissing.

a reply to: DerekB

Because they are cumulus clouds. If they weren't, they wouldn't have cumulus as part of the name.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If there is no difference in appearance and height, why do they have different names? You have cirrus, cirrostratus, cirrocumulus, altostratus, altocumulus, nimbostratus, cumulus, stratus, cumulonimbus, stratocumulus.
They all aren't simply named cumulus, why is that?

a reply to: DerekB

The same reason there are different models of planes, like the 737-700, -800, etc. They're the same basic plane, or cloud in this case, but there are slight differences. They're still the same at the base.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The planes have different parts and different builders, just like the clouds have different appearances and form at different altitudes. There would be no reason to give things different names and classifications if they had no differences. If you were standing outside with a meteorologist and he pointed out cirrus clouds to you, would you correct him and say they are just cumulus clouds?

a reply to: DerekB

No, they don't. The ones I'm talking about aren't. A 737-700 is built by the same people, using the same parts as a 737-900. There are fairly minor differences between the two, but both are built side by side on the assembly line.

Where did I say they had no differences? I said they were the same basic cloud. Why would cumulus make up part of the name if they were all completely different.

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: TerryDon79

Where is your evidence that chemtrails don't exist? You can't prove that all the trails seen are at 30,000 ft. or higher.
I already told you that cumulus clouds are named partly by appearance, that is why they have different names and height classifications, duh.

What is this obsession with 30000ft anyway? That seems to have crept into chemtrail mythology recently and I'm not sure where they got it from. Possibly from Jeff Nelson but he may have picked it up from elsewhere

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: howmuch4another

Based on what clouds are at what altitudes and the chemtrails in relation to them. If the chemtrails are under cumulus clouds, it's easy to determine that the trails are well below 30,000 ft. because cumulus clouds are well below 30,000 ft.
It's really not that difficult.
I have researched confirmation bias and numerous other arguing points that metabunk shills have promoted. The chemtrail argument isn't new to me. That is how I know that the shills have no argument to chemtrails below 30,000 ft. and the numerous ufo's seen around chemtrails.

you are absolutely correct. Nobody has any answers for trails at 10,000 feet. If you could provide proof of that, you would be a #ing hero. But you can't. Because it doesn't exist. So, there is your assignment. Go get physical proof that trails exist at or under 10,000 feet. We will all be right here, waiting.

a reply to: network dude

LOL I don't have interest in being a hero.
So by your reasoning, nothing is real or exists that I can't provide video or pics of?
What if I do get video of a trail under a cumulus cloud? It will just be argued that all clouds are cumulus and the cloud is at 30000 ft. Lol

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: network dude

LOL I don't have interest in being a hero.
So by your reasoning, nothing is real or exists that I can't provide video or pics of?
What if I do get video of a trail under a cumulus cloud? It will just be argued that all clouds are cumulus and the cloud is at 30000 ft. Lol

What is so special about 30000ft?

a reply to: DerekB

Again, it's amazing that clouds with similar names are totally different according to you, and it has nothing to do with them being similar.

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: network dude

LOL I don't have interest in being a hero.
So by your reasoning, nothing is real or exists that I can't provide video or pics of?
What if I do get video of a trail under a cumulus cloud? It will just be argued that all clouds are cumulus and the cloud is at 30000 ft. Lol

not sure what part you fail to understand, besides most of it.

See, contrails form when conditions are right. this is one of those things you learn when you put in some effort into understanding the subject you are engaging in. (you may want to give that a shot)

Conditions for contrails include the air temps to be about -40 and colder. The altitude for that to happen around most places is at about 25,000 feet and up. You are free to investigate that, should you actually want to learn something instead of hear yourself speak.

So if you were to see an air mass of frozen ice crystals lingering in the air, and they are doing so in say 30 degree air, that would be something quite amazing. (that's what a cirrus cloud is, and what contrails are as well, again, please feel free to investigate that)

If you can prove that your calibrated eyeballs are seeing trails (no matter what you want to call them) at 10,000 feet, it would be so amazing that every weather expert in the world would be amazed. Do you comprehend that?

a reply to: network dude

LOL I'm not failing to understand anything, I was using 30000 ft in general, I didn't say it has to be exact.
I will get pics and video next time I see themy under cumulus clouds. Will you accept they are chemtrails if clearly under cumulus clouds or will you just argue cloud definitions like others have done?

a reply to: DerekB

Hey random guy on the Internet.

Still waiting for evidence of "chemtrails".

You know? The thing that chemtrails believers push and think have been around for decades, yet offer no evidence of.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You must be unable to comprehend my previous post.
What evidence do you have that chemtrails don't exist, besides claiming that all trails are condensation which you have no way of proving.

a reply to: DerekB

It's on you and your ilk to prove it. It's a stupid argument of asking to prove they don't exist.

So. Where's the evidence chemtrails exist?

You must have SOMETHING to offer, right? You wouldn't just believe because some person on the Internet said it, would you?