Originally posted by Zepherian
1) Thick trails that don't dissipate and actually expand into cloud cover.
Normal contrails do that. But otherwise what you say seems to make sense
Nice to know that it's unlikely there is any spraying here as all contrails comes from commercial aircraft on normal commercial air routes, though I admit I don;t go checking each and every one!
People lieing about them on the internet.
Ah, you let yourself down there
2) Because you have eyes on your face and a brain to correlate data.
How does that explain why they are visible? Maybe I didn't explain well enough. Contrails are visible because they create ice crystals which become high level clouds. Do you think whatever chemtrails are also form ice crystals? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to not form ice crystals so that they weren't visible? And, indeed, how do the chemtrails for ice crystals? There are meteorological explanations for how water vapour in hot engine exhaust forms ice crystals but what about the chemicals that aircraft are spraying (and presumably at the same time, their engines are not making persistent contrails?)
3) Ask the idiots laying them, since it's not an admitted technological endeavour and is shrouded in disinformation and lies how the hell do you honestly expect people who are denouncing the phenomenon to know what it really is?
I'm just assuming that when someone has a theory and attempts to prove that a well known phenomena is something else, they have an idea what that something else is?
What leads you to suppose a well studied phenomena isn't what those who study it say it is?
Anyway, I still think if chemtrails are real they will not be visible from the ground and I notice that none of the believers have tackled that possiblity. Not sure why, but then I'm not sure who's spreading disinfo and who's just falling for it.
btw I shall be leaving work soon and probably won't be online again much till tomorrow - whereupon no doubt this thread will have grown another 8 or 9 pages!
[edit on 18-11-2008 by Essan]


So far you havent shown any proof to the contrary.. So I don't see where your getting at..
