posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 07:41 PM
Here is the problem. Chemtrail believers do seem to understand that contrails exist and form behind planes operating normally- that is, planes
without any sinister chemicals or intent. They presumably understand that contrails form at high altitude, look like long clouds, persist and
sometimes turn into cirrus clouds.
(some chemtrail believers seem to not believe in the reality of contrails or misunderstand them, but in that case we'd have to start much further
back with some science classes.)
Now the chemtrail believers are making a positive claim. They are asserting that some of the things that we see in the sky that look like contrails,
form behind commercial planes like contrails, persist and then dissipate like contrails are not normal contrails but are in fact something else,
usually chemical in nature, created deliberately and yet not publicly acknowledged or discussed and are therefore likely sinister.
So, what leads them to think this? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that surely they must have some solid reason to think this, some
evidence of some sort to support their claim, and they aren't just going on a hunch, right?
It's when you ask them for evidence that we start to run into trouble. Some point out the established methods of cloud-seeding as proof of their
claims. Yet, nobody denies the reality or possibility of cloud seeding. We just have no reason to believe that some of the contrails we see are
deliberate cloud-seeding attempts and in fact as some posters have pointed out, there's good reason not to believe this.
Others cite studies showing the possibility of geo-engineering as a method to combat global warming. All this demonstrates is that someone has
considered the possibility, not that it is a reality and it is currently happening right under our noses (or over our heads, as it may be.) Again, the
possibility of geo-engineering does not mean that the contrails we see are actually chemtrails.
Some people claim physiological effects in conjunction with contrails which must prove that the contrails are chemtrails which are causing the
symptoms. But if a placebo effect- that is, nothing more than one's belief- can cause one to get better while not taking any actual medicine,
then of course someone can make themself ill (or just think they feel ill) if it is in line with their beliefs. Combine this with selection and
confirmation biases on the part of the sufferers and we're left with no reason to think their symptoms are actually caused by the contrails.
So bear in mind that I'm not saying what we see definitely aren't chemtrails. I don't claim to know everything. All I can say is that I know
of no good reason to believe that this phenomenon that we observe- contrails, which are already well-explained- is actually something else. If you
want me to believe that it's something other than what it appears to be, then by all means, PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS.