Contrail Question

Originally posted by Jack Squat

So if that website is even moderately accurate, how can "Chemtrail" believers even debate the subject?

Right?

Originally posted by Jack Squat

Originally posted by Jack Squat

So if that website is even moderately accurate, how can "Chemtrail" believers even debate the subject?

Right?

Well the idea that you can predict contrail persistence, is the proverbial fly in the ointment, that chemtrailers would rather pretend does not exist. And that the Appleman Chart, is something else that is rather inconvenient for them too.

Originally posted by firepilot
[

Well the idea that you can predict contrail persistence, is the proverbial fly in the ointment, that chemtrailers would rather pretend does not exist. And that the Appleman Chart, is something else that is rather inconvenient for them too.

Makes sense. Im just surprised I dont see that fact come up in the many many debates on the subject that take place in these forums.

Originally posted by Jack Squat

Originally posted by firepilot
[

Well the idea that you can predict contrail persistence, is the proverbial fly in the ointment, that chemtrailers would rather pretend does not exist. And that the Appleman Chart, is something else that is rather inconvenient for them too.

Makes sense. Im just surprised I dont see that fact come up in the many many debates on the subject that take place in these forums.

They have been brought up actually time and time again. However the responses are as follows

1. Ignored and move onto their next misconception
2. Declared to be BS and wrong (ignore facts that do not fit the conspiracy)
3. "You must be a paid shill working for the government"

Rarely do any of them actually look into it, and acknowledge contrail persistence. We have even posted a link to a 1970s research paper, but they summarily dismiss it too

"Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail"
R.G. Knollenberg
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 29, Issue 7 (October 1972) pp. 13671374

reply to post by Jack Squat


Oh, it has been, many, many, many times. The bigger question you already asked...why? I think because the internet has an unfortunately dark side......it makes people believe they can read about anything and know the truth. It makes people "intellectually lazy". Without considering the source, or looking into the matter a little further than a quick explanation, they read something that explains it all and that is what they accept. And all the information from a "chemtrail" site is steep in conspiracy, so part of their acceptance is the belief that someone is doing something bad to them, and lying about it all.
It's really sad some of the things that believers believe. Like a standard NASA poster handout about clouds was recently redone. Without looking at anything but that poster, which has a publication date on it of just a year or two old, people are believing that NASA is somehow adding "new" clouds to cover-up "chemtrails". No matter how many old pictures you show or how many books that pre-date that one poster, they believe it's all made up. It is easy to look up the cloud forms and find lots of things that explain everything about the clouds, how and why they are named what they are, millions of pictures of clouds (both photos and fine art) showing the clouds on that poster........they would rather be lazy and paranoid.
It's a choice I do not understand.