But that's the point. Anyone can say anything, absolutely anything at all. I can say that The story of Hansel and Gretel is a cover story put out by
the PTB to throw everyone off the scent and that the outer walls of my house are brown in colour, therefore my house is made of chocolate. I could
even support that theory by posting pictures of differently shaped pieces of chocolate that proves "they" have been experimenting with chocolate
shapes and so that proves my house could be made of chocolate. Its all rubbish of course, but I can say it.
That's why the position of many debunkers like myself is not to say that chemtrails cannot be done. We KNOW they could be. The question is are
Patents prove an idea was thought of, aerial spraying and cloud seeding are well known and understood in their methodology and general objectives,
which also tells us WHY those things cannot be chemtrails, however despite the claims of chemtrailers that chemtrails have been sprayed for nearly 20
years now there is still not one shred of evidence that they exist at all BEYOND being a theoretical proposal.
The evidence for chemtrails is so sparse that we see photographs of ballast test aircraft, standard air force tankers, water bombers and especially
just regular contrails all put forward as 'evidence' when in truth they are unrelated to what the theory is supposed to be.
We have exposes where it turns out that 'confession' videos were mistranslated (Duppel) or it turns out that test results are actually completely
normal but reported in a sensationalist manner without any context just to scare people (WITWATS). in the absence of real evidence we see speculation
about what MIGHT be being sprayed and what MIGHT be the objective, all without actually making a case that anything actually IS happening. A recently
posted weatherman video is a good example, he makes several claims about activity and motive without even once making out a case for anything he says,
he simply claims it.
On the flip side we have intelligent and articulate members such as Phage and Uncinus amongst several others who post facts that the chemtrailers
cannot refute, we even had a challenge on here after yet another attack on the much maligned 'Contrail Science' website for Chemmies to post just
ONE factual error from that site.
Can you guess what happened?
Now, of course this doesn't prove chemtrails cant happen, nobody even thinks that, but, when you look at both sides evidence and judging by past
track records of both sides of the debate, the balance of probability is very strongly leaning towards chemtrailers being wrong. In fact its nearly
horizontal from my perspective.
It is equally telling that when chemmies also complain that they don't 'buy' explanations about traffic volumes or engine types etc because they
don't understand it (often freely admitted by them, to be fair) they then just dismiss explanations that are offered by those who DO understand. Its
as if they are somehow comforted by chemtrail theory and are uncomfortable when the sand it rests on is brushed away, though I dont claim to
understand why that should be, it is just my observation, formed without any supporting evidence and so may be wrong