reply to post by Z32Driver
"...then whats with the grid-like flight pattern..."
When more than one plane flies through an area, leaving contrails, they will leave behind a pattern merely because crossing paths create a pattern.
Planes flight paths cross. The wind makes the contrail drift a bit, the next plane crosses, add in two similar situations on a different heading and,
"ta-da!", a grid. Really it is a simple logical process.
What you also don't know without tracking a contrail is that sometimes those "x" and "grid" patterns are not visually the same a few miles away.
I've done this myself. What is the "X" marking? Nothing.....because the trails are always moving and changing. I really don't know why this
really simple to understand logic escapes people but it does. No one can change wind yet.......at least nobody has ever suggested otherwise on ATS.
So your "pattern", is not. I am a cloud-watcher myself. How many clouds exist (outside of orographic) can you say ever "marked" a territory?
For me that would be none, because clouds are constantly changing.
As to this:
..."Can someone explain to me what makes the concept of "chemtrails" so absolutely bogus that you can write it off is debunked or "doesn't
exist"??..."
Also logic applies.
1st: Exhaust is hot and wet, the atmosphere can be cold and wet, and when the two meet, contrails form. Just like your breath (which is your
exhaust) makes a cloud when you exhale outside in winter. No one needs to add anything to exhaust to make this happen.
2nd: The amount contributed by the plane is miniscule; the atmosphere contributes most of what you see (Somewhere I have a link to a study showing
that atmospheric contribution of water was to the "4th magnitude", or 10,000:1 I can not find the link on this computer, so I stipulate this as
hearsay for now).
3rd: The volume of supposed materials in a "chemtrail" will all have weight, which would be noticed by anyone who has anything to do with a plane.
Many believe the entire trail is added, (How real is a concept when no two people say the concept is different in all points? Logic says "bogus".)
which is impossible given the volume of product needed to produce a single cloud.
4th: Many believe that the "chemtrails" are affecting their health, that seeing them causes their eyes to burn, coughing, etc. That is impossible.
Nothing the size of a particle in a contrail will fall to earth for at the very least 24 hours, most probably NEVER. In order to have an effect of
any type, anything at the level of a contrail would have to be the size of large hail.
5th: There are no valid tests anywhere, at any time, that anything in a "chemtrail" have been proven chemically. Even someone in the
"chemtrail" community has admitted that.
Logically, they cannot exist as claimed. Logically, no theory with so many differences in the "facts" cannot be true. Logically, nothing up there
is doing anything to you down here.
And logically, you cannot prove a negative. So really, it's not on us to prove it is not true, it for proponents to prove it is.
If you want to learn about contrails, Google "contrail studies - chemtrails". Read and learn the science. Contrails have been seen and studied as
far back as World War 1. There are pictures of them that old as well. "Chemtrails" have been around only as far back as the internet.
Coincidence? I think "no".
How does this bit of
information prove that enhanced / intentional contrail formation or chemtrail deployment (perhaps for "climate control") is not also being
conducted? 
You say it like the whole site is based on this source. 
