posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 08:17 AM
I think the debate would go a bit easier on both sides if the anti-chemtrail people would admit that there is a chance that someone could have a
system of spraying chemicals, that would not be released from the exhaust of the engines. I think that is a easily validated concession to make since
there is evidence to promote the ideas have been in circulation for quite some time to do just that for various reasons including temperature/weather
modification postulated by respected scientists.
In the same vein, those who are chemtrail proponents should give the same respect that most airplanes are not spraying chemicals and are simply
following their flight paths with no nefarious intentions.
I think this would create more good will to both sides of the argument.
Though, the only problem I can see is the anti-chemtrial proponents would have to cease and desist the use of the word 'debunked' in reference to
this discussion, and instead use terms like highly-unlikely, improbable, or in case of threads with pictures, explain why this particular incident
(even if they've explained it on a thousand prior threads) isn't a chemtrail, but a contrail.
I'd respect both sides of the debate more, if they respected themselves and each other better. If both sides remained mature about it; resolution on
the topic may never come to be, but at least people who are just curious would have a better read and understanding to come to their own conclusions
and possibly encourage participation in the future.
My personal feelings is water vapor by environmental conditions spurred by the actions of the plane creating the catalyst for change (plane make purty
clouds) is generally what people see, and more often as we fly at different heights with improved technologies. I don't discount there might be
planes spraying chemicals for all kinds of testing, as history has proven corporations and governments will do a lot in secret, regardless of the
effects it may have on the world and its populations.