Some basic problems I have with believing chemtrail exist

reply to post by OneFreeMan


So you can't actually debunk any of my points?

Wouldn't it just be more honest to admit that?

It would also save you a lot of time and angst since you 'd no longer have to put up with debunkers showing why chemtrails are a hoax any more.

Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by OneFreeMan

 

So you can't actually debunk any of my points?

Wouldn't it just be more honest to admit that?

It would also save you a lot of time and angst since you 'd no longer have to put up with debunkers showing why chemtrails are a hoax any more.

My last comment here. It seems no matter what I might say regarding my consistent
observations over the course of years now, I will be challenged and refuted.
I told you their have been no chemtrails here for the last month or so and that
today the chemtrails returned, with the number and frequency of planes flying
over increasing drastically, ALL leaving these trails that were completely absent
over the last month. The sky wert from blue to grey within an hour. And it was
being deliberately done and as clear as day.
You have no reason to doubt my word and I have no reason to lie. If you continue
to doubt my word, then, to me, you are a plant, and you should be dealt with appropriately
by moderators, if this is an above board site.

That's all.

OneFreeMan

My last comment here. It seems no matter what I might say regarding my consistent
observations over the course of years now, I will be challenged and refuted.

You will certainly be challenged if you say something is a chemtrail - "how do you know?" is not an unreasonable question !

I told you their have been no chemtrails here for the last month or so and that
today the chemtrails returned, with the number and frequency of planes flying
over increasing drastically, ALL leaving these trails that were completely absent
over the last month. The sky wert from blue to grey within an hour. And it was
being deliberately done and as clear as day.
You have no reason to doubt my word and I have no reason to lie.

I have no doubt you saw trails and they covered the sky.

I asked for evidence that they were chemtrails, because what you describe is well known behavior of contrails.

If you continue
to doubt my word, then, to me, you are a plant, and you should be dealt with appropriately
by moderators, if this is an above board site.

For all its faults ATS does still allow a reasonable freedom of speech and you don't get to make any claims here without the possibility of being challenged.

That's all.

Then I guess you need to go to one of those discussion groups where they ban people for daring to suggest that chemtrails might not exist.

In any case you "poor little me" act is off topic in this thread - if you haven't got any evidence to debunk any of my points then you should never have posted here - start a thread of your own for your own topic!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I'm genuinely curious to get an answer to this question. First a preamble. There are some 7 billion people on the planet. If I were to guess there are maybe 3-5 million people planet wide who believe in chemtrails. The percentage is hardly measurable. So you are in the super, super, duper majority. You are with the folks who do not believe in unicorns, tooth fairy or benevolent governments.

why do you care at all? You are sure, 100 percent confident in the truth that they do not exist nowhere, no how. You know all the people who believe are ignorant folks who just don't get the science of it all and you are unwavering. There are maybe 500 people here at ATS who argue this point. So all the posts to "debunk" the chemtrails is to convince a few dozen to change their mind?

Why? Seriously, why bother at all? There are less chem believers then believers in unicorns. So why spend the energy? Is the goal to stamp the belief out because that will mean success of some sort? The same folks flame the fight with the same, "prove it, damn you believers prove it!" Yet I can't understand why if so few actually believe.

I actually am trying to understand the reason behind the need to change a few minds. In fact, why the need to change the minds of the believers at all?

crankyoldman
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

why do you care at all?

1/ I hate stupidity
2/ there are people threatening to kill because of chemtrails - sure most of them are mouthing off, bu sooner or later some idiot is going to be brainwashed enough to do something REALLY stupid
3/ It is a free world, and I can if I want to
4/ www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does it concern you that someone should want to deny ignorance?

Oh and of course it is a social service for anyone who DOES want to weigh up the actual evidence!

reply to post by crankyoldman


Why do you post on this site? There are thousands of other things you could be doing with your time.
What drives you to post here?

Edit to add:

Better yet. Have you ever been to the UFO forum? GO there and post a video of a pie tin floating on some fishing line and see if someone doesn't' debunk it straight away. What's the difference?

“The chemtrail conspiracy theory posits that some trails left by aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for purposes undisclosed to the general public and directed by various government officials.”

Is this what you think everyone believes is a chemtrail? Sure, most people start that way, but as more is learnt and the rabbit hole deepens, a broader outlook on the root of the cause is usually formed. There is a whole branch of science dedicated to geoengineering that includes many different methods. Many of these do not include the addition of the unspeakable to the sky above us from planes. Chemtrail is a portmanteau of the words Chemical-trail just like Con-trail is a portmanteau of the term Condendsation-trail. The suspicion that the government is taking advantage of this scientific phenomenon to secretly release substances into the atmosphere gave birth to this term. Now, if people use the term chemtrails, they are considered a nutter and usually labelled a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist by those who are blissfully ignorant of the whole situation – instigated by those who are most likely paid to help cover it up and promote the “official story"
Official story
Now don’t those ideas sound strangely familiar?

Contrail persistence is nothing new or abnormal - there is ample evidence of them in WW2, and some from before then.Text

If you cite evidence then it is normally customary to show it. Without proof of what you claim, it’s hearsay, the weakest form of proof there is. I know of photos out there too, but they are photos. You cannot claim that you know how high in the atmosphere these planes were. Was this evidence something you heard of one of your friends when you were discussing how you would debunk these “believers”? If this evidence is ample as you say, then add the links – show me what you are referring to so I can at least reply.
I’ll try to reply anyway. The first international all-jet passenger flight from London to Paris on 23 November 1946 ( that was able to fly at altitudes conducive to forming contrails – by the “official” atmospheric standards) was in 1946- a Avro Lancastrian, operated by BSAA.
en.wikipedia.org...
The de Havilland DH 106 Comet was the first production commercial jetliner (your requirement) The Comet 1 prototype first flew on 27 July 1949.
en.wikipedia.org... Sorry.
If my memory serves me correctly, these dates would be after WWII. Your WW2 evidence is inadmissable. Sorry.

But none of these are the chemtrails people are complaining about - long white lines in the sky at high altitude that can expand out into clouds, that come from airliners, that have a gap between them and the engines, etc.
not from airliners, not started in 1950, not for geoengineering, easily detected.....ticks none of the boxes for geoengineering/chemtrails at all!!

What airliner does this kind of ascent?

Geoengineering wouldn't take place at altitudes being seen - it would be in the stratosphere - airliners and contrails are only operating in the lower part of the stratosphere, and that not all the time. The aircraft being seen are not capable of accomplishing effective geoengineering at the sort of altitudes being proposed.

It is very hard to understand what your point is here, or what you are actually trying to argue. First – what altitudes are being seen? What aircraft are being seen? “Official” contrail altitudes? How can you tell? The lower part of the stratosphere is still the stratosphere so this geoengineering you refer to would still be possible – that is going by your logic and words. What do you mean by “effective” engineering….do you still think they can “geoengineer” regardless of the altitude?

There is a distinct frequency of less "chemtrail" reports during the previously documented seasonal lull in summer timeText

And your argument is? Where is this previous documentation you speak of, so far you have provided nothing. Anyway, if you are right on this, then your argument still makes no sense, as there are still reports of chemtrails, regardless of the season.

Text- The rain, snow, dust, hair and blood samples show nothing unusual - dirt literally blows in the wind!

What on earth are you referring to? Please explain what you mean. Provide examples and links to the actual samples you refer to please.

Historical records of aerosol, particulate, atmospheric solar transmission/dimming do not indicate perturbations which would be a sign of ongoing geoengineering. Cities around the world have publically available data on air pollution you can check!

It is common courtesy to provide the information you have referred to so that people can check your claims. Public information I can check – provide it then. And again, your words let your argument down. A perturbation, by definition, is a small change in a physical system – the only definition that could possibly refer to what you are saying. So what do records indicate? Large changes? You say “Ongoing geoengineering” – it does not matter if geoengineering is ongoing or a once off – Chaos theory and the butterfly effect would explain why.

Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable. It teaches us to expect the unexpected. While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions, Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on. These phenomena are often described by fractal mathematics, which captures the infinite complexity of nature. Many natural objects exhibit fractal properties, including landscapes, clouds, trees, organs, rivers etc, and many of the systems in which we live exhibit complex, chaotic behavior. Recognizing the chaotic, fractal nature of our world can give us new insight, power, and wisdom. For example, by understanding the complex, chaotic dynamics of the atmosphere, a balloon pilot can “steer” a balloon to a desired location. By understanding that our ecosystems, our social systems, and our economic systems are interconnected, we can hope to avoid actions which may end up being detrimental to our long-term well-being.
The Butterfly Effect: This effect grants the power to cause a hurricane in China to a butterfly flapping its wings in New Mexico. It may take a very long time, but the connection is real.

fractalfoundation.org...

- Patents are simply ideas and what is described in the patents being touted as evidence of geoengineering do not align with what is being seen and no evidence exists to indicate these patents are in use.Text

Correction…patents begin as ideas. We all have ideas. However, these are not just ideas,they are intellectual property that the inventors have spent significant time and money on. It can take between 24 – 36 months just to approve the patent – that does not include the considerable time and effort spent actually making their idea become a legible, logical working concept. And the cost of the application alone, including maintenance fees if you are actually successful at being granted a patent can be higher than $40,000. That does not include if you want to protect your patent outside of the issuing country – that’s an extra $10,000 PER country.
Now, tell me who on earth would put that much time, effort and money into their brainchild, only to be able to say they hold a patent. Sure, they don’t want to retire and never work again – everyone LOVES working! I bet there are lots of people who have their patent in their wardrobe gathering dust. Not.
www.uspto.gov...

The ice budget argument - contrails contain massively more water than aircraft can actually carry, and water is lighter than any of the proposed substances, so there's no way any aircraft could actually carry enough of anything to make a trail that big in the first place!

Oh dear, where to begin …So you are saying that contrails “contain massively more water than aircraft can actually carry…..so there’s no way any aircraft could actually carry enough of anything to make a trail that big in the first place”- So by your logic, contrails cannot exist as no aircraft could carry the water needed. Correct me if I am wrong with my analysis of your logic.
“Water is lighter than any of the proposed substances”
That all depends on the ratio of the proposed substances as opposed to the ratio of water. Let me put this another way… A kilogram of feathers weighs the same as a kilogram of stone.
Nanomaterials behave vastly different than bulk materials do.Chemical reactivity of materials, as well as their mechanical, optical, electric, and magnetic properties are affected. Aerosol particles surface area to mass have much higher ratios than For example, 1g of standard density material (1000 kg/m3) when divided into 0.1-mmparticles has a surface area of 60 m2. Because of their large specific surface (surface area per gram), aerosols participate actively in many kinds of interaction between gas molecules and liquid or solid particles. This property accounts for many of the special characteristics of nanoparticles. Particles can undergo three kinds of reactions: reactions between com-pounds within a particle, reactions between particles of different chemical composition, and reactions between a particle and one or more chemical species in the surrounding gas phase.
The fraction of the atoms at the surface in nanoparticles is increased compared to microparticles
or bulk material. Compared to microparticles, nanoparticles have a very large surface area and high particle number per unit mass. For example, one carbon microparticle with a diameter of 60 µm has a mass of 0.3 µg and a surface area of 0.01 mm2. The same mass of carbon in nanoparticulate form,
with each particle having a diameter of 60 nm, has a surface area of 11.3 mm2
and consists of 1 billion nanoparticles. The ratio of surface area to volume (or mass) for a particle with a diameter of 60 nm is 1000 times larger than a particle with a diameter of 60 µm. As the
material in nanoparticulate form presents a much larger surface area for chemical reactions,
reactivity is enhanced roughly 1000-fold.
Nanomaterials and nanoparticles:
Sources and toxicity

. The fact that such a large-scale, multi-national operation has been kept secret, despite the fact that hundreds, if not thousands (or tens of thousands) of people would be required to implement such a programme. Contrary to popular belief, the Manhattan project was not kept secret - there were Soviet spies in it - and to the extent that it was kept secret it took wartime, physical isolation, and considerably less social media than exists right now.

I will admit – I must agree with you on this point. The facts are right there for all to find if they decide they want to know. All it takes it looking up in the sky and seeing what is happening above our heads, doing some actual research on scientific processes to understand that what is going on isn’t producing normal contrails. Since you mention the Manhttan project as part of your argument, I believe that the following quotes from a 2011 dissertation about a Manhttan project spin off organisation would be more than appropriate as evidence. It explains exactly how such a program could go on secretly and unopposed by the majority of the public.

From “The Manhattan-Rochester Coalition, research on the health effects of radioactive materials, and tests on vulnerable populations without consent in St. Louis”
Ethical autism is defined as the purposeful reduction, manipulation, or blockage of information inside an organization or group, intended to 1) distort reality 2) minimize awareness of collective illegal or unethical activity 3) create a false sense of security to members of the organization from outside threats due to illegal or unethical activity 4) to stifle opposition, open debate, and ensure conformity to the organizational goals. Ethical autism is a reflection of a systemic problem that allows unethical or criminal behavior within an organization to go unchecked, unchallenged, whereby the significance of events are underestimated or misinterpreted by an internal audience. e. It impairs the ability for those involved, to fully understand or appreciate their contribution towards unethical or illegal actions by the organization.
Similar to ethical autism, social autism also results from particular activities designed to engineer complacency. Targeting external audiences, the intention is to 1) distort reality2) minimize awareness of an entity’s illegal or unethical activity 3) create a false sense of security to the general public in an effort to hide illegal or unethical activity 4) to stifle opposition, open debate, and insure uninterrupted organizational goals in an external audience. A social autism will occur when political, military, and/or economic organizations systematically and purposefully impede meaningful information flow, which manifests as a public misunderstanding of reality and potential danger, and suppression of full and open debate related to particular organizational actions and their effects on society or groups.

gradworks.umi.com...
One small point about The Manhattan Project – why use a code name for a program if, as you say it was not a secret? Soviet SPIES….that’s right…SPIES….were infiltrating it - which means that they were there SPYING on the project as part of their country using ESPIONAGE in order to gather information. America would not have known they were being spied on. If it was publicly known the Soviet Union would not have had to employ such tactics.

The colours seen in some trails can only be made by refraction from ice crystals, and not from a powder. Look up Refraction.

Maybe you need to consult your dictionary again. Refraction is when light bends because of the change in density of the transmission medium - like when you see a spoon in a glass of water bending as it travels first through air then into water. Refraction does not change the light into individual colour spectra, it just bends it. Dispersion is when white light travels through a prism and splits into the colours of the visible spectrum- red, yellow, orange, green, blue, indigo and violet. Each colour represents a distinct wave frequency. A rainbow is essentially white light refracted and dispersed through raindrops from the sun shining behind you. As you chose not to provide pictures of what you are referring to, I can only assume cloud iridescence is what you are talking about.
This is caused by thin clouds of relatively uniform, small, cloud droplets or ice crystals. The irridecence is caused by same process that produces the colours in soap bubbles -diffraction.
Diffraction occurs when a wave of light encounters an obstacle similar in size to the wavelength of the light and bends around it. Clouds that consist of very small water droplets are needed in order to form iridescent clouds. The clouds also need to be extremely thin otherwise the diffracted light is trapped inside the cloud and doesn’t reach our eyes. As different colors of light are bent at different angles we see a series of alternating colors – compare this to seeing the rainbow of colours reflected off of a puddle of oil or soap. I have witnessed an experiment that disproves your argument. An angled mirror was used to reflect sunlight through a clear glass jar filled with water. When adding different components to the water (aluminum powder, silica powder, etc) vastly different color spectrums were observed on the white wall behind the jar. This is a simple experiment that can be repeated by anyone. Refraction indeed.

The gap between engine and trails indicates they are JUST condensing water. Trails of anything else would not have any gap - water has it because it takes a small time to freeze, and until it does so it is invisible water vapour

Yes you are correct – in the case of ACTUAL contrails this is true. However, we are talking about CHEMTRAILS and as such, these facts do not apply. Are you telling me that you have never seen a video of a plane leaving a trail that has no gap between the engine and the trail? Or a photo?
Contrail – 2 engines = 2 trails with said distance between engine and trail

Chemtrail – 2 engines = More than 2 trails with no distance between trail and 2 engines

- Grid patterns are the inevitable result of intersecting routes, and wind.

How would a grid pattern stay a grid pattern if the wind was blowing it – ALL - of the trails in the same direction? Think about it – the sky would be a big smudge of trails instead – not a checkerboard pattern as some people report.

Everything that's been identified as a chemtrail has, IMO, looked, behaved and been generated exactly like a contrail. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the oft repeated idea that "contrails always dissipate quickly"

Everything that you have seen perhaps. You have not possibly seen all chemtrail evidence out there and as such cannot make these claims. There no evidence WHATSOEVER to support your claims. Your opinion means absolutely nothing when we are trying to uncover the truth.

I've been working in civil aviation since 1976 - in various roles to do with aircraft maintenance for airlines including as a mechanic, as a maintenance planner, as a quality assurance engineer, and yes, for a national airworthiness authority.Text

Well, if that doesn’t ring alarm bells for anyone else, I’ll be damned. No conflict of interest here folks…move along ..nothing to see.

taketheredpill

Oh dear, where to begin …So you are saying that contrails “contain massively more water than aircraft can actually carry…..so there’s no way any aircraft could actually carry enough of anything to make a trail that big in the first place”- So by your logic, contrails cannot exist as no aircraft could carry the water needed. Correct me if I am wrong with my analysis of your logic.
“Water is lighter than any of the proposed substances”
That all depends on the ratio of the proposed substances as opposed to the ratio of water. Let me put this another way… A kilogram of feathers weighs the same as a kilogram of stone.
Nanomaterials behave vastly different than bulk materials do.

Yes your analysis is wrong. Virtually all of the water in a contrail is already in the atmosphere.

ciresweb.colorado.edu...


BTW. A kilo of nano particles weighs the same as a kilo of water.

mrthumpy

taketheredpill

Oh dear, where to begin …So you are saying that contrails “contain massively more water than aircraft can actually carry…..so there’s no way any aircraft could actually carry enough of anything to make a trail that big in the first place”- So by your logic, contrails cannot exist as no aircraft could carry the water needed. Correct me if I am wrong with my analysis of your logic.
“Water is lighter than any of the proposed substances”
That all depends on the ratio of the proposed substances as opposed to the ratio of water. Let me put this another way… A kilogram of feathers weighs the same as a kilogram of stone.
Nanomaterials behave vastly different than bulk materials do.

Yes your analysis is wrong. Virtually all of the water in a contrail is already in the atmosphere.

ciresweb.colorado.edu...


BTW. A kilo of nano particles weighs the same as a kilo of water.

But certain chemicals will either attract or repel that water.

taketheredpill

How would a grid pattern stay a grid pattern if the wind was blowing it – ALL - of the trails in the same direction? Think about it – the sky would be a big smudge of trails instead – not a checkerboard pattern as some people report.

Because they're ALL moving with the wind. Think about it - clouds don't become a big smudge do they?

WonderBoi

mrthumpy

taketheredpill

Oh dear, where to begin …So you are saying that contrails “contain massively more water than aircraft can actually carry…..so there’s no way any aircraft could actually carry enough of anything to make a trail that big in the first place”- So by your logic, contrails cannot exist as no aircraft could carry the water needed. Correct me if I am wrong with my analysis of your logic.
“Water is lighter than any of the proposed substances”
That all depends on the ratio of the proposed substances as opposed to the ratio of water. Let me put this another way… A kilogram of feathers weighs the same as a kilogram of stone.
Nanomaterials behave vastly different than bulk materials do.

Yes your analysis is wrong. Virtually all of the water in a contrail is already in the atmosphere.

ciresweb.colorado.edu...


BTW. A kilo of nano particles weighs the same as a kilo of water.

But certain chemicals will either attract or repel that water.

Yes well done. You're getting the hang of this whole 'chemicals' thing aren't you.

taketheredpill

Yes you are correct – in the case of ACTUAL contrails this is true. However, we are talking about CHEMTRAILS and as such, these facts do not apply. Are you telling me that you have never seen a video of a plane leaving a trail that has no gap between the engine and the trail? Or a photo?
Contrail – 2 engines = 2 trails with said distance between engine and trail

Chemtrail – 2 engines = More than 2 trails with no distance between trail and 2 engines

Picture no 2 shows aerodynamic contrails coming from the wings. You could shut the engines down and they would still be produced.

reply to post by mrthumpy

No, but they do change shape as the wind blows them.

reply to post by mrthumpy


I am addressing the fact that contrails are said to be the result of water from the exaust of the planes. So what exactly is it that the water from the atmosphere is condensing onto then?
And yes I know that a kilo of nano particles weighs the same as a kilo of water. You dont want to actually address the rest of my point in how nanoparticles behave in the atmosphere? Why? Did you actually read what comment I was answering? That Aloysius said that the proposed materials weigh more than water? What is your point exactly? Is the information I included too much to get your head around?

taketheredpill
reply to post by mrthumpy

 

I am addressing the fact that contrails are said to be the result of water from the exaust of the planes. So what exactly is it that the water from the atmosphere is condensing onto then?
And yes I know that a kilo of nano particles weighs the same as a kilo of water. You dont want to actually address the rest of my point in how nanoparticles behave in the atmosphere? Why? Did you actually read what comment I was answering? That Aloysius said that the proposed materials weigh more than water? What is your point exactly? Is the information I included too much to get your head around?

edit on 14 1.1414 by taketheredpill because: (no reason given)

They are a result of water from the exhaust but that just gives the water vapour in the atmosphere something to freeze onto increasing the volume of water from the exhaust by x10000 as per my link.

You didn't actually make a point about nonoparticles, you just listed some of their physical properties.

taketheredpill
reply to post by mrthumpy

 

No, but they do change shape as the wind blows them.

As do contrails to a greater or lesser extent depending on wind shear. How often do we hear about contrails spreading out to cover the sky?

taketheredpill

Maybe you need to consult your dictionary again. Refraction is when light bends because of the change in density of the transmission medium - like when you see a spoon in a glass of water bending as it travels first through air then into water. Refraction does not change the light into individual colour spectra, it just bends it. Dispersion is when white light travels through a prism and splits into the colours of the visible spectrum- red, yellow, orange, green, blue, indigo and violet. Each colour represents a distinct wave frequency. A rainbow is essentially white light refracted and dispersed through raindrops from the sun shining behind you. As you chose not to provide pictures of what you are referring to, I can only assume cloud iridescence is what you are talking about.

A prism disperses light because different wavelengths have different refractive indices. The light disperses because the different colours are refracted at different angles.

reply to post by taketheredpill


You seem to be rationally discussing this topic, which is rare.

Do you agree that contrails exist, and can persist given the correct conditions?

If so, do you also understand the fairly recent changes in aircraft engines?

reply to post by taketheredpill


Your other points seem to be being discussed already so, regarding your dismissal of WW2 evidence, whilst you rightly point out the Lancastrian and Comet (there were several others too in that period) your point seems entirely based on the notion that contrails have to be produced by jets.

This is wrong.

Reciprocating engines also produce water in their exhaust and the WW2 trails that most commonly get referred to were produced by B-17 and B-24 bomber formations. The USAAF used to fly much higher with lighter bomb loads than the RAF due to them flying in daytime. If you wish to look it up you will find that a typical raid on Berlin might be flown, at night, by Lancasters carrying 14,000lb of bombs around 12-20,000ft, or in daylight, by B-17's carrying 6,000lb bomb loads at 28,000ft. I have photographed contrails being left at the latter altitude.

There were also the recce flights of types like the Spitfire PR.IX, Junkers Ju-86K and Mosquito PR.XI etc. the operational parameters of these missions are well documented and according to Dr Alfred Price's book The Spitfire Story, the highest interception of the war occurred when a Spitfire mk VII shot down a Ju-86K at over 40,000ft, several thousand feet higher than most airliner flights today even.

spitfire VII info

The Mk VII was a pressurised fighter. It had a more advanced pressurisation system than the Mk VI, using a sliding cockpit canopy, which was more popular than the locked cockpit on the Mk VI. The best high altitude version of the Mk VII was powered by the Merlin 71, and could reach 416mph at 44,000 ft.

www.historyofwar.org...



Nor were these high altitude ops a rarity, Spitfire PR ops followed EVERY bomber raid for example, so proving that jets created contrails after the war, as you did, does NOT dismiss the wartime record at all.

Here is some further information

jazzroc.wordpress.com...

reply to post by taketheredpill

There is a whole branch of science dedicated to geoengineering that includes many different methods.

And yet it doesn't prove chemtrails exist, or that any form of geoengineering is actually being done.

Most of those methods are proposals of how they will work and even those need more research before they will ever be implemented.