Nobody in this forum should be personally attacked for offering an idea for discussion (as long as it’s not blatantly racist or hateful). We can tolerate differing views. And, at the same time, if a claim is made with little or no solid evidence to back it up then there should also be an openness to having that claim challenged (in a non-personalized way).
I believe it’s important to keep an open mind and to be willing to look at evidence offered. And if someone makes a claim about something that is extremely scary (or most might say outlandish) then I also think there is an intellectual burden to provide at least some credible and solid evidence.
I’ve researched the chemtrails issue a fair amount and have yet to find any evidence I consider to be credible, including the shoddy “soil samples” argument that has been roundly discredited. Yet, I’m still willing to keep looking at new information that’s offered up, keeping mindful that sources and methodologies matter.
Thus, I decided to try one of the links offered in an earlier posting on this thread. I chose at random a video link, and since it was an hour-long talk I randomly fast forwarded a bit into the video to check it out. At the spot I landed on the speaker in the video, who appears to have no expertise in the field of atmospherics, was claiming that the difference between condensation vapor trails (contrails) and chemtrails was that contrails evaporate quickly while chemtrails spread out to form thin clouds, and that contrails don’t do that.
You can view this claim starting around the 4:00 mark here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzW5Kb8u0Og
I decided to try to confirm this claim that contrails can’t form cirrus clouds but evaporate quickly and so did a bit of quick research. I soon found that it is universally accepted among atmospheric scientists that jet condensation vapor trails can and often do spread out wide to form a thin layer of clouds.
Among the sources I found was a scientific paper written by Peter Kuhn of the Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry Laboratory at the Environmental Science Services Administration in Boulder, CO and which was published in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, linked here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...O%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Here is an excerpt:
“The spreading out of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent conditions exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet”
And here’s the thing: this scientific paper was written in 1970, long before the issue of chemtrails arose. One can easily find literally hundreds of confirming scientific views on this. The phenomenon has been observed going back to WWII.
So what is one to think? My totally random sampling of the information presented revealed that the speaker in the video has an appalling lack of knowledge and clearly has no idea what she is talking about. Or otherwise is outright lying. I didn’t bother to click on any of the other links or watch the rest of the video as all credibility was instantly lost.
I suppose one can make the argument (and I suppose many do) that all of the hundreds if not thousands of atmospheric scientists who have spent their entire careers studying these things going back many decades are all part of an elaborate Government conspiracy, or have all been coerced by fear to lie. But that is where you loose me.
Condensation vapor trails from jets are clearly having an effect on the atmosphere and could likely be affecting the climate in some way. And there is no argument that there is occasional cloud seeding happening in some regions, and probably a few other occasional experiments of various kinds happening here and there. But that is a long way from what chemtrails proponents are claiming.
If one were to simply say this is my belief but I have no real evidence to back it up, that too is valid and there is no violation of intellectual integrity to be challenged.
There is some irony here in that while this discussion is going on we are openly and brazenly polluting the atmosphere with carbon which is heading us toward the end of civilization as we know it.
In the meantime, I’ll be keeping an open mind.
Scott