1) The authority argument is used to grab the attention of anyone researching this topic and take advantage of our indoctrinated education systems where we all pretty much learned early to defer to the opinions of authorities rather than to our inner authority when it comes to drawing conclusions for ourselves. It makes the person saying it (Mick) sound more credible on an unconscious level.
2) No one is respecting Kristen's request to stop the public discussion and to defer the conversation to email which suggests 'perhaps' that the debunkers here are more interested in attempting to make her look 'un-credible' publicly using 'tricks of the trade' rather than actually listening to what she has to say from her 'on-the-ground' perspective and experience.
3) The word 'believe' is used in association with 'chemtrails' which imposes the image to researchers ignorant of the topic to unconsciously see this possible phenomenon as something that is 'believed' rather than a possible reality. It draws the conclusion that they are not 'real' before allowing researchers to draw their own conclusions AFTER the cases are heard.
4) "Smoking gun" piece of evidence is quoted and yet the parameters of what would qualify as "smoking gun" evidence have not been defined. I'm sure on her last day with the AF they allowed her to make some copies of important documents on her way out, right? The military hasn't exactly been open regarding transparency and file sharing. What exactly constitutes as smoking gun evidence? These expectations need to be defined PRIOR to eliciting a response. Otherwise, it suggests an attempt to see if she will just come back with evidence you can easily categorize into 'hear-say' and 'anecdotal' decreasing the perception of her credibility to an average researcher who know may interpret you as the 'authority' to whom to listen and her as someone with a bunch of debunk-able ideas and no actual documents from her old AF computer.
Just sayin...
