Chemtrails at rezn8d.com

It seems as though you present mostly accurate information on that site regarding research into persistent contrails (and their potential effect on climate), geoengineering proposals, etc. - but then you inexplicably title it "chemtrails". Most of that page does not appear to be about chemtrails.

One gets the impression that the page is trying to legitimize the "chemtrails" idea by associating it with real science regarding the effects of persistent contrails - and just brushing over the fact that nowhere does it provide evidence that there is an ongoing program such as that claimed by chemtrails believers. In this way, it's much like the "Case Orange" report.
 
What Belfrey said. It seems like just an overview of the "chemtrails lite" talking points. There's nothing there that really suggests deliberate high-altitude spraying is currently going on.

Anyway, if you want some feedback, you might want to be more specific with your questions.
 
The "chemtrail forecast" page sits under the NWS water vapor charts. Any person who possesses any basic knowledge of contrail formation and a modicum of common sense will realize the bogus connection. My feedback, if you are truly intent on attempting to perpetuate this hoax, don't put those two charts in juxtaposition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems as though you present mostly accurate information on that site regarding research into persistent contrails (and their potential effect on climate), geoengineering proposals, etc. - but then you inexplicably title it "chemtrails". Most of that page does not appear to be about chemtrails.

One gets the impression that the page is trying to legitimize the "chemtrails" idea by associating it with real science regarding the effects of persistent contrails - and just brushing over the fact that nowhere does it provide evidence that there is an ongoing program such as that claimed by chemtrails believers. In this way, it's much like the "Case Orange" report.

Chemtrails are persistent contrails, because when conspiracy junkies point at them and freak out over the wrong reason, I still say they should point at them and freak out. I understand that a typical perception manager would simply change a couple of words in his press release, and magically his problems go away because people are distracted by side points.

In much the same fashion, nobody is talking about the pollution and acid rain produced by the chemical soup we call air. I understand that contrails/chemical exhaust trails are only a small fraction of airborne pollutants, and I'm willing to bet those "I have aluminum and barium in my blood" cowboys are probably living near a filty manufacturing plant or a missile range.

Nonetheless, we all know what normal persistent contrails are. This however cannot explain some of the crazy ass formation sprayings caught on video repeatedly. Just as a casual observer, here in South Carolina, I can say for certain that on days that were forecasted to be sunny or partly cloudy, the continuous flights overhead always blank out the sky if there is a water body overhead. Whenever there's a tropospheric river overhead, the persistent contrails/chemtrails block out the sun.

There's something new to the mix, that wasn't there before. I imagine it's an additive in the fuel, put there to kill bacteria growing in the gas tanks. I have watched the sky since I was a little boy, and I know my South Carolina sky intimately. I spent many years in Boy Scouts staring, then in ROTC doing that year of weather while everyone was in PE. I know that what I am seeing is a chemical soup that blocks my view of the stars at night. The "Evaluating the Impacts of Aviation on Climate Change" shows it best, just outta curiosity, is Csoot also known as Carbon Black?

I've never heard of Case Orange, I am relatively new to all this, will have to check that out.

And I also find it fascinatingly ironic that both Geoengineering SRM and Operational Defenses through Weather Control in 2030 intend to:
create localized fog or stratus cloud formations shielding critical assets against attack from energy based weapons. The future of nanotechnology will enable creation of stratus cloud formations to defeat DEW and optically targeted attacks on United Sates assets.
In the future they'll have diamond covered balloons to make these cloud walls, until then, they have HAARP, MIRAGE, and ..... planes laying down cover?
None of you can say for certain what the military is or isn't doing.

This is from Space Systems Negation 2007
A variety of US and USSR/Russian programs during the Cold War and into the 1990s sought to develop ground-based ASAT weapons employing conventional, nuclear, and directed energy capabilities. Both states successfully ground and air-based missile ASATs on their own satellites. The capability to launch a payload into space to coincide with the passage of a satellite in orbit is a basic requirement for conventional satellite negation systems. Twenty eight states have demonstrated suborbital launch capability; of those, 10 have orbital launch capability. Most states have directed energy capabilities able to laser dazzle sensitive optical satellite sensors. Over 30 states have access to high power laser systems that form one key ingredient to blind satellite sensors or even heat to kill a satellite. The US leads in the development of more advanced ground-based kinetic-kill systems with the capability to directly attack satellites. It has deployed components for a ground-based ballistic missile defense system and is developing an airborne laser system, both of which have inherent
LEO satellite negation capabilities.

2006: Advances in ionosphere reconfiguration
The US Air Force is funding a project that seeks to use plasma to reconfigure a part of the
ionosphere.
1
The modified ionosphere would have different radio frequency properties,
selectively blocking out radio transmission in an area while the surrounding areas are
unaffected. The Microwave Ionosphere Reconfiguration Ground based Emitter (MIRAGE)
project would employ microwave transmitters on the ground and a small rocket to dispense
chaff into the air at an altitude of 60-100 km.
2
About one litre of plasma is generated by the
microwave-chaff interaction, changing the number of electrons in that portion of the
ionosphere. The first phase of Mirage was recently completed by Research Support
Instruments
3
. Atmosphere modification may used as a method to conduct ground based
negation. As it would not directly interfere with satellite communication, this type of
disruption would be difficult to detect by conventional means or to distinguish from a
normal atmospheric event.

So many ripples in the clouds, so many debunking, so many pointing and wondering. The writing is on the wall in my book.

So is it completely implausible that occasionally people are seeing the military laying down chaff so they can light it up with a baby HAARP?
Cause that's what MIRAGE is, a baby HAARP.

And I also know about the rockets at Poker Flats and how they use them with HAARP. You guys also know about the CARE project.
So how is it completely implausible that people are seeing military space systems negation? They did it in Iraq, you think they wouldn't do it here if there was a "Real Genius" type laser floating overhead every so often. If that hasn't happened yet, the days are few I can assure you.

So to come full circle.... normal commerical airliner "no agenda attached" chemtrails are bad because they block out the sun, cause acid rain, and generally suck. The military is bad because they like fog dispersal for when they need a comm link, MIRAGE's artificial ionospheric mirrors, and cirrus cover for space systems negation, and I'm almost certain we are just seeing the beginning of this.
 
The "chemtrail forecast" page sits under the NWS water vapor charts. Any person who possesses any basic knowledge of contrail formation and a modicum of common sense will realize the bogus connection. My feedback, if you are truly intent on attempting to perpetuate this hoax, don't put those two charts in juxtaposition.

I stand by the comparison, today they look identical. Where the river is, there be chemtails! lol
 
I think you should use some of the images provided here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1007-Useful-Chemtrail-Debunking-Images-and-Infographics

And you might consider changing the font. For some reason on my older xp machine it looks all smeary:
resinsmear.JPG

I think you are trying to salvage something of your site. Got off on the wrong track.Sorry bout that.

No worries Jay, I figured in time you guys would see I'm really just out for the truth. Thanks for the link, and that looks horrible... apparently your background is missing. I'll change the CSS and lose the shiny stuff =) thx for that too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chemtrails are persistent contrails, because when conspiracy junkies point at them and freak out over the wrong reason, I still say they should point at them and freak out. I understand that a typical perception manager would simply change a couple of words in his press release, and magically his problems go away because people are distracted by side points.
[...]

Nonetheless, we all know what normal persistent contrails are. This however cannot explain some of the crazy ass formation sprayings caught on video repeatedly.
[...]
So to come full circle.... normal commerical airliner "no agenda attached" chemtrails are bad because they block out the sun, cause acid rain, and generally suck.

I'm going to come right out and say that I think it's dishonest to take the term "chemtrails" and use it as if it's interchangeable with "persistent contrails". There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about aircraft pollution, including the possible effects of persistent contrails in particular. But those reasons bear absolutely no connection to the claims that are being made about "chemtrails".

Regarding the bolded sentence above, specifically what "crazy ass formation sprayings" are you referring to, that you think can't be explained by contrail persistence and ordinary air traffic?
 
I'm going to come right out and say that I think it's dishonest to take the term "chemtrails" and use it as if it's interchangeable with "persistent contrails". There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about aircraft pollution, including the possible effects of persistent contrails in particular. But those reasons bear absolutely no connection to the claims that are being made about "chemtrails".

Regarding the bolded sentence above, specifically what "crazy ass formation sprayings" are you referring to, that you think can't be explained by contrail persistence and ordinary air traffic?
There was that NLE in colorado http://www.infowars.com/martial-law-drill-commences-as-economy-begins-descent/

I got first hand calls from friends in the area about the crosshatch patterns (multiple tic tac toe patters) and saw a few videos confirming it. May have been a military campaign associated with the NLE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB8qSmGn6UI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-6P64YYDwM

Neither of these videos are the right one.... the one im talking about showed the eastern sky at sunset, and a massive grid pattern unlike any I've ever seen. But again, that is all speculation...
 
There was that NLE in colorado http://www.infowars.com/martial-law-drill-commences-as-economy-begins-descent/

I got first hand calls from friends in the area about the crosshatch patterns (multiple tic tac toe patters) and saw a few videos confirming it. May have been a military campaign associated with the NLE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB8qSmGn6UI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-6P64YYDwM

Neither of these videos are the right one.... the one im talking about showed the eastern sky at sunset, and a massive grid pattern unlike any I've ever seen. But again, that is all speculation...

I'm not familiar with the abbreviation "NLE", and the video in the first link has been removed. Grid patterns do happen, but they are inevitable with ordinary persistent contrails given the huge volume of commercial air traffic in the sky. Even when planes are regularly traveling along the exact same paths, the fact that the trails are carried by wind at altitude causes "grid" patterns. See http://contrailscience.com/contrail-simulations/ for a simulation that Mick created to demonstrate this.
 
Yes, it is dishonest to equate chemtrails with persistent contrails. That was the genesis of the hoax and always will be.

I suppose that we see so many god-awful chemtrail sites, seeing one that interposes a few factual scribblings along with 50% bunk is looking good these days. That is about where your site is, rezn8d. A half-bunked page.

The bottom line is that if there were no persistent contrails, there would be no chemtrails.
 
I stand by the comparison, today they look identical. Where the river is, there be chemtails! lol

They look identical because one is based on the other. That's where the "chemtrail forecast" comes from. It's just a rough prediction of contrail formation based on the water vapor charts.
 
Jim, can you be very specific, and point to something that YOU think cannot simply be persistent contrails?
 
Yes, it is dishonest to equate chemtrails with persistent contrails. That was the genesis of the hoax and always will be.

I suppose that we see so many god-awful chemtrail sites, seeing one that interposes a few factual scribblings along with 50% bunk is looking good these days. That is about where your site is, rezn8d. A half-bunked page.

The bottom line is that if there were no persistent contrails, there would be no chemtrails.

exactly, so you agree, they are one and the same.

words are so powerful aren't they
 
I'm not familiar with the abbreviation "NLE", and the video in the first link has been removed. Grid patterns do happen, but they are inevitable with ordinary persistent contrails given the huge volume of commercial air traffic in the sky. Even when planes are regularly traveling along the exact same paths, the fact that the trails are carried by wind at altitude causes "grid" patterns. See http://contrailscience.com/contrail-simulations/ for a simulation that Mick created to demonstrate this.

NLE is a National Level Exercise, or continuity of government practice where they do large scale drills each year to assure they gov can function with loss of systems, poor communication, etc. This one in particular was called Operation Mountain Garden, in Denver Colorado last year in September.

And I am fully aware of the fact that the only reason you see an X in the sky is because two flights crossed each other. My 3D tracker on climateviewer shows more accurate flight paths than Mick's map, and can be overlaid with MODIS so you can see the accumulation of contrails in heavy traffic corridors (I call em Chemtrail Highways)
 
They look identical because one is based on the other. That's where the "chemtrail forecast" comes from. It's just a rough prediction of contrail formation based on the water vapor charts.

Agreed, I learned that on your site, so I put in on there to show people the truth.
 
Jim, can you be very specific, and point to something that YOU think cannot simply be persistent contrails?

This sure isn't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJHPe1uUSgE
I'm not cool with disease vector spraying, aka "Skeeter bashin" sessions.
Same guys at WPAFB still spray Agent Orange like chems to clear fields to this day.


I've also seen planes that appear to be running rope chaff, I live near an AFB in South Carolina.
3. Explanation of Terms. Terms used in this regulation are explained as follows:
a. Surface ECM. All types of electronic
jamming, deception, or chaff dispensing done by
ground-based or shipboard equipment.
b. In-flight ECM: All types of electronic
jamming, deception, or chaff dispensing done by
aircraft or other vehicles in flight.
c. Small Scale ECM Mission. In-flight ECM
done by a single aircraft or by two to six
aircraft working as a unit.
d. Large Scale ECM Mission. In-flight ECM
done by seven or more aircraft working as a
unit.
e. Chaff. Strips of frequency-cut metal
foil, wire, or metalized glass fiber used to
reflect echoes for confusion purposes. It is
usually dropped from aircraft or expelled from
shells or rockets as a radar countermeasure.
f. Rope. An element of chaff consisting of
a long roll of metallic foil or wire designed
for broad, low-frequency response.
g. Rope Chaff. Chaff that contains one or
more rope elements.
h. Big Photo. An unclassified general call
sign for aircraft performing in-flight ECM.
(Big Photo is used by civilian contractors
during in-flight ECM when operating under
provisions of paragraph 2c).
i. Ground Photo. An unclassified general
call sign for ground radar stations
intentionally engaged in in-flight ECM.
j. Buzzer. An unclassified brevity code
word. It stands for electronic jamming or
deception by ECM.
k. Stream. An unclassified brevity code
word. It stands for chaff drops at short
intervals. These appear on a radar scope as a
continuous line of interference.
l. Burst. An unclassified brevity code
word. It stands for chaff drops at sufficiently
long enough intervals so they appear on a radar
scope as individual target returns. (For
purposes of this regulation, Burst is further
explained as single chaff drops of not more than
3 seconds spaced not less than 90 seconds apart,
with no more than four bursts in a 40 nautical
mile (NM) radius of other chaff drops.)

This paper describes who NOT to tell when performing ECM over the CONUS. Another red flag imo.

Just because it isn't on you YouTube or the internet doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Understand I fully believe that 99% of contrails are just normal pollution.

PS. MICK I freakin loved Tony Hawk, why oh why give up the gaming life for this?
 
exactly, so you agree, they are one and the same.

words are so powerful aren't they

But YOU are misusing words Jim. You deliberately misinterpret what Jay was saying.

Clarity is what is important in debunking. Don't try to twist words to "win" arguments on semantic points. Say clearly what you think is going on.

Contrails are not "chemtrails". To suggest that is to invent you own meanings for words, and to create your own little walled garden of meaning. If you try to communicate with your own personal meaning of words, a meaning which you KNOW is not shared, then you will not be communicating. You will just be muddying the water.
 
This sure isn't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJHPe1uUSgE
I'm not cool with disease vector spraying, aka "Skeeter bashin" sessions.
Same guys at WPAFB still spray Agent Orange like chems to clear fields to this day.

Again you seem just to be wanting to apply the "chemtrail" label to ordinary things. Why not simply call them what they are?

The word "chemtrail" has a very specific meaning to most people who use it. That is NOT crop dusting, or chaff, or insect abatement, or firefighting - it's those long white trails high in the sky - deliberate and covert high altitude spraying that leaves trails.
 
This sure isn't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJHPe1uUSgE
I'm not cool with disease vector spraying, aka "Skeeter bashin" sessions.
Same guys at WPAFB still spray Agent Orange like chems to clear fields to this day.


I've also seen planes that appear to be running rope chaff, I live near an AFB in South Carolina.

Neither of which are what "chemtrails" are claimed to be. You are falsely conflating the term with all sorts of things in a way that is very misleading. Why would you do that, if you are "out for the truth"?
 
exactly, so you agree, they are one and the same.

words are so powerful aren't they

Don't lie about what I said Jim.
I don't agree.
Lies are weakening, not powerful.
Lies are used by weak people and are only effective to trick weak people.
Lies are chains which bind those who use them into ever-tighter restrictions.
Lies thus work to further weaken those who use them and the victim.
The user of lies must always come back to the lie because unless they do they will contradict themselves.
If questioned, the liar will have to forever bend his answers to suit the lie previously told.
He will be forced into further and further contortions of logic and fact, which lead farther and farther away from the truth.

That is what we see as Jim tries to maintain his lying website to accomodate the chemtrails hoax.

Sad to see you writhe and wiggle in the slime Jim, as the chains of your lies contort everything you say.
 
And I am fully aware of the fact that the only reason you see an X in the sky is because two flights crossed each other. My 3D tracker on climateviewer shows more accurate flight paths than Mick's map, and can be overlaid with MODIS so you can see the accumulation of contrails in heavy traffic corridors (I call em Chemtrail Highways)

Why do you call them "chemtrail highways" when you know they are only contrails?
 
I would say because he wants to ride on the coat tails of Murphy, Tanner, Carnicom, Icke, and all the rest by capitalizing on the power of that word while attempting to garner some respectability by allying with the mainstream science view of the contrail phenomenon.

I find his posturing somewhat repugnant.
 
I would say because he wants to ride on the coat tails of Murphy, Tanner, Carnicom, Icke, and all the rest by capitalizing on the power of that word while attempting to garner some respectability by allying with the mainstream science view of the contrail phenomenon.

I find his posturing somewhat repugnant.

yet effective...

I find it highly ironic that what seems to be occurring here is that none of what is posted on the page can be debunked, you just take offense to my verbiage.

I also find it appalling that you all seem to be just A OK with never discussing the effects of contrails on flora and fauna while attacking anyone that claims to have seem a chemtrail.

I will add a note mentioning the fact that I included the images because the chemtrail map is based on vapor and IR maps, nothing more, and will link that to Mick's site.

Nonetheless, the word stays and I stand be it. Here's why:

Unlike you guys, I just started researching this crap a year or so ago. And I wasn't clued into all the global depop crap till I started to google chemtrails. When effectively trying to spread a message, keywords are important. That's what Google's robots hunt for, and unfortunately for you guys, people googling persistent contrails already know WTF is going on. I intend to not only dispel people's myths about chemtrails, but show them why they are bad anyways.

If all you got is your repulsion at my choice of word, get over it, everything there is fact.
 
Again you seem just to be wanting to apply the "chemtrail" label to ordinary things. Why not simply call them what they are?

The word "chemtrail" has a very specific meaning to most people who use it. That is NOT crop dusting, or chaff, or insect abatement, or firefighting - it's those long white trails high in the sky - deliberate and covert high altitude spraying that leaves trails.

and notice how those are not on my page =)
 
Why do you call them "chemtrail highways" when you know they are only contrails?

because they are places where many planes fly the same route creating a chemical cloudy mess

Like in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons "Stinking Cloud"
=)
 
yet effective...

I find it highly ironic that what seems to be occurring here is that none of what is posted on the page can be debunked, you just take offense to my verbiage.

I also find it appalling that you all seem to be just A OK with never discussing the effects of contrails on flora and fauna while attacking anyone that claims to have seem a chemtrail.

I will add a note mentioning the fact that I included the images because the chemtrail map is based on vapor and IR maps, nothing more, and will link that to Mick's site.

Nonetheless, the word stays and I stand be it. Here's why:

Unlike you guys, I just started researching this crap a year or so ago. And I wasn't clued into all the global depop crap till I started to google chemtrails. When effectively trying to spread a message, keywords are important. That's what Google's robots hunt for, and unfortunately for you guys, people googling persistent contrails already know WTF is going on. I intend to not only dispel people's myths about chemtrails, but show them why they are bad anyways.

If all you got is your repulsion at my choice of word, get over it, everything there is fact.

But that's not the way it will be used by "chemtrails" believers. Look up Case Orange, it's very similar to your page in that it goes into the legitimate research regarding persistent contrails, essentially admits that there is no direct evidence for "chemtrails" and then refers to the "Owning the Weather in 2025" document to suggest that the government would like to do something like "chemtrails" (and by implication, probably is doing so).

One would think that believers would not use such a document, which actually refutes their main premise (that contrails can't persist). But just the opposite is true - they point to Case Orange quite regularly, as a "scientific paper" (which it isn't, either) that supports their claims! When I pointed this out to Harold Saive, for example, he simply said that I must have misread it!
 
Nonetheless, the word stays and I stand be it. Here's why:

Unlike you guys, I just started researching this crap a year or so ago. And I wasn't clued into all the global depop crap till I started to google chemtrails. When effectively trying to spread a message, keywords are important. That's what Google's robots hunt for, and unfortunately for you guys, people googling persistent contrails already know WTF is going on. I intend to not only dispel people's myths about chemtrails, but show them why they are bad anyways.

If all you got is your repulsion at my choice of word, get over it, everything there is fact.

Is it fair to say you're trying to change the perception of the word 'chemtrail' amongst the advocates of the various theories connected to it?
 
because they are places where many planes fly the same route creating a chemical cloudy mess

But that is just contrails - chemtrails are purportedly something other than contrails.

It seems to me for someone who says "words are powerful" you are free and easy with their accuracy in this case.

Like in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons "Stinking Cloud"
=)

This is a game to you??
 
because they are places where many planes fly the same route creating a chemical cloudy mess


The visible part of the "chemical cloudy mess" is ICE crystals. Any actual nucleating soot or carbon dioxide, nitrogen compound pollutants are not visible so what you are referring to is actually ICE.

If you want to be HONEST and logically consistent you should refer to ALL cirrus clouds and any form of ice cloud (or snow of any kind for that matter) because the nucleating particles necessary for them to form are not visible from the ground.

You have to choose.
When planes fly and DON'T leave contrails they leave EXACTLY THE SAME amount of pollutants. On takeoff, even more.

So the only thing that distinguishes between clear blue sky air routes and the contrail sky filled air routes is the WATER CONDENSATION.

So the only visible "chemical" you are referring to is the WATER, most of which was ALREADY in the sky from natural processes and sources

To be logically consistent and honest you have to call ice clouds, ALL clouds, snow, lakes and oceans "chemically cloudy messes" .
 
When effectively trying to spread a message, keywords are important. That's what Google's robots hunt for, and unfortunately for you guys, people googling persistent contrails already know WTF is going on. I intend to not only dispel people's myths about chemtrails, but show them why they are bad anyways.

Why dont you write something like "so called Chemtrails" at some points - Google will find the popular word and your opinion is obviosly.
 
Unlike you guys, I just started researching this crap a year or so ago. And I wasn't clued into all the global depop crap till I started to google chemtrails. When effectively trying to spread a message, keywords are important. That's what Google's robots hunt for, and unfortunately for you guys, people googling persistent contrails already know WTF is going on. I intend to not only dispel people's myths about chemtrails, but show them why they are bad anyways.

So why not put a big "chemtrails are just persistent contrails" at the top of your page?

And, what "depop crap"?
 
The visible part of the "chemical cloudy mess" is ICE crystals. Any actual nucleating soot or carbon dioxide, nitrogen compound pollutants are not visible so what you are referring to is actually ICE.

When planes fly and DON'T leave contrails they leave EXACTLY THE SAME amount of pollutants. On takeoff, even more.

Oops.

Excellent point.

"Oh! what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive!"
 
When effectively trying to spread a message, keywords are important. That's what Google's robots hunt for, and unfortunately for you guys, people googling persistent contrails already know WTF is going on.

Additional to the "use the word"-Discussion.

If you think you just have to use the word "Chemtrails" often enogth to get a good place by google. Sorry. That is wrong.

Google has a "ranking". Every Website gets a score between 0 and 10. The higher
the score, the higher is the website listened by google. The most important factor is recipation by other websites. If a important website with a strong google-rank has a link to your site, your Google-Rank will getting higher. If you are linked from a lot of sites with very low google-ranking, your site will also get a lower rank.

You don´t get a better place in google just by repeating "Chemtrails" a thousand times on your site. You have to link your site bothways with important sites. Thats the key!
 
So why not put a big "chemtrails are just persistent contrails" at the top of your page?

And, what "depop crap"?

I can do that, and the paranoid delusion theory that they chemtrails are part of some depopulation agenda by the NWO.

Funny thing is, did any of them consider the NWO is United Nations?
 
The visible part of the "chemical cloudy mess" is ICE crystals. Any actual nucleating soot or carbon dioxide, nitrogen compound pollutants are not visible so what you are referring to is actually ICE.

If you want to be HONEST and logically consistent you should refer to ALL cirrus clouds and any form of ice cloud (or snow of any kind for that matter) because the nucleating particles necessary for them to form are not visible from the ground.

You have to choose.
When planes fly and DON'T leave contrails they leave EXACTLY THE SAME amount of pollutants. On takeoff, even more.

So the only thing that distinguishes between clear blue sky air routes and the contrail sky filled air routes is the WATER CONDENSATION.

So the only visible "chemical" you are referring to is the WATER, most of which was ALREADY in the sky from natural processes and sources

To be logically consistent and honest you have to call ice clouds, ALL clouds, snow, lakes and oceans "chemically cloudy messes" .

I fully agree with you. However, the chemtrails are the visible part, and average Americans are clueless; if they can't see it it didn't happen. So the chemtrails are posterboys. And everyone knows that climate change is real, even if global warming isn't. We have to raise awareness of the effects of pollution on biota, there is a huge audience who think they are bad, and essentially are correct. In addition you have all the military evidence of intent.

And zero laws to protect us.
 
Back
Top