got your logic but you don't have the experience of a gardner and a sailor and many who look to the sky daily.
How do you know that I (or others here), do not
have the experience of....looking at skies daily ?
I am a professional painter of clouds.
I look at the sky daily.
I look at clouds daily.
I photograph clouds often.
I "need" to look and study the skies often, so that my cloud/sky paintings look realistic.
You have claimed a few times, "I know what I see, and I am right"
My avatar icon here (the eyeball) seems to be the opposite of your claim.
My claim is....I see, but I don't "know" what I see, without more investigation. In other words, I see things, but I truly don't know what I am seeing....until I do more investigation.
That is why I turn to books, history, and science. And I learn from people who have >> read more books, and know more history and science than me.
I "can" learn from seeing (observation), but usually there is more information that helps further explain my observations. I don't simply look at something, then come to a personal conclusion....and stop there.
There is always more to learn, besides "what I see".
Example....(simple and silly, but valid)
I could "see" two dogs humping, then weeks later "see" baby dogs. After witnessing this several times, I could personally conclude that "humping = babies". That's fine, but there are exceptions.....when my simple conclusion fails to "hold true".
-- why could the baby dogs not look like the mother/father dogs ?
-- was the female dog already pregnant from a different male dog ?
-- what if there are no baby dogs after months ? (was the female dog "fixed/spayed" ?)
-- if a dog humps a rabbit.....why don't I see "half-dog-half-rabbits" ?
In your case.....I'll ask this....
-- have you seen jet trails in the sky, and NO storm followed, days after the trails ? (I certainly have seen this, in fact it's quite common).