[smart]

Chemtrails are imaginary " highly dispersed aerosols.".

Only in your disillusionary world.

[Bored chemist]

Chemtrails are imaginary " highly dispersed aerosols.".

Only in your disillusionary world.

So, still no actual evidence then?
Let us know if anything changes.

[smart]

The truth is incontrovertible.

Look up "incontrovertible" in a dictionary.

[smart]

Do you believe I hallucinated this?

[Bored chemist]

I know what the word means- it means beyond dispute.
Whereas the evidence you have supplied is non existent.
There's a big difference.
I remind you that you earlier on in this thread pointed out that there's a difference between contrails (as in that picture) and chemtrails (as in the figment of your imagination).


So, no actual evidence. Why don't you go away and not come back until you have some evidence?

[smart]

I remind you that you earlier on in this thread pointed out that there's a difference between contrails (as in that picture) and chemtrails (as in the figment of your imagination).

This is not a contrail. Educate yourself or stop spreading disinformation. This picture was taken by me as a photographic evidence of clandestine geoengineering activity.

[smart]

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00139/full

[Bored chemist]

I remind you that you earlier on in this thread pointed out that there's a difference between contrails (as in that picture) and chemtrails (as in the figment of your imagination).

This is not a contrail. Educate yourself or stop spreading disinformation. This picture was taken by me as a photographic evidence of clandestine geoengineering activity.

And there is no way to distinguish it from a picture of a contrail (you already demonstrated that earlier) and thus it is not evidence of the existence of chemtrails.
Stop calling the truth "disinformation".
The link you posted says this
"This article has been retracted. Please follow the link to the full retraction notice for details."
So it's obviously not evidence either.
However, one of the comments on it speaks volumes
"On 4-9-2015, after the retraction of Herndon's paper in IJPREH, I sent him and the IJPREH editor citations of previous research showing that the elements he was finding in rainwater were historically found in comparable amounts by numerous studies (ie. Warneck, 1999), some dating back to Antarctic ice cores 183 years old. Herndon was made aware of the ordinary components of tropospheric aerosols yet again ignored them in this paper. Anyone wishing to see that correspondence may ask me for a copy. So, my esteemed alumnus Dr. Herndon did not neglect this out of ignorance but rather by will."
It shows that your hero is wilfully ignoring the fact that dust inthe air looked pretty much the same 183 years ago and that's certainly not man-made "chemtrails".

So the person on whose reports you base your claim is known not to tell the truth.


Why don't you go away and stay away unless you can actually find evidence.

[smart]

And there is no way to distinguish it from a picture of a contrail (you already demonstrated that earlier) and thus it is not evidence of the existence of chemtrails.

No. You're making the wrong assertion that I cannot distinguish a real cirrus cloud from a chemtrail. This photographic evidence clearly demonstrate that a plane is releasing aerosols which will alter cloud composition. 

[Bored chemist]

There is no way to tell these "chemtrails" from contrails. They look identical.
Even you got muddled (go back + check- you will see that I pointed out why you were wrong- it's do do with being able to see the end of something that you claim "persists".)

If you say that you can tell- it's very simple- all you have to do is explain how.
Until then once again, you have no evidence.

[smart]

There is no way to tell these "chemtrails" from contrails. They look identical.
Even you got muddled (go back + check- you will see that I pointed out why you were wrong- it's do do with being able to see the end of something that you claim "persists".)

If you say that you can tell- it's very simple- all you have to do is explain how.
Until then once again, you have no evidence.

1. A water vapor contrail don't look identical to a chemtrail.
2. The retraction have zero scientific value.
3. Contrails don't create artificial clouds.

[Bored chemist]

1 If you say that you can tell- it's very simple- all you have to do is explain how.

2 Yes it does-particularly when it's backed up by a clear reason; the fact that the same elements have been found in old ice cores.

3 Nobody said they did.

Still got no evidence h\ve you?

[smart]

1 If you say that you can tell- it's very simple- all you have to do is explain how.

A contrail is invisible. It doesn't create a (persistent) thick white plume. The thick white plume is caused by condensation of the aerosol.

2 Yes it does-particularly when it's backed up by a clear reason; the fact that the same elements have been found in old ice cores.

Sadly I don't find the link to support this hypothesis.

[jeffreyH]

Au contraire monsieur.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

Why not try being a grown up and stop all this nonsense.

[smart]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

This proves nothing except the possible implications of Wikipedia in the public deception of clandestine geoengineering activity. Nothing new here. We all know Wikipedia neutrality is contestable.

[jeffreyH]

So everyone is plotting? That makes it a conspiracy with hundreds if not thousands of participants. No wonder they were able to keep it secret! Your logic is faultless hooray! We have a hero in our midst.

[smart]

So everyone is plotting? That makes it a conspiracy with hundreds if not thousands of participants. No wonder they were able to keep it secret! Your logic is faultless hooray! We have a hero in our midst.

No. It just means a minority of people are implicated in this illegal criminal activity. Your logic is distressfull.

[Bored chemist]

1 If you say that you can tell- it's very simple- all you have to do is explain how.

A contrail is invisible. It doesn't create a (persistent) thick white plume. The thick white plume is caused by condensation of the aerosol.

Seriously?
You think a condensation trail (i.e. a con trail) isn't caused by condensation.
The thick white plume is an aerosol.
You don't even seem to know what the words mean.

[smart]

Seriously?
You think a condensation trail (i.e. a con trail) isn't caused by condensation.
The thick white plume is an aerosol.
You don't even seem to know what the words mean.

Nice disinformation. I never said a contrail wasn't caused by condensation. I said that an aerosol could creates the "thick white plume". Contrails don't create artificial clouds.

[Bored chemist]

A contrail is invisible.

Ok so people decided- "I know- we can (for no valid reason) start putting coal ash into the wake of aircraft, people won't notice because it will look just like something that's invisible."

And "It doesn't create a (persistent) thick white plume. The thick white plume is caused by condensation of the aerosol. "
OK, so what you are saying is that the chemtrail is thick + white and caused by condensation.
How do you explain (in much the same way I described above) how that would be anything other than "pretty damned obvious"?

Your whole "you can tell them apart by looking" idea falls flat at that point.

You said chemtrails are persistent- yet you labelled something that's clearly not persistent (you could see the start + end) as being a chemtrail.

None of your story makes sense.
If chemtrails don't look like contrails then people would have spotted them when they first appeared.
Nobody did.
If, on other hand, they do look the same then there's no way you can claim from a photograph that something is a chemtrail.

You have yet to come up with a sensible reason for them.
if "THEY" wanted to increase cloud cover it would be easy- just cut back on inspections of sulphur  dioxide removal equipment in power stations.
Cheap simple and effective.
You have yet to show the "nozzles" you talked about .
You don't understand that coal ash in air is inevitable given that there are damned great chimneys whose job is to disperse things like coal ash into the air. You also fail to understand that coal ash doesn't look very different from run-of-the-mill dirt.
You haven'e explained how they get the dust into the planes, nor have you explained why nobody ever sees the storage tanks for this stuff- it would be pretty characteristic since it would need to be a powder delivery system and blanketed by dry gas.
You don't even seem to understand that con trails are caused by condensation which leaves trails of white foggy looking stuff- and you don't even know what an aerosol is.

In summary- as I said before-
Go away, and don't come back unless you have some evidence.