Mind-reading. You haven't a clue why I'm posting what I'm posting, but that's okay.
Then why not enlighten us? Because all you've done so far is try and find loop-holes in common sense.
Just because I haven't got solid proof of anything doesn't mean I'm not a scientist.
You're right. It's your attitude to the educated responses of others that means you're not a scientist.
To clarify: Scientists
do try and investigate things. I'm sure you're trying to tell us that this is what you're doing. Asking questions, being scientific.
What they don't generally do is investigate things and then dismiss anything that doesn't fit with their own views. You've brought up the "chemicals in fuel" thing over and over, despite being explained, chemical-by-chemical in some cases, which ones work and which ones don't. And by people who work with, or fly, aircraft, on why you can't just bung a tank of chemicals in a big aircraft without someone noticing.
Dismissing all of that isn't "science", it's conspiracy lunacy.
Hey, you just admitted that I admitted that I'd made a mistake. What exactly was my mistake?
>
I asked if it was a chem-trail. Information given by some of the more informed of you, has ascertained that it pretty much looks like water vapour coming of the wing-things(technical term).
Despite the fact you're trying to dress up the original post as an innocent question on whether something was a chemtrail or not (the rest of your posts give away that it isn't, since you're insistent on trying to find ways that it
could be a chemtrail, ignoring all the other evidence), you've had to concede that it was water vapour, as it has been all along.
Of course, I'm sure you still secretly think it's probably chemtrails anyway, so evidence to the contrary provided here probably won't make a blind bit of difference.
First part is an assumption/opinion, not a proof.
True. But it baffles me why some people think it's easier for tens of thousands of people to maintain a conspiracy than it is for just one of those people to whistle-blow and blow the whole thing wide open.
Edward Snowden shows that whistle-blowers like that do exist. And they do come out when they think something is wrong. The law of averages suggests the whistle should have been blown long ago, and any chemtrail conspiracy would have been widely exposed by now.
Proof of chemtrails isn't in the absence of the conspiracy's discovery.
Second part relies on scientists who a)looking for relevent data b)would be prepared to stand up and say it's happening, a bit like the spanish inquisition.
Err... those scientists are called meteorologists, and
thousands of them are
constantly monitoring the behaviour and composition of the atmosphere. It's arguably one of the single biggest and widest-reaching scientific genres we study...
And again, you think that none of those thousands of scientists would have stood up by now? This isn't the middle ages, we don't lynch scientists for saying things that don't fit with our world view (though responses to AGW make me wonder).
)
