What are your credentials for saying anything? I presented mine: 3 degrees in aeronautics & astronautics, 40 years in aerospace engineering at Boeing, and participation in top level program management reviews for commercial airplanes. I've seen these aircraft in states of assembly (no chemtrail equipment). I was also part of a research team that was trying to solve the problem of detecting clear-air turbulence (wake downdrafts) in a useful format. I actually suggested using ammonia as a marking agent (chemtrail) for wake detection, but it was too problematic. Because you have nothing specific to allege, I deduce that you have no education or experience in this field and are speaking mainly from videos you have viewed or websites you have read.
The science is under my belt. It is simple condensation of water vapor. Contrails are clouds. There is a vast variety among clouds, in case you haven't noticed. Observation is science, in case you are not aware.
Science would indeed be the detection of the physical evidence. I have outlined what it would take. So, get busy. You haven't any evidence. All you have is speculation and paranoia. There are no chemtrails. And while there may be lies about various things, there are no lies about chemtrails. The rest of us are awake. You are languishing in a self-inflicted nightmare. You talk about proving things with science, but you are simply ignorant. You don't like being called ignorant?---show that you know something.
You don't know much. System engineering integrates all the design functions of an airplane. Credentials matter to separate those who understand the science and methodology from those who don't. Gas physics, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, atmospheric science...they are all under my belt. You continue to have no credentials. You don't say how old you are, so you are probably lacking experience. Here I mention that I have dealt with the possibility of designing a "chemtrail," and you want to say I don't know anything?
My view of a "tiny area"? Have you ever seen the aircraft plant in Everett, Washington? Bold talk for someone who is nowhere close to the action. Has an aerial lab sampled anything? I doubt that any such activity would ever be approved by the FAA, as it would require violation of the flight separation requirements. No evidence. Are you sure you aren't sampling meteoric dust? About 14 tons deposit on Earth every day. Same composition as your malignant materials. We do have aircraft that "sniff" for radioactive isotopes to detect nuclear detonations...but I don't think they are being used for "chemtrail" detection.
I assume you are referring to the hoax footage about the ballast system on a developmental airplane? Somebody is playing you like a fiddle. I've already viewed these BS videos of hoax expose, and a complete ignorance of contrails. Evidently, you can't do better than that.
Cloud cover? Where do you live? As a native of Puget Sound, I think I am an expert on cloud cover. We have plenty of it. And nothing is harmed thereby. We have verdant growth that requires constant maintenance to keep from overwhelming houses and property. Contrails have no effect on the received sunlight, compared to normal weather.
And you can't even be concerned about the real chemtrails from rocket exhaust. I think it is quite funny that I have to be the one to inform you about that. I give you something real...but not part of your narrative. You don't want to touch it. So much for your aspirations to be a scientist.
Your academic background has little to do with atmospheric science. Mine was all about it, and gas physics, and disequilibrium chemistry. So, it actually proves something. This is not to disparage your career, which is commendable.
I have always used my eyes and ears to learn---including observing contrails for about 65 years. No cognitive dissonance. I have been learning all my life, including contrary positions in the fields of cosmology and geophysics.
What is to believe? I only saw a hoax video that purported to show chemtrail equipment in an airliner. I saw no sample effort---and I reiterate my doubt that any such thing took place, because it would have violated air traffic separation requirements. And what was the chain of custody? Nothing easier than to go through the motions and provide a doctored sample.
I got maybe 5 minutes into the video, but it really is BS. It points to aerial condensation phenomena and declares it to be sprayed trails, when they are simply natural phenomena that I have seen in flight myself. What they don't seem to understand is that the trail does not form if the condensation does not happen, and the condensation is contingent on air temperature and humidity conditions. If the air is dry enough, the vapor will not condense. You see this effect in the formation of lenticular clouds from air moving up over a mountain and down again. The condensation comes from combustion of hydrocarbons and the production of water vapor. It has nothing to do with whether the engine is piston, jet, or turbofan. It's as possible from a turbofan as from anything. The fuel is burned, and turns into carbon dioxide and water vapor.
"Global dimming" is nonsense. Did you notice that in all the photos of the contrails, they were brighter than the background sky? It simply isn't happening. I live where there are plenty of clouds and in my lifetime there hasn't been a change.
The opening figures quoted as saying contrails are somehow impossible are complete ignoramuses. Showing something and declaring it to be a chemtrail is not an argument from evidence; it is dogma. These people are leaping to conclusions, and I don't have 2 hours to waste listening to their confirmation bias and paranoid fantasies.
Earth is flat and space is fake? Now you have shown your colors. More impossible fantasy. As I have remarked elsewhere and previously, we have been circumnavigating the globe on the oceans since Magellan, and in the air since Lindbergh, and in space since Gagarin. You may be interested to know that we cannot survey land as though it were flat. At large enough distances, the grid fails to remain orthogonal. The survey grids need to be adjusted to compensate for the convexity of the spherical Earth. What you need is a good trip around the Earth in a space capsule---but if you have any observational smarts, a lengthy airplane trip would be sufficient. You do know we have research bases near the south pole? No wall of ice. Plenty of traffic into and out of Antarctica.
The difference between us is that I understand the problems of a flat vs. a spherical Earth and can spell them out. You don't understand them at all. Every flat-earther I've run across is incapable of spelling out a single critical truth that only could be true if the Earth were flat. Just long, boring videos dripping with ignorance and smugness. You are the one faced with cognitive dissonance. You have put your brain into a bag in order to deny the world that is all around us. At some point the bag will tear and you will see for yourself. And then you will realize what a fool you have been.
What are your credentials for saying anything? I presented mine: 3 degrees in aeronautics & astronautics, 40 years in aerospace engineering at Boeing, and participation in top level program management reviews for commercial airplanes. I've seen these aircraft in states of assembly (no chemtrail equipment). I was also part of a research team that was trying to solve the problem of detecting clear-air turbulence (wake downdrafts) in a useful format. I actually suggested using ammonia as a marking agent (chemtrail) for wake detection, but it was too problematic. Because you have nothing specific to allege, I deduce that you have no education or experience in this field and are speaking mainly from videos you have viewed or websites you have read.
The science is under my belt. It is simple condensation of water vapor. Contrails are clouds. There is a vast variety among clouds, in case you haven't noticed. Observation is science, in case you are not aware.
Science would indeed be the detection of the physical evidence. I have outlined what it would take. So, get busy. You haven't any evidence. All you have is speculation and paranoia. There are no chemtrails. And while there may be lies about various things, there are no lies about chemtrails. The rest of us are awake. You are languishing in a self-inflicted nightmare. You talk about proving things with science, but you are simply ignorant. You don't like being called ignorant?---show that you know something.
You don't know much. System engineering integrates all the design functions of an airplane. Credentials matter to separate those who understand the science and methodology from those who don't. Gas physics, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, atmospheric science...they are all under my belt. You continue to have no credentials. You don't say how old you are, so you are probably lacking experience. Here I mention that I have dealt with the possibility of designing a "chemtrail," and you want to say I don't know anything?
My view of a "tiny area"? Have you ever seen the aircraft plant in Everett, Washington? Bold talk for someone who is nowhere close to the action. Has an aerial lab sampled anything? I doubt that any such activity would ever be approved by the FAA, as it would require violation of the flight separation requirements. No evidence. Are you sure you aren't sampling meteoric dust? About 14 tons deposit on Earth every day. Same composition as your malignant materials. We do have aircraft that "sniff" for radioactive isotopes to detect nuclear detonations...but I don't think they are being used for "chemtrail" detection.
I assume you are referring to the hoax footage about the ballast system on a developmental airplane? Somebody is playing you like a fiddle. I've already viewed these BS videos of hoax expose, and a complete ignorance of contrails. Evidently, you can't do better than that.
Cloud cover? Where do you live? As a native of Puget Sound, I think I am an expert on cloud cover. We have plenty of it. And nothing is harmed thereby. We have verdant growth that requires constant maintenance to keep from overwhelming houses and property. Contrails have no effect on the received sunlight, compared to normal weather.
And you can't even be concerned about the real chemtrails from rocket exhaust. I think it is quite funny that I have to be the one to inform you about that. I give you something real...but not part of your narrative. You don't want to touch it. So much for your aspirations to be a scientist.
Your academic background has little to do with atmospheric science. Mine was all about it, and gas physics, and disequilibrium chemistry. So, it actually proves something. This is not to disparage your career, which is commendable.
I have always used my eyes and ears to learn---including observing contrails for about 65 years. No cognitive dissonance. I have been learning all my life, including contrary positions in the fields of cosmology and geophysics.
What is to believe? I only saw a hoax video that purported to show chemtrail equipment in an airliner. I saw no sample effort---and I reiterate my doubt that any such thing took place, because it would have violated air traffic separation requirements. And what was the chain of custody? Nothing easier than to go through the motions and provide a doctored sample.
I got maybe 5 minutes into the video, but it really is BS. It points to aerial condensation phenomena and declares it to be sprayed trails, when they are simply natural phenomena that I have seen in flight myself. What they don't seem to understand is that the trail does not form if the condensation does not happen, and the condensation is contingent on air temperature and humidity conditions. If the air is dry enough, the vapor will not condense. You see this effect in the formation of lenticular clouds from air moving up over a mountain and down again. The condensation comes from combustion of hydrocarbons and the production of water vapor. It has nothing to do with whether the engine is piston, jet, or turbofan. It's as possible from a turbofan as from anything. The fuel is burned, and turns into carbon dioxide and water vapor.
"Global dimming" is nonsense. Did you notice that in all the photos of the contrails, they were brighter than the background sky? It simply isn't happening. I live where there are plenty of clouds and in my lifetime there hasn't been a change.
The opening figures quoted as saying contrails are somehow impossible are complete ignoramuses. Showing something and declaring it to be a chemtrail is not an argument from evidence; it is dogma. These people are leaping to conclusions, and I don't have 2 hours to waste listening to their confirmation bias and paranoid fantasies.
Earth is flat and space is fake? Now you have shown your colors. More impossible fantasy. As I have remarked elsewhere and previously, we have been circumnavigating the globe on the oceans since Magellan, and in the air since Lindbergh, and in space since Gagarin. You may be interested to know that we cannot survey land as though it were flat. At large enough distances, the grid fails to remain orthogonal. The survey grids need to be adjusted to compensate for the convexity of the spherical Earth. What you need is a good trip around the Earth in a space capsule---but if you have any observational smarts, a lengthy airplane trip would be sufficient. You do know we have research bases near the south pole? No wall of ice. Plenty of traffic into and out of Antarctica.
The difference between us is that I understand the problems of a flat vs. a spherical Earth and can spell them out. You don't understand them at all. Every flat-earther I've run across is incapable of spelling out a single critical truth that only could be true if the Earth were flat. Just long, boring videos dripping with ignorance and smugness. You are the one faced with cognitive dissonance. You have put your brain into a bag in order to deny the world that is all around us. At some point the bag will tear and you will see for yourself. And then you will realize what a fool you have been.