Okay, now we are getting somewhere concrete. Roughly when (what decade) do you think these nefarious trails that dont evaporate within seconds first started showing up?
I'm trying to let you know I understand persistent trails have been around since before the jet age. Notice I said the old fashion kind Almost always were non-persistent. There is an old nasa study that spells it out that persistent trails are rarer than non-persistent. All I am saying is after 1998 Persistent trails became ubiquitous. They went from see em once in a great while, not every day, not every week to see them every day, all day by the dozens if not hundreds. While Non-persistent trails did not go up much by the way.
Notice I said the old fashion kind Almost always were non-persistent.
See, this is thee kind of word games people play with themselves to make themselves believe whatever they want.
I already showed you, in that 3 min clip, bunch of books where they had captured what you would call "chemtrails" as far back as 50s and even documented short and long lingering contrails. None of them mention anything about how rare one is compared to another.
So if they existed then (even if its very rare according to you), then its not a "different kind of trail" but the same trail in different atmospheric conditions. This is following your own logic.
If you want to claim causation beyond atmospheric condition, then the onus is on you to provide some evidence beyond "I remember the times when they were not this frequent".
If this is the sole reason for believing in "chemtrails" then that belief does not belong here and you can take it to conspiracies.win.
I will say what I have seen and that's about it as far as 'claims.' Do you know what the Appleman chart is? It tells you the specific conditions under which the different types of contrails will or will not be possible. Nasa said non-persistent trails were rare and persistent trails were rarer still in their study on contrails. I have not had a link to that info for a long time but they definitely stated it. All anyone would have to know is the temp and humidity relative to ice in the flight path and check it against the appleman chart to predict the outcome.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere concrete. Roughly when (what decade) do you think these nefarious trails that dont evaporate within seconds first started showing up?
I'm trying to let you know I understand persistent trails have been around since before the jet age. Notice I said the old fashion kind Almost always were non-persistent. There is an old nasa study that spells it out that persistent trails are rarer than non-persistent. All I am saying is after 1998 Persistent trails became ubiquitous. They went from see em once in a great while, not every day, not every week to see them every day, all day by the dozens if not hundreds. While Non-persistent trails did not go up much by the way.
See, this is thee kind of word games people play with themselves to make themselves believe whatever they want.
I already showed you, in that 3 min clip, bunch of books where they had captured what you would call "chemtrails" as far back as 50s and even documented short and long lingering contrails. None of them mention anything about how rare one is compared to another.
So if they existed then (even if its very rare according to you), then its not a "different kind of trail" but the same trail in different atmospheric conditions. This is following your own logic.
If you want to claim causation beyond atmospheric condition, then the onus is on you to provide some evidence beyond "I remember the times when they were not this frequent".
If this is the sole reason for believing in "chemtrails" then that belief does not belong here and you can take it to conspiracies.win.
I will say what I have seen and that's about it as far as 'claims.' Do you know what the Appleman chart is? It tells you the specific conditions under which the different types of contrails will or will not be possible. Nasa said non-persistent trails were rare and persistent trails were rarer still in their study on contrails. I have not had a link to that info for a long time but they definitely stated it. All anyone would have to know is the temp and humidity relative to ice in the flight path and check it against the appleman chart to predict the outcome.
Okay, when you find this study then we can discuss this discussion.
I, on. the other hand, found you the actual books, publication dates and photos, so at this point the supposed Nasa claims mean really nothing.