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.
Look, I used to believe in ChemTrails by default just like I used to believe "Democrats want democracy" long ago.
But when I got recently challenged, I decided to dig into it, and the more I dug the more I realised its all based on "gaslighting" and getting a bunch of influencers to keep using that word.
I said it already - we are being poisoned in every direction. But the one word used to describe it is a red herring. Go figure.
If you are still skeptical, go and do your own digging. Take it as a project to convince yourself one way or another.
What do you mean the actual books? I told you I know persistent trails have been seen since before jets so I think that covers it. Your point is actually that your sources don't mention that persistent trails are historically rarer than non-persistent therefore it's bullshit? That's funny.
The annual-mean global coverage of line-shaped contrails is small (about 0.1% for the year 2002); however, regional coverage can be much higher (about 2% in the United States and Europe) over active air traffic areas
2% is not "rare". Its consistent with the fact that as number of flights increase we will start noticing them more and more often. Your data. You are the one who deferred to NASA on this.
So, the onus is on you to now prove that the "persistent contrails" are different from the non persistent and contains nefarious chemicals.
If your entire belief of chemtrails revolves around the reduction in rarity of persistent contrails, I would suggest you re-evaluate that belief system.
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.
Dang, Tucker should have YOU on his show!
Case closed! No more questions folks! Look over here ALIENS!
Look, I used to believe in ChemTrails by default just like I used to believe "Democrats want democracy" long ago.
But when I got recently challenged, I decided to dig into it, and the more I dug the more I realised its all based on "gaslighting" and getting a bunch of influencers to keep using that word.
I said it already - we are being poisoned in every direction. But the one word used to describe it is a red herring. Go figure.
If you are still skeptical, go and do your own digging. Take it as a project to convince yourself one way or another.
What do you mean the actual books? I told you I know persistent trails have been seen since before jets so I think that covers it. Your point is actually that your sources don't mention that persistent trails are historically rarer than non-persistent therefore it's bullshit? That's funny.
I think you did not read my comment fully. Here is the point you missed:
And I guess its too much trouble for a chemtrail warrior to find the supposed data from NASA that you rely on in your argument.
So, I did it for you.
Here is the paper abstract from NASA
Here is the full paper
2% is not "rare". Its consistent with the fact that as number of flights increase we will start noticing them more and more often. Your data. You are the one who deferred to NASA on this.
So, the onus is on you to now prove that the "persistent contrails" are different from the non persistent and contains nefarious chemicals.
If your entire belief of chemtrails revolves around the reduction in rarity of persistent contrails, I would suggest you re-evaluate that belief system.