If it looks like a contrail…
October 8, 2010 3 Comments
Now, of course, there may be such things as chemtrails, but to distinguish a chemtrail from a contrail (which, given the photographic evidence displayed on various conspiracy websites and youtube), you’d presumably need to do some sort of analysis of the cloud material itself to be able to truly tell one from the other.
A long straight line of ‘cloud’ emanating from a plane could be either, couldn’t it? (There are ‘chembows’ and the like, of course, but we’ll leave those for another day; for the moment let’s just look at our classic long white con/chem trails).
But no. Without fail, any contrail spotted in any form is always labelled a chemtrail.
Here we have Clare Swinney complaining that a recent WordPress theme is using a chemtrail in one of its photographic elements (it’s actually a commonly used wikicommons stock photo that can be found on dozens of sites in a variety of contexts, but the argument here would be that it’s all part of the NWO agenda to make chemtrails seem like a ‘normal’ occurrence). But what marks out the contrails in that photo as chemtrails? Nothing.
Even more hilariously is this interplay between a commenter on the site, and Clare…
Says Raymond, pointing out that persistent contrails (as per previous information posted by Clare) are possible…
Planes taking people somewhere. Just like if you wanted to go see someone in christchurch there is a good chance if the atmosphere supported it(very comon) that your plane could be leaving a nice big contrail right over Roses head and she would think its a chemtrail.
So then your’ve said it yourself the air temp up there would of been about -40 to -50degC and there was moisture in the air so the ice couldn’t just sublime back meaning the contrail was persistent.
Replies Clare (emphasis mine)…
You have implied that the trails were left by planes “taking people somewhere,” yet, as is typical for your statements, there is no evidence to support it. Those, I believe, are chemtrails in that picture.
“No evidence to support it”! Classic. Clare’s belief trumps any other speculation, it would seem. But it gets better, as Clare then states, as part of her argument against the trails shown being contrails:
I don’t know what the temperature was when the photo of the cherry tree was taken.
Surely this is another case “no evidence” then? But Clare doesn’t let such contradictory viewpoints stand in her way. Oh no, if it’s a persistent contrail, whether or not anyone has proof to the otherwise, her belief that it’s a chemtrail is all that’s required to make it so.