If it looks like a contrail…

contrails

How can you tell the difference (answer: you can't)

…it’s probably a chemtrail.

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.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “If it looks like a contrail…

  1. Raymond Collecutt says:

    Yes Clare’s ignorance to science is outstanding. Even when she says “yawn we’ve all ready covered this” and does the copy and paste from a NASA site but then ignores scientific data from weather ballons that record temp and humidity at the height these planes fly that proves that these atmospheric conditions are common.
    These people still can’t get into their head that the temp and humidity at ground level has little to do with the temp and humidity at 10km high.

    And one of the best ones is when you provide photos of Air NZ planes leaving trails they say they are painted to look like normal planes. but provide no proof of this at all.

  2. Mike says:

    I also note that Claire censors comments on her blog now – anything I’ve posted has disappeared in a day – whether obviously debunking, or just asking hard questions.

    Questions like “if clouds can last then why not contrails?”, and “How do you know it is the long lasting contrails that have the chemicals?”, and “Actually that place in Arkansas has had lots of earthquakes for many years – 17,000 in 1982, and scuientists have never known why earthquake swarms start and stop so it is unsurprising that they don’t know what has casued the latest one”.

    Checking her site for quotes out of context is fun….but a bit like shooting fish in a barrel (Mythbusters notwithstanding)

    • Indeed. If you point out a fact or ask a questions that bursts the logical bubble she’s managed to blow up for herself, the comment gets nuked. One of the reasons I started this blog, as I was getting annoyed at losing all that content!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s