How do you get from “geoengineering exists” to “every persistent contrail is a chemtrail”?
We all know geoengineering is a real term and there are papers, plans and small experiments. But none of those involve passenger jets.
When the atmospheric conditions are right I see plenty of long contrails where I live, and with binoculars and FlightRadar24 I can identify them as normal passenger or cargo flights.
Commercial airliners don’t have the tanks, plumbing or weight capacity to spray chemicals on a scale that would leave white plumes from horizon to horizon.
That is a fair question, as you may not have used that precise phrasing.
And to be clear — we’re not talking with our mouths here. We’re writing. We’re posting words, links, videos and articles. When someone drops material into a thread it can mean a few different things: “this is something I stand behind,” or “this is just ammunition to score a point,” or sometimes simply “this looked interesting, maybe food for thought.” It can even be something the poster isn’t sure is true — which is fine, as long as that’s pointed out. Without that kind of commentary, it creates confusion, because readers can’t tell whether it’s being shared as evidence, speculation, or just curiosity. That distinction matters, because it changes how people read and respond.
The question posed by me: "How do you get from 'geoengineering exists' to 'every persistent contrail is a chemtrail'?" — was directed at the core logical implication drawn repeatedly in this discussion: that any observed aircraft trail that lingers, spreads, or behaves differently from your memory is therefore proof of a covert spraying operation (a "chemtrail"), effectively eliminating the possibility of a naturally occurring persistent contrail.
Your and others arguments consistently establish a false dichotomy where long-lasting trails cannot be natural contrails, thus implying that nearly every observation of a persistent trail confirms the chemtrail theory.
Here are a few of your contributions that imply that a persistent contrail is functionally equivalent to a chemtrail in this context:
You have defined persistence as the primary distinguishing factor of chemtrails, thereby asserting that any visible, long-lasting trail is a chemtrail:
2023-12-24 09:46 UTC — “I remember how contrails used to look like … They used to disperse very quickly, not anymore … More subterfuge and deception I suspect.” View Post
2023-12-24 11:00 UTC — “Very much EXCEPTIONS to the rule … SUDDENLY beginning on January 1, 2001, hardly a day goes by that the sky is not filled with them … What I would conclude is that the West i.e. the Goyim are the main target of these chemtrails.” View Post
2023-12-24 11:36 UTC — WWII contrail photos posted with the comment: “these photos … provide evidence that the persistent contrails we see today are NOT normal, that some particulate matter is being injected into the exhaust gasses of the jets to make the contrails persistent.” View Post
2025-01-09 22:17 UTC — When distinguishing between contrails and chemtrails — “Surely contrails exist but they dissipate quickly and don't linger and spread out for hours.” View Post
2024-03-05 15:28 UTC — Calling persistent trails ‘the most obvious chemtrails’ — “For me the one's that last hours ans spread out to block out the sky are the most obvious chemtrails.” View Post
2025-01-10 00:04 UTC — “Some are chemtrailing, others are not.” View Post
2025-01-10 09:16 UTC — “So we are expected to believe there is a pocket of damp air … highly unlikely in this case.” View Post
By defining natural contrails as only those that dissipate quickly and labelling all long-lasting, spreading trails as “obvious chemtrails,” you establish a position that any persistent contrail is a chemical spray. This logical conflation is why I phrased the concluding question as they did.
Meaning the chemtrails nowadays are not what used to be contrails pre-1990’s. I don’t see what you can’t comprehend here…..
If ten aircraft are laying down chemtrails say for arguments sake and they fill the visible sky, yet there are 100 planes passing overhead in the same time period, does that make it ALL planes? No it doesn’t ETC ETC ETC
I understand you’re not saying every plane is spraying.
My point is that your posts define a category where any trail that lingers/spreads = chemtrail.
That’s why I wrote the shorthand “every persistent contrail is a chemtrail” — because under your rule there is no such thing as a persistent contrail that isn’t a chemtrail.
If that’s not your position, what specific criteria besides persistence do you use to tell the difference?
I believe I understand what you’re saying here. Your memory of the skies as proof that persistent contrails didn’t exist before the 1990s, and therefore today’s persistent trails must be chemtrails.
We’ve already gone over this several times in this thread:
Engine design & altitude differences: High-bypass turbofans introduced from the late 1970s onwards produce more water vapour and soot nuclei, making persistent contrails more likely at cruise altitude. Modern jets routinely cruise 33,000–40,000 ft, into layers cold and moist enough to sustain ice crystals. Older traffic was lower and rarer. View Post (cybe, 2024-01-02 05:58 UTC)
Humidity layers & patchiness: You posted forecast maps and explained how contrails persist only in ice-supersaturated layers that are invisible from the ground. View Post (cybe, 2024-01-10 18:10 UTC)
Traffic volume: Global scheduled passenger flights grew from about 9 million in 1970 to over 38 million by 2019. More planes at high altitude = more contrails.
When those factors combine, persistent contrails can fill the sky even with a minority of planes leaving them. That’s why your memory of “no persistent contrails pre-1990s” isn’t reliable proof of chemtrails today.
There are also additional factors that make persistent contrails more common now than in earlier decades: (I need to double check these)
Upper-air climate change. Ice-supersaturated layers — the thin, cold, moist bands where contrails persist — have become more frequent over northern flight corridors since the 1970s. That means conditions that sustain contrails occur more often today.
(Bock & Burkhardt 2019, Atmos. Chem. Phys.doi link)
Fuel chemistry. ̶M̶o̶d̶e̶r̶n̶ ̶j̶e̶t̶ ̶f̶u̶e̶l̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶h̶i̶g̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶r̶o̶m̶a̶t̶i̶c̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶e̶n̶t̶, which produces more soot nuclei. Experiments with sustainable aviation fuels (low aromatics) show contrails with fewer ice crystals.
(Voigt et al. 2021, Atmos. Chem. Phys.link)
Exhaust particulates. High-bypass turbofans emit more microscopic soot than older engines, and these particles act as condensation nuclei for ice crystals.
(Zhou et al. 2024, Environ. Sci. Technol.link)
Traffic density. Even if only a minority of flights generate persistent contrails, heavy overlap on major air routes creates sheets of cirrus-like cloud. The climate impact of contrails is dominated by that small fraction.
(Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2024: link)
All of this adds to the simpler explanations you’ve already been shown (engine design, cruise altitude, traffic volume). It undercuts the idea that a change in personal memory between “before 1990” and “after 2000” can serve as proof of a global spraying program.
Psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator
The act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage
By definition, gaslighting means trying to manipulate someone over time so they doubt their own memories or reality for the manipulator’s advantage. Gaslighting tries to break someone’s grasp on reality by dishonest, lying, malicious ways.
Do you really believe that’s what I’m doing here?
I’m disagreeing with your interpretation and posting what I believe is evidence and historical examples. I understand that one might feel confused or unsettled when a strong belief is questioned (a reaction known as cognitive dissonance), but that isn’t the same as an attempt to manipulate you.
If you think a specific point I made is false, please show why, but don’t just label it. Pointing to WWII photos, flight statistics and published studies isn’t psychological manipulation.
Gaslighting is a dishonest attempt to make someone doubt their own mind for manipulative reasons. I’m not trying to make you doubt your memory. I also remember much less airtraffic back before the year 2000 and don't remember noticing very persitent contrails before that. Some, though.
I’m pointing out that memory alone isn’t proof when there are photos, data and studies showing persistent contrails long before the 1990s. That’s evidence, not manipulation.
The film Gaslight came out in 1944 - before both our times. Using “sonny” as an age jab serves no real purpose here, pops. And this human body isn’t exactly a young lamb anymore. I also happen to have quite a collection of old films.
I don't believe that the idea that all old photos, films, books and studies have been “manipulated” to add contrails isn’t very plausible.
Movies, photographs and printed material exist in thousands of independent copies, held by collectors, libraries and archives all over the world. If someone were retroactively adding “chemtrails” to decades of footage or illustrations, the differences between prints, negatives, releases and editions would be obvious and widely documented by film buffs, archivists and historians.
In discussions such as these the topic might not even be the main issue so much as how we interact.
If this forum is to be a place for people who value truth, and if we hope to be an exemplary People, then our communication should be honorable and clear, without guile, dishonesty or willful ignorance. The effort should be to increase understanding, not confusion; to bring clarity, not strife.
They manipulate studies all the time, Big Pharma is a prime example of this. Science isn’t a God…..In very recent memory the very same powers that be that would back up your claims on chemtrails were claiming Covid-19 Vaccines were safe and effective, this was all governments worldwide, and they still won’t admit the massive damage that has been done, neither will they in the future, its what they do and how they are…..
You’ve singled out “studies,” but that’s only one slice of it. I believe there’s a huge body of science explaining persistent contrails, along with historical photos, books and independent records. The probability that all of that , across decades, archives, and countries was faked is extremely low.
The exact same “two planes, one with a long, persistant spreading trail and one without” argument has already been covered in this thread.
Are the planes really at the same altitude?
How exactly is one able to determine that? What margin of error do you think is acceptable — 100 m, 500 m, 1 000 m?
From a ground-level video where each aircraft is only about 20 pixels across, how precisely can one know their true size, type and altitude?
Detailed calculation
At typical cruise altitudes a 737-sized plane (about 35–40 m wingspan) only spans 0.2° of sky — which shows up as maybe 15–20 pixels across on a phone or small camera.
At 10 km altitude, a 40 m plane appears about 0.23°.
At 8 km altitude, the same plane would appear about 0.29°.
That’s a change of only a few pixels. From the ground, you cannot tell whether a blurry 20-pixel blob is at 8 km or 12 km, or whether it’s a 737 or an A330.
Meanwhile: the layers in which contrails persist can be just a few hundred metres thick. A vertical separation of 500–1 000 m — invisible from the ground — is enough to put one plane inside the layer and another outside it, flipping contrails on or off.
Conclusion: From such a video it’s impossible to determine altitude or aircraft type with useful precision, while even small altitude differences can explain why one trail persists and another vanishes.
Even a difference of a few hundred metres vertically can put one plane inside an ice-supersaturated layer and the other outside it, which completely changes contrail behaviour.
