HOW can I tell the difference?

when a plane is cruising at 35,000 feet, can you see the markings on it to identify it as military or civilian?

Does the "chemtrail" result after being mixed with the jet fuel, or are there "sprayers", for lack of a better word?

wouldn't you be able to test the internals of the jet motors for traces of such chemicals? How about testing the fuel NOT burned for these chemicals, as there is always fuel left over in the tanks? AND, if so, why hasn't that been done yet?

Enquiring minds need to know.

I never saw ordinary contrails turn into cirrus-like clouds, so if a trail persists and spreads to become a hazy cloud, chances are good it's a "chemtrail"

No, not without some pretty powerful binoculars

however, it is usually possible with ordinary binoculars to make out colour (which usually indicates company colours or a logo on the plane. Most commercial planes are pretty obvious about that.)

How the hell am I supposed to know? I'm not exactly putting the planes under a microscope you know!

the "chemtrail" planes appear to be either (KC?) 135s or 167s.

I never saw ordinary contrails turn into cirrus-like clouds,

outstanding markings? Not really.

No such plane as a 167 (that we know of... mwuahahaha...)

How did you know those were ordinary contrails in the first place? Or that the chemtrails "turning into clouds" weren't actually normal contrails dispersing (normally)?

Being a pilot, answer me this...When you are in the queue to land at an airport, do you not circle it in a fairly wide arc, or do you make straight passes over the middle of the city at 15000 to 25000 feet? If so, why?

I did see one in a holding pattern before going into Pearson International do several circuits over my usual observing spot one night. I'd estimate it wasn't more than that 10,000 feet and likely closer to 5,000 at the time.

You are a pilot.............. you should know the answers to the questions you pose.

your own personal experience does not speak for much regarding building a case for the intentional spraying of toxins on the populace.

don't you think the gov't would be able to complete these nefarious activities in a more invisible fashion?

Is it bad if I am getting to like the spankings?

Am I trying to build such a case?

The spraying of toxins on an innocent populace is a matter of historical record.

All I assert now is that something funny is going on and they're pretty close-lipped about it and trying to lie it away. That alone suggests something evil is going on.

(have you EVER known a government to do anything good?)

Fact 1: Barium and aluminum particulates are being dumped into the atmosphere (based on soil & water testing)

Fact 2: People who ask what's going on are being discounted as conspiracy theorists (a sure sign that a real conspiracy exists, as they are devoting considerable manpower & media influence to promoting the "official" bullsh¡t view.)

Fact 3: Freeman Dyson & Edward Teller both proposed just such a program in using reflective powder compounds as a means of combatting global warming.

(as a point of interest, I pulled this off Wikipedia (so it's probably just some teenager's fantsay anyway. knowing how reliable Wikipedia is, though I imagine we could probably check on the patent.:
"Methods based on increasing the aerosol content in the lower stratosphere for climate modification were proposed by a Russian scientist, Budyko.[19]
United States Patent 5003186 suggested that tiny metal flakes could be "added to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude." Alternative proposals, not known to have been published in peer-reviewed journals, include the addition of silicon compounds to jet fuel to make silicon dioxide particles in the exhaust."

Fact 4: If all they were doing was combatting global warming, they would be dispensing at much higher altitude and they probably would love to take the credit for saving humanity from an oven, so something more sinister is probably going on (Your guess is as good as mine)

Don't you know that the best place to hide something is in plain view?

Interesting. I've been practicing law for 36 years. I think I have a better handle on that than you do.

the fluorescent compound in question was at the time considered almost completely harmless, and has, in fact, never been shown to be otherwise; that is, has never been shown to be a toxin.

you can't demonstrate that "they" are lying about something until you've at least proven that *SOMETHING* is happening in the first place.

Provide a source? Please be sure that source has at least attempted to rule out non-nefarious origins for said barium and aluminum particulates, and quantifies such alleged contamination against commonly-accepted levels of toxicity.

I'm not sure you'll "get" how that applies in the case of "if you don't act like a conspiracy theorist, you probably won't be called one."

Simple denial that something is true does not MAKE it true... Your logic there has become completely defective. If you KNOW something is true and can prove it, then yes, denial does lead one to believe that perhaps there is a nefarious intent, or at least an effort to avoid responsibility on someone's part.

I thought you said something nefarious was afoot, not an attempt to save the world. Stay on target, Skywalker.

Ah yes, the old "If a thing *can* be done, our government *is* doing it TO US FOR AN EVIL REASON" argument

At least you admit this part is just idle speculation on your part.

And the best way to prove a conspiracy is to define any denial as complicity in the conspiracy, and hence, proof the conspiracy exists in the first place.

I have no evidence to present...

if I even had probable cause...

you expect me to prove it to you? Why?

Looks like this argument has backpedalled right out the door.

It should be noted that the contrails are apparently left at about the same altitude

I NEVER observed lingering contrails until the mid-nineties and have observed many lingering ones that turn into cirrus-like clouds since then. Plausible explanation please. Don't say "coincidence" because the probability that it is, is vanishingly small. Something changed around 1995...What might it have been?

How many times do I have to say that I'm merely stating my opinion based on my own observations. I'm NOT trying to prove ANYTHING. I'm only saying that something fishy is going on (and have developed a hypothesis that is apparently consistent with what many people are saying), and unless YOU GUYS can present something more convincing than the usual spiel about how nothing has changed since the nineties (which is in direct contradiction to my observations), I will remain unconvinced.

I NEVER observed lingering contrails until the mid-nineties and have observed many lingering ones that turn into cirrus-like clouds since then. Plausible explanation please. Don't say "coincidence" because the probability that it is, is vanishingly small. Something changed around 1995...What might it have been?

While I live near an airport, never in the past (pre-mid-nineties) have I observed jets flying straight flight paths over central Winnipeg at 15,000 to 25,000 ft., leaving dense contrails, more often than not on clear, or partly cloudy days. The planes usually overfly Winnipeg over the course of a couple of hours, then cease leaving contrails. It should be noted that the contrails are apparently left at about the same altitude (I have seen them "interfere" with one another where they intersect). Why would jets overflying Winnipeg fly so low? If they are taking off or landing, why would their flight path be straight? Why are the jets so quiet? as I've said before, they are flying far below cruising altitude, yet make hardly any jet noise. (I should mention that they appear to be flying in the 300 to 400 mph range) Why do these jets appear to be non-commercial aircraft?

i would not be too surprised to see kc-135, c-130 and other military aircraft flying over the winnepeg area. Minot AFB is just across the border in north dakota.

bombers tactically fly low some times so as not to leave contrails

this would account for why you see contrails at similar altitudes.

In other words you want us to prove that contrails AREN'T chemtrails. Sorry, not how it works. If you have a case to make, make it.

As the photos already provided show, contrails have been around for as long as we've had high altitude flight. I recall seeing contrails well into the '80s

I'm not sure what your point is

I too have seen vortices coming off the tips of wings flying into YYZ. Spray? Not likely. It was in humid air. Go fig.

I've heard jet noise from jet flying high overhead. It just took a while. By the time I heard the sound, the jet was already well past zenith. That's just the way sound propogates

I have a pegasus