That's not a logical argument, you realize. You can't speculate the method and defeat it with reason, that's a strawman argument.
How do you respond to the people who have sampled air in an aerial lab, and shown way more than condensated atmosphere.
Assuming you've actually done the research for debate on this topic and know why people "believe" in chemtrails. Or do you still think it's some country bumpkin theory for people that don't understand physics or chemistry?
Speculating the method of how they deceive or achieve or estimating their motives or budgets is not logical. It's fun, sure. But speculative. Evidence is all we need.
That's not a logical argument, you realize. You can't speculate the method and defeat it with reason, that's a strawman argument.
How do you respond to the people who have sampled air in an aerial lab, and shown way more than condensated atmosphere.
Assuming you've actually done the research for debate on this topic and know why people "believe" in chemtrails. Or do you still think it's some country bumpkin theory for people that don't understand physics or chemistry?
Speculating the method of how they deceive or achieve or estimating their motives or budgets is not logical. It's fun, sure. But speculative. Evidence is all we need.