Dear ***,
You have a lot of good points and I’ve thought about them much before typing this email. I think the problem in the chemtrail controversy revolves about what people consider as “normal”. I believe that most citizens have come to consider a pencil thin, high altitude contrail as “normal”. “Normal”
as being what most people see on a day to day basis. Moreover, jet contrail physics seems to fit the pencil thin explanation as well the majority of the time. I have taken time to view publications that discuss and explain jet contrails and whenever they discuss them, they use the terms/phrases “high altitude”, “-50 degrees”, “saturation of humidity” and altitudes of” 30,000/40,000 ft”. Most of the documents I’ve seen stay in that pattern. I can’t think of one publication that describes jet contrails as “lasting for hours”, “occurs in dry arid conditions”, “easily seen as jets land at the airport”, or “occurs in real hot climates as well as cold climates”. Finally, from my own observations with 40 plus years of experience, I can say that pencil thin, high altitude contrails fit the “normal” pattern as well. Many times I’d see them at the beach, watch the lonely jet cross the sky and within 10 minutes be gone as well as the trail. Just about anybody you interview without a doubt would agree that pencil thin contrails are “normal”.
However, I do agree that there are rare (non day to day) exceptions. I’ve even read literature on the exceptions. But I wouldn’t consider the exceptions as a normal day to day phenomenon (as observed on the ground) nor would I put them on an equal footing with what people consider the “norm”.
I’d consider it an exception and treat it like an exception. If they were that common, you would see them on TV and the printed page all the time.