Survey suggests no chemtrails

[Merc14]

A survey of 77 atmospheric scientists on whether chemtrails exist or not resulted in 76 of 77 saying absolutely no evidence of chemtrails.  he authors said they aren't trying to influence believers as that probably isn't possible but did want to have a scientific document that people who were on the fence could refer to.  http://earthsky.org/earth/atmospheric-scientists-say-no-chemtrails

More interesting is info that new, more efficient jet engines actually produce more contrails than older les efficient engines.  The new engines burn more of the combustibles inside the engine thereby creating cooler exhaust and therefore contrails over a larger range of atmospheric temperatures.  Below is an Airbus A340 conning while flying right next to an old 707 which is not producing contrails.

[ChrLzs]

And these folks were trying to help dispel the myth????  Good Grief.

I've now read most of that 'study', and it is pathetic.  In fact how they managed to convince the participants to be involved in such an amateurish effort astounds me..

I'm still struggling to find exactly where they decided that 1 out of those 77 DID think there was a conspiracy, but mentioning that and not expecting the chemtrail believers to latch onto it, is naïve.  Just to quote some of the dreck in the study - they asked ridiculous questions, asked the respondents to self-assess, and even quoted tinfoil websites and asked for comments, from which they created pie charts...

Here's a few notable quotes from the actual study - note that they selected their chosen experts on the basis of name matching on Google searches for cited studies on "contrails" and then on ‘atmospheric deposition’ AND (‘aluminum’ OR ‘barium’ OR ‘strontium’), thus ensuring they gained the attention of those familiar with the chemtrail conspiracy...:

Quote

49 experts completed the contrail survey and 28 completed the atmospheric deposition survey—a response rate of 29% and 15%, respectively. The lower response rate for deposition may have in part been due to the wider breadth of knowledge covered in the survey leading more people to disqualify themselves as experts. All invited experts were informed that the survey would be confidential.

Nice to know that we'll never know who was number 77, the one who believes chemtrailing is real...

Quote

The surveys asked the two groups of experts to assess data that have been presented on websites as evidence of SLAP. In both surveys, the first question asked was: ‘Have you, in your work or personal life, ever come across evidence that you think indicates the existence of a Secret Large-scale Atmospheric spraying Program?’ Participants could choose either yes or no, or write in their own response.

In other words, give your opinion, even if you are not an expert in the other field (esp contrails) on whether these sites present anything that makes you think twice...  Yep, real science at work there.  And in the same style:

Quote

Our contrail survey consisted of four pictures taken from SLAP websites that have been cited as evidence of a SLAP. In each case, the experts were first asked whether they thought the most parsimonious (i.e. simplest) explanation involved a SLAP.

Objection - speculation, your honour!

Then the 'experts' were asked to comment on a collection/sampling method suggested by another crackpot site, where samples were gathered in jars... (not addressing the simple fact that anything sprayed from 30Kft will land nowhere near where the contrails were laid...)  More opinions were sought, resulting in bickering:
 

Quote

 

We also asked experts to evaluate the advice of one SLAP website on how non-specialists can collect samples...

{The advice read)The very bottom of the pond is where the elements stack up. Turn your jar upside down and get the mouth to the bottom of the pond or still water - the older the pond the higher the readings. Turn the jar over and collect both the water and a LITTLE of the bottom sediment. {end}
Twenty of the deposition experts (71%) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the instructions, with 17 (61%) explaining that collecting the ‘bottom sediment’ would contaminate the water sample ... The remaining eight respondents (29%) were neutral; no expert said they agreed with the instructions. As stated by one expert: ‘The non-specialist is instructed to add sediments to the water which will not give an accurate measurement of metal concentrations in surface water itself..."

 

I mean seriously????  This is meant to be useful discussion?

And then I finally found the bit about the one scientist with doubts - check it out (my emphasis), and note that they are talking about photocopies of chemical analysis sheets that were forwarded to the respondents, without full details of exact location, local industries etc:

Quote

The second sample showed the concentrations of elements in a sample of airborne particulates taken in May 2008 in Phoenix, Arizona ... The results appear to show concentrations of all three elements far beyond their maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) {see below} ...
One expert .. said the results may be evidence of a SLAP—the same expert who said s/he had previously come across high levels of atmospheric barium. Twenty-five experts .. rejected the results as evidence of SLAP, while two did not know or were unsure. When asked to write in their interpretation, 12 experts said they wanted more data first, such as atmospheric conditions and proximity to industry. Four experts .. said the concentrations were average or typical. As stated by one expert: ‘The concentrations per unit mass look like average soil or desert dust. The MCL values are not relevant, and look to be based on drinking water standards’. The MCL values used were indeed based on drinking water, and not airborne particulates. 

????????   Gee, that last bit is a bit important, doncha think, guys?  Call me flabbergasted...

 

I reckon this idiotic study will just regenerate the debate, which was gradually dying away, imo....  Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Vorg]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

A survey of 77 atmospheric scientists on whether chemtrails exist or not resulted in 76 of 77 saying absolutely no evidence of chemtrails.  he authors said they aren't trying to influence believers as that probably isn't possible but did want to have a scientific document that people who were on the fence could refer to.  http://earthsky.org/earth/atmospheric-scientists-say-no-chemtrails

More interesting is info that new, more efficient jet engines actually produce more contrails than older les efficient engines.  The new engines burn more of the combustibles inside the engine thereby creating cooler exhaust and therefore contrails over a larger range of atmospheric temperatures.  Below is an Airbus A340 conning while flying right next to an old 707 which is not producing contrails.

That photo speaks volumes.

[ChrLzs]

8 hours ago, South Alabam said:

That photo speaks volumes.

Did you read the text above it?  Would you care to explain what you mean?

[pbarosso]

what flabbergasts me is that people believe that chem trails do exist... but wait they kid of do.

plane engines burn hydrocarbons. which releases lots of water and other gases (the chemicals).

in a sense they are chem trails. just not anything other than you'd get from burning hydrocarbons.

[ChrLzs]

8 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

what flabbergasts me is that people believe that chem trails do exist... but wait they kid of do.

plane engines burn hydrocarbons. which releases lots of water and other gases (the chemicals).

in a sense they are chem trails. just not anything other than you'd get from burning hydrocarbons.

True, but modern jet engines are very efficient, and the main issues (apart from the added water vapour forming additional cloud cover) are CO2 and NOx, both of which cause issues with greenhouse effects, ozone depletion and the like.  The 'soot' level is quite low. 

[pbarosso]

its not the soot thats making those contrails but water vapor in an area thats relatively dry. it comes out as water vapor and freezes immediately leaving long lasting ice crystals. these crystals dont just sit there and melt, they hang around and get blown around or maybe not blown much at all depending on the air movement up there. im no expert but i have had a few geography classes in college which include lots of meteorology.

geography isnt just where is this country and that country like in high school.

[Harte]

11 hours ago, Merc14 said:

 

9 hours ago, South Alabam said:

That photo speaks volumes.

There's a Barber Pole missile after that first plane.

Shave and a haircut... two bits!

Harte

[Sumguy]

More like conspiracy rather than theory. I guess I should simply deny what my eyes can clearly see. Organizations like CFR and ARM, have referred to the use of aerosols for the control of

[ChrLzs]

5 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

its not the soot thats making those contrails but water vapor in an area thats relatively dry

To be more accurate... if the air is relatively dry and not conducive to cloud formation, then the water vapour will *not* make a contrail, or at best it will be a very short trail.. The correct conditions for cloud formatipon can be quite complex, but the factors are not just dryness/humidity - it's also highly dependent on temperature and to a small extent, pressure.   Longer lasting contrails will only form when *all* the conditions are already conducive to cirrus cloud formation, so those added ice particles become the seeds for a longer lasting cloud formation.  That's why it is hard to enumerate just how much difference in cloud cover is actually caused - those cirrus clouds might have started to form shortly thereafter anyway..

5 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

. it comes out as water vapor and freezes immediately leaving long lasting ice crystals.

as above, *only* if the conditions are right..

5 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

and get blown around or maybe not blown much at all depending on the air movement up there. im no expert but i have had a few geography classes in college which include lots of meteorology.

There is generally a LOT of movement relative to the ground for stuff that is floating slowly down from 30kft or thereabouts.  It may not land in the same continent, let alone country, let alone state.  So like you say:

5 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

geography isnt just where is this country and that country like in high school.

 

 

To 'sumguy' - welcome to the forum - I hope you'll stay and discuss.
 

Quote

 

More like conspiracy rather than theory. I guess I should simply deny what my eyes can clearly see.

 

Who on earth said that you had to deny what you see????  Do you see clouds and contrails?  Is anyone here denying they exist?  Do you understand why and when clouds form?  Do you understand why a jet engine will output a lot of water?  What would you expect to happen when it is at a height and in conditions conducive to cloud formation?  Isn't this more about what is in the contrails?  If so, that has nothing to do with you denying what you see.  But if you are claiming a conspiracy, you need something a little more concrete...

Quote

Organizations like CFR and ARM, have referred to the use of aerosols for the control of ...

... I'm guessing you mean weather/climate modification?  Yes, they have.  We already know about cloud seeding.  We already know that contrails do affect the weather and probably the climate as well, but it is hard to quantify.  None of those has anything to do with the claimed 'chem'trail conspiracy theory.

 

BTW, I trust that anyone claiming a conspiracy knows how to identify how high up a passing aircraft is? (hint - Flightaware)

That they know how to identify the weather conditions at that height? (hint - Upper Air Soundings)

And do you also know that despite all that, NOT ONE 'chem'trail claimant has EVER been able to show evidence of an aircraft that was leaving trails in conditions where it should not..?  Why do you think that might be? 

 

[Vorg]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Did you read the text above it?  Would you care to explain what you mean?

I was just trying to get that photo, and not the text above it when quoting Merc14. All I am saying is two aircraft flying beside each other, and one has a contrail, and the other does not. Just older vs newer technology, and not any chemtrail conspiracy to me.

[Merc14]

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And these folks were trying to help dispel the myth????  Good Grief.

I've now read most of that 'study', and it is pathetic.  In fact how they managed to convince the participants to be involved in such an amateurish effort astounds me..

I'm still struggling to find exactly where they decided that 1 out of those 77 DID think there was a conspiracy, but mentioning that and not expecting the chemtrail believers to latch onto it, is naïve.  Just to quote some of the dreck in the study - they asked ridiculous questions, asked the respondents to self-assess, and even quoted tinfoil websites and asked for comments, from which they created pie charts...

Here's a few notable quotes from the actual study - note that they selected their chosen experts on the basis of name matching on Google searches for cited studies on "contrails" and then on ‘atmospheric deposition’ AND (‘aluminum’ OR ‘barium’ OR ‘strontium’), thus ensuring they gained the attention of those familiar with the chemtrail conspiracy...:

Nice to know that we'll never know who was number 77, the one who believes chemtrailing is real...

In other words, give your opinion, even if you are not an expert in the other field (esp contrails) on whether these sites present anything that makes you think twice...  Yep, real science at work there.  And in the same style:

Objection - speculation, your honour!

Then the 'experts' were asked to comment on a collection/sampling method suggested by another crackpot site, where samples were gathered in jars... (not addressing the simple fact that anything sprayed from 30Kft will land nowhere near where the contrails were laid...)  More opinions were sought, resulting in bickering:
 

I mean seriously????  This is meant to be useful discussion?

And then I finally found the bit about the one scientist with doubts - check it out (my emphasis), and note that they are talking about photocopies of chemical analysis sheets that were forwarded to the respondents, without full details of exact location, local industries etc:

????????   Gee, that last bit is a bit important, doncha think, guys?  Call me flabbergasted...

 

I reckon this idiotic study will just regenerate the debate, which was gradually dying away, imo....  Hope I'm wrong.

 

Concur, it isn't a very scientific study  but then again, how do you scientifically study something that doesn't exist?  You go up, take samples and get the contents of a contrail, publish your results and get labeled a liar.  End of study.  I guess what they are trying to say is no one who is an expert in the field believes chemtrails exist because there is simply no evidence of them. nada, zip, nothing here.  Plus, even the most expensive and detailed study would get the same negative response from the FTBers.  

Honestly, what interested me most is how the new engines create more contrails than the old!  I am guessing this is the same for a tactical military engine that powers the F-35 or F-22?  Contrails are obviously not something you want in a tactical environment.

13 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

I was just trying to get that photo, and not the text above it when quoting Merc14. All I am saying is two aircraft flying beside each other, and one has a contrail, and the other does not. Just older vs newer technology, and not any chemtrail conspiracy to me.

The photo, with a full explanation, is at the link.

[ChrLzs]

37 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Concur, it isn't a very scientific study  but then again, how do you scientifically study something that doesn't exist?

You don't, imo.  BTW, thanks for posting it - I think it will lead to an interesting discussion!

I really, really think it's best that science just gets on with it's job and pretty much ignores the conspirators, with just two possible exceptions (and I think neither applies here..).

The first is that there is a danger of harm eg fighting the antivax movement.  Clearly that doesn't apply here.

The second is if it really gains mainstream attention, and while it may not cause harm, it can create fear.  Now I'm only forming my opinion from hanging around various fora like this one and watching mainstream media, but I don't think the 'chem'trailers have much traction at all.  However, if this study starts knocking around, it may gain a new following, plus those who run the 'chem'trail promoting websites and try to make a buck out of it, will pounce - any advertising is good advertising!

 And the problem with this particular study is that it is a very lame meta-study, more of a survey really, and right at the start they imply that at least one person thought there was a conspiracy!!  Reading the survey reveals that to be an improper conclusion from what was actually said, but too late!  The average chemtrailer will jump on that "Credible respected scientist verifies chemtrails exist..."... Sigh.  What these folks need to realise is that there is quite a large community out there that examines these claims and debunks them pretty well - eg right here.  OK, maybe there's only a few conspiracies where we can genuinely claim to be winning the battle, but chemtrails is one of them, imo...  The conspiracy-pushers have nothing of substance whatsoever.  There was no need for this survey.

I hope Jim Oberg is around, as he would be a good one to get comments from - IIRC he was directly affected at one point by a similar situation relating to NASA, who I believe had commissioned him to do some work debunking, but then they changed their mind as they thought by doing that, they might give some credibility to the conspiracy...  Even though it affected him negatively, I wonder what he feels about the decision overall?

Like most things, it's complicated.  Are you there Mr James Oberg?  I hope I am remembering correctly that it was you...  Sorry if not!

[+DieChecker]

The chemtrail conspiracy has always been good for a laugh. Supposedly they've been doing this for decades, and what difference has it made? Death rates aren't up. Maybe they should link it to Autism? Double down on your conspiracy theories. 

[Merc14]

51 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

You don't, imo.  BTW, thanks for posting it - I think it will lead to an interesting discussion!

I really, really think it's best that science just gets on with it's job and pretty much ignores the conspirators, with just two possible exceptions (and I think neither applies here..).

The first is that there is a danger of harm eg fighting the antivax movement.  Clearly that doesn't apply here.

The second is if it really gains mainstream attention, and while it may not cause harm, it can create fear.  Now I'm only forming my opinion from hanging around various fora like this one and watching mainstream media, but I don't think the 'chem'trailers have much traction at all.  However, if this study starts knocking around, it may gain a new following, plus those who run the 'chem'trail promoting websites and try to make a buck out of it, will pounce - any advertising is good advertising!

 And the problem with this particular study is that it is a very lame meta-study, more of a survey really, and right at the start they imply that at least one person thought there was a conspiracy!!  Reading the survey reveals that to be an improper conclusion from what was actually said, but too late!  The average chemtrailer will jump on that "Credible respected scientist verifies chemtrails exist..."... Sigh.  What these folks need to realise is that there is quite a large community out there that examines these claims and debunks them pretty well - eg right here.  OK, maybe there's only a few conspiracies where we can genuinely claim to be winning the battle, but chemtrails is one of them, imo...  The conspiracy-pushers have nothing of substance whatsoever.  There was no need for this survey.

I hope Jim Oberg is around, as he would be a good one to get comments from - IIRC he was directly affected at one point by a similar situation relating to NASA, who I believe had commissioned him to do some work debunking, but then they changed their mind as they thought by doing that, they might give some credibility to the conspiracy...  Even though it affected him negatively, I wonder what he feels about the decision overall?

Like most things, it's complicated.  Are you there Mr James Oberg?  I hope I am remembering correctly that it was you...  Sorry if not!

I read your post on the antivax movement and found it very poignant.  Have been on the road with no computer for the last week (wife broke her screen day one and needs laptop to work so she gets my machine. New screen on order a/o today) so basically cell phone responses but your point about how dangerous this idiocy can be when offered a vector like the internet for distribution was very well made (killing the pets because of Nibiru  etc.) and need to go back a reread now that I am home again.

 I honestly didn't dig into the study that much as I was much more enthralled with the engine info so thanks for pointing out the problems and I mostly agree with your conclusions.  People just being introduced to this silliness would be much better served, however, by coming here and asking questions.  I really believe that the images of Spitfires and 109's "chem-trailing" over London during WWII pretty much shuts down the CT as I have never had one FTBer explain how their CT balances with those images. 

[Essan]

The irony with the chemtrail hoax is that if chemtrails were real there is absolutely no reason at all why we would be able to see them from the ground.  Unless they were made out of dihydrogen monoxide.

I still think chemtrails were invented in order to see how quickly an almost slightly plausible, but ultimately ridicuous (when you think it through properly) idea could be spread around the internet.   Or, indeed, just to see how gullible the public (especially early internet users) were.


And back to the OP - surely the big question here is: who was the atmospheric scientist who didn't fall off his seat laughing when asked if he thought there was any evidence for chemtrails?     I think we should be told! 

[JimOberg]

Thanks for requests for my view on this, the best way to summarize is

"Not my circus, not my monkeys".

The last contrail controversy I got into was the illusory 'enemy sub-launched missile video off LA' a few years back.

[ChrLzs]

51 minutes ago, Essan said:

The irony with the chemtrail hoax is that if chemtrails were real there is absolutely no reason at all why we would be able to see them from the ground.  Unless they were made out of dihydrogen monoxide.

Correct.  I guess the trails could be a cover.. but then you havta ask, if you really wanted to accurately deploy your chemicals, why the hell would you do it at 30kft+ where you can have no idea where it will eventually fall, and any complex chemicals will probably be compromised anyway by high altitude radiation/UV/cold.  There are so many other, simpler, much more easily controllable, ways of delivering chemicals if you really wanted to do it...

51 minutes ago, Essan said:

I still think chemtrails were invented in order to see how quickly an almost slightly plausible, but ultimately ridicuous (when you think it through properly) idea could be spread around the internet.   Or, indeed, just to see how gullible the public (especially early internet users) were.

Partially, yes, but it really comes back to the evil dollar.  The chemtrail conspiracy (along with Apollo denial) was one of the conspiracy theories I cut my teeth on, way, way back in about 2000.  It all started with two guys by the name of Carnicom and Thomas.  To cut a long story short, they duped hundreds of people into donating a total of around $6,000, that was to be spent on aerial testing of contrails to determine what was really coming out in those contrails...  No testing was ever done, and nobody got their money back....  If you want to look at what was happening as this all unraveled, you could start here, but it's a lot to wade through..

51 minutes ago, Essan said:

And back to the OP - surely the big question here is: who was the atmospheric scientist who didn't fall off his seat laughing when asked if he thought there was any evidence for chemtrails?     I think we should be told! 

It was a she, that I can divulge...  However, she was being duped by incorrect figures.  She was given a chemical analysis of some samples collected from the atmosphere, and she was told to compare those to the recommended levels fro drinking water...  Now when you collect samples from the air, and then put said samples into a solution, that has absolutely NO relationship to drinking water sampling.  The former samples could be as concentrated as you like....  Plus, any analysis of atmospheric samples must be looked at in conjunction with all contributing factors - eg how long did they sample for and at what time of day, day of week, what local industries exist, composition of all local dust sources, etc..  None of that was done - thus the fgures she was looking at were essentially worthless and completely devoid of context.  The silly thing is that despite them acknowledging all that in the body of the report, they still kept that bit in the summary without any provisos or explanation.

It really is a poorly written, poorly designed and poorly implemented study.

[ChrLzs]

36 minutes ago, JimOberg said:

Thanks for requests for my view on this, the best way to summarize is

"Not my circus, not my monkeys".

The last contrail controversy I got into was the illusory 'enemy sub-launched missile video off LA' a few years back.

Thanks for popping by, Jim, but I was hoping to hear from you *not* on the chemtrail conspiracy itself, but on whether you think it's wise for scientists to hunt for conspiracy theories and then try to write scholarly articles to refute them..?  I think it's not a good idea unless there is a public harm potential or the CT is gaining huge popularity, neither of which applies here, imo.

 

Added, btw I should clarify wrt the great work you do!  UFO's and rocket trails and the like do garner a lot of public interest, so I think they are in group two and thus well worth spending time on...! 

Edited August 18, 2016 by ChrLzs

[Jungleboogie]

You would think that by now an enterprising skeptic or conspiracy theorist would send a drone up into the chemtrail/contrail (whatever) to take some samples to settle the matter.  Upper range drones can reach fairly high altitudes these days.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Jungleboogie

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Jungleboogie said:

You would think that by now an enterprising skeptic or conspiracy theorist would send a drone up into the chemtrail/contrail (whatever) to take some samples to settle the matter.  Upper range drones can reach fairly high altitudes these days.

What do you think they are doing in the image in the OP?  It doesn't matter because any data you produce will simply be dismissed as a lie by the CTers.

[Abaddonire]

2 hours ago, Jungleboogie said:

You would think that by now an enterprising skeptic or conspiracy theorist would send a drone up into the chemtrail/contrail (whatever) to take some samples to settle the matter.  Upper range drones can reach fairly high altitudes these days.

That is the one thing they do not want

The wild claim only persists so long as one can avoid actually testing it.. When pressed, chemtrailers claim that they have ground samples of the chemicals This claim is more than beyond odd.Somehow, chemtrails always fall vertically from five miles or more up. Weather, air currents, anything at all that perturbs the air matters not a whit. Chemtrails always fall vertically down. 

Jet stream? Meh. doesn't matter.

Earth's crust being replete with their supposed chemicals? Meh. All unnatural.

Despite being entirely commonplace and normal constituents of the earth's crust.

One only has to take a look at vinegar woman.

On the one hand, she claims that dispersing "chemtrails" requires no more than spraying vinegar from a squeegee bottle to disperse.

While doing so she bemoans the death of the grass in her yard due to chemtrails.

Well, sorry. Spray vinegar on your grass every day and it will die. I cannot fathom how exactly it is that this surprises anyone with half a brain.

Somehow, this is the lunacy to which chemtrailers cleave.

Why? No idea. It is a stupid notion.

[Essan]

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Thanks for popping by, Jim, but I was hoping to hear from you *not* on the chemtrail conspiracy itself, but on whether you think it's wise for scientists to hunt for conspiracy theories and then try to write scholarly articles to refute them..?  I think it's not a good idea unless there is a public harm potential or the CT is gaining huge popularity, neither of which applies here, imo.

 

Yes, this a good point.   When scientists go out of their way to "debunk" a conspiracy it only serves to fuel the conspiracy theorists (after all, "why would they bother if they werent trying to hide something?" )

[Czero 101]

2 hours ago, Jungleboogie said:

You would think that by now an enterprising skeptic or conspiracy theorist would send a drone up into the chemtrail/contrail (whatever) to take some samples to settle the matter.  Upper range drones can reach fairly high altitudes these days.

 

A number of years ago there was a group of "Chemtrailers" that were raising funds to do just that - get an aircraft up in the sky and take samples directly from a "chemtrail" to try and prove their nefarious nature.

I'm not sure how much actual money they raised, but the organizer(s) took what funding they had raised and ran off with it. There are others here who know / remember more about this story, I'm sure...





Cz

[Jungleboogie]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

What do you think they are doing in the image in the OP?  It doesn't matter because any data you produce will simply be dismissed as a lie by the CTers.

The CT on chemtrails as I understand it, is that it is a military program, not commercial jets with passengers.  The reasons I'm skeptical of this article is two-fold;  one, that they tested the wrong subject (as it relates to the CT on chemtrails in the first place); two, that the 'survey' and not an anonymous one at that, had obvious bias to the point that the author was going to try and expose the information of the dissenting scientist. 

Who gives a rats ass about opinions, chemtrail skeptics and chemtrail believers alike, to you I say "SEND IN THE DRONES!"

Prove it.  Disprove it.  Don't rely on armchair articles and surveys.

Attach a couple of small filtered tubes under each wing, open side forward and don't forget to adjust for drag.  For the filter, based on the CT I would go with paper baffle type, if the CTers are right, the metal fibers will become trapped by the baffles.

No need to risk an accident and get anywhere near the so-called 'chemtrail' plane.  The CT states that the fibers slowly expand over time, so ten minutes behind would be quite safe.  If the theory actually did turn out to be true, you wouldn't want to fly your drone into the dense cloud anyway, let it expand a bit.

I'm personally skeptical of chemtrail evidence, but it would be a fun project regardless.