On the contrary, Substance. It is the government and wikipedia that are more trustworthy than any source you come up with. Terribly sorry, Substance, I still win. You know why? Because, as I said: Lack of evidence isn't evidence. You find me some proof that there are chemicals. Until then, your point holds no more value than mine. In fact, it holds less, as you have no proof whatsoever. No statistical facts. While I, on the other hand, do. You cannot prove that you see slyphs. But I cannot prove that you cannot. Thereby, both arguments in that particular debate are moot. However, on the topic on CONTRAILS, there is significant proof, coming from more veritable sources that you can ever produce. You may condemn them as much as you wish, but the fact doesn't change that they exist. You may say how many people agree with your point, but it is a logical fallacy. Good game.