Many people believe in chemtrails because they think that they have clear and irrefutable proof of their existence. Those are the "just look up" people. They are easy to debunk (but not always easy to convince), as their evidence is bogus, so can be directly addressed (e.g. contrails can persist and spread, soil is 7% aluminum naturally, etc..).
George is a "don't trust the government", and a "connect the dots" guy. He's got no actual evidence that anything is happening, yet still thinks that it probably is.
"Connect the dots" guys are very difficult to debunk, as they just cherry pick a large number of dots, and each dot is usually something that is half true, but of dubious relevance. By itself, each dot of evidence is essentially meaningless, and it's relevance as evidence is a matter of opinion, and so debunking becomes tedious argument. Even if you fully debunk one dot, it's simply discarded - there are plenty more.
"Connect the dots" guy think he's won because he has the most dots. But "robot cats" guy has an equally valid claim to victory.
Debunking is not about picking one side of an argument. Debunking is not advocacy. Debunking is about identifying what is wrong with a claim. While each individual dot can be tossed back and forth to no end, what's is wrong with "connect the dots" is not so much the dots, it's the conclusion that the dots reveal a hidden picture. Really the dots are simply picked to fit a picture.
Pick a different picture, any picture, and you can pick dots that fit it.