Operation Indigo Skyfold

originally posted by: Zaphod58

You keep bringing up the fact that he was a navigator. So what. If they were spraying anything a Navigator wouldn't have anything to do with the actual spraying. He wouldn't have anything to do with loading the chemicals, releasing them, or anything else. If they were spraying it could be done entirely without a Navigator knowing it was happening. His entire role is Navigating the plane, that's it.

I understand but what I meant was that he has general, technical expertise because he was in the Air Force.

Additionally, he is living in Northern California and is experiencing firsthand what's going on there.

As for weather modification, they're talking about cloud seeding. The US used it in Vietnam to try to make the Ho Chi Minh Trail impassible. They did it for years.

But isn't the purpose of the document to express in a general way the intent of the military to develop weather warfare?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Zaphod58


But isn't the purpose of the document to express in a general way the intent of the military to develop weather warfare?

There is a HUGE difference between seeding clouds and getting an additional 10-20% moisture and engineering a drought. Please tell us you understand the difference in scale and the amount of energy that would be required to engineer a drought?

a reply to: Zaphod58

How do you know they have nothing to do with spraying?

And are you suggesting that a commercial airline could not be involved?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Whoops, wrong reply.

A Boeing 717 can't reach Hawaii without extra fuel tanks. So are you going to say that instead of fuel they're going to put chemicals in board and risk a brand new aircraft that they just spent a hundred million dollars plus on not reaching Hawaii?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Being in the air force doesn't mean anything. I've known people in the air force that couldn't tell the difference between plane types.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: waynos
IMO, it would have been honest of Dane to put it the way you did. Crops have been affected by something, but what? As Zap said, drought is a very strong candidate for that, so why tell lies and say it's definitely the result of chemtrails and that there is "no debate".

It is obvious to Dane and the people who live in Northern California that their problem is drought.

From Dane's perspective, it is crystal clear that the drought has been engineered into existence.

You're calling him a liar.

I say he's telling the truth as he knows it.

d
No, what he is doing, if I assume you're correct in your assessment above, is presenting his opinion as if it is fact. My opinion, however, is that he knows that what he is saying is false because I do not think he is a fool.

None of which changes the FACT that saying a spraying operation is undeniably, definitely happening and that image definitely showed just such an act is a LIE, because it's simply not possible to make such a claim with any degree of honesty. If he said he thought that was the case, or that he believed the image was what he claimed there is no problem. You see the difference? He is leading those people up the garden path. You can dance around it all you like. It's nothing to do with opinions, whether one believes in chemtrails or one does not, Danes claim, right there in that moment, is false.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

Again, your post said:

So when Dane says that the video is "clearly spraying, period" and that "any suggestion that this is a condensation trail is simply denial" within that first minute, how is that not a lie?

It looks exactly like a contrail, there is nothing on screen to suggest that what you are seeing is not a contrail, Dane offers nothing to show why it's not a contrail. He simply tells you what to believe, therefore, whether you believe in chemtrails or not, that statement, at that moment, is a lie because to anyone looking on, it clearly could be either.

It was not incumbent upon Dane, speaking before that audience, apparently early in 2014, to start from square one and tutor them on contrails.

By definition, a "lie" is an intentional falsehood.

In my opinion, you are calling Dane a liar when in reality, you simply have a different perspective than he has. Of course, that doesn't make you a liar.

I don't think either one of you are liars.

You're just looking at the situation differently.

I think it would be most helpful if members would stop calling Dane Wigington a liar. To really know that to be true, you'd have to be inside his head.

But you're not.

Read my previous reply. You have completely missed my point.

Or shall we move it forward a little. When someone has access to the real information about the images they portray as chemtrail interiors, where the photographers themselves will happily explain it, when the manufacturers themselves are happy to give tours of the aircraft to the public, but that person continues to push those images onto their audience as being something they know full well they are not, is that also "telling the truth as he sees it"?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you don't know what they really are, nobody else does. At this point you seem to be trying REALLY hard to ignore the obvious so that Danes claims continue to look credible to you.

People can hold whatever opinions they like, but when they misrepresent facts, they are liars.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ConnectDots

Your last picture, the bottom middle and upper right tanks are fuel tanks placed on Boeing 717 aircraft to ferry them from the mainland to Hawaii for Hawaiian airlines. They installed them, flew them to Hawaii and removed them. They have nothing to do with spraying.

But he's not lying?

Apparently we cannot know anything about these tanks as fact, it's merely our opinion, no different to Dane conjecturing that these are chemtrail tanks without any cause to think so

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

Do you ever spend time watching them be created from aircraft, and then how long they stay there, etc?

Yes, but as I said earlier, I am on the East Coast and not in direct line of many flight paths, so I don't get the sky filled with trails like others post pictures of. I see a few off to the west and maybe one or two overhead. (that kind of makes me wonder why they would waste the expensive spray to only cover a tiny percentage of the sky. Hell, if Niburu was flat like the earth, and turned sideways, I don't think those trails could hide it.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

AFSC as in Air Force Specialty Code?

MSDS as in Material Safety Data Sheet?

Exactly, Anyone who has been in the military and worked around anything other than water, knows that every chemical substance MUST have an MSDS sheet with it by law. There are no exceptions. It's a safety thing. And the career choice to be a chemical loader must exist if the USAF is the ones spraying everyone. And then there is the T.O. (technical order) Every task that exists in the USAF has instructions in a T.O. somewhere. So the loading, cleaning, adjustments, or any other task that would take place with a plane spraying would need documentation. Since 1940, when your guy Dane says the chemtrail project must have started, not ONE copy of anything remotely close to any of those papers has emerged. NOT ONE.

But again, you are a champion of common sense, so you must be able to reconcile that in your mind, right?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

On that note, I can't find a reply from you to this video posted by tsurfer

Probably not going to get one either, as it will question the belief he has concerning what Dane Wigington is really about.

a reply to: network dude

Your information is valuable to use in research.

But I suspect black projects are governed by their own laws.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Here are the screenshots:

And here is what they are actually for...

This a good source for a rebuttal, correct? Debunked: Chemtrail Plane Interior (Ballast Barrels)

Well if you have a problem with that one...here you go.

www.anonymousmags.com...

I see your breaking out the big guns here...

On Wigington's website there is this article: The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use

And the source is even more questionable than the site it's on...

And here is why I say that...

he US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.

Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report,

Just so you know that wasn't an official Air Force document, or a final report in fact it was this...

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The
views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or
events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.
This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared
for public release.

archive.org.../n1/mode/2up

1st page debunks the whole conspiracy theory on that.

I suspect your going to add another name to this joyous thread...Kristen Meghan...but I guess we will have to see.

a reply to: network dude

When you say yes, you mean yes you’ve watched them actually being formed, and then how long they’ve stayed there?

I guess, though, what you’re saying is that if chemtrail theory is true, it’s not going on where you are because you have so few trails?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

When you say yes, you mean yes you’ve watched them actually being formed, and then how long they’ve stayed there?

I guess, though, what you’re saying is that if chemtrail theory is true, it’s not going on where you are because you have so few trails?

Yes, I have seen trails of all sort, I have watched them form and either last or dissipate. In fact, I remember questioning the reason for all this back in the late 70's.

And there are so many reasons why I think the chemtrail fantasy is just that, but the fact that I see a few persistent trails (the kind that last for hours and spread out into cirrus) means that if they aren't chemtrailing me, it is remotely possible that those white lines are just contrails. And If mine are contrails, and they look the same as yours,.......

originally posted by: network dude
In fact, I remember questioning the reason for all this back in the late 70's.

The reason for all what? Were trails being discussed in the news, or something?

. . . the fact that I see a few persistent trails (the kind that last for hours and spread out into cirrus) means that if they aren't chemtrailing me, it is remotely possible that those white lines are just contrails.

I'm not following your reasoning there.

Can you rephrase that for me?

a reply to: thorfourwinds

Turns out it was another one I was thinking of, this one..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And the original..

www.airliners.net...

The one above is from Evergreen aviation's firefighter supertanker..

www.metabunk.org...-11196

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
I suspect your going to add another name to this joyous thread...Kristen Meghan...but I guess we will have to see.

Phew!

I have a lot to do.

Could you save me some time?

Who's she?

The following clip from a YouTube video published April 17, 2015 is from a radio show of host Stew Webb of the Veterans Truth Network. It is a discussion with Gene Chip Tatum, who also has his own show on the network. The discussion has a little bit about spraying that Tatum did in the early 80s, but most of the clip is about the shadow government and the reality of the system we live in as brought to us by the powers that be - what I would call the face of evil.

Also in the clip is the voice of an alleged chemtrail pilot who uses a pseudonym for security purposes. (I would, too, if I were him.)

Additionally, there is a Dr. William Croft participating.

Link

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ConnectDots

The first bit of testimony that you were fascinated by is a contrail shadow. They've been documented since 1955 in pictures. They don't have anything to do with HAARP.

originally posted by: waynos
Yes, I suppose you could use that, though to be frank I haven't read it either. You could also go to the aviation Photography sites where the original photographers upload their images and can be contacted. These include Airliners.net (the biggest), planespotters.net and Jetphotos.net among others. You don't need to rely on second hand sources.

These are contrail shadow photos? Jetphotos.net