Operation Indigo Skyfold

a reply to: ConnectDots

We are dumbfounded - those of us deeply concerned about geoengineering and chemtrails - by the apparent inability of so many people to see, acknowledge, or care about blatantly obvious chemical trails in the sky.

Let's see why they think it's blatantly obvious. You can go to this page globalskywatch.com... from the same site. Scroll down a bit and you'll see this

Since the outer ring of bypass air which is not combusted is filled with particulates dense enough to see with the naked eye, we have to ask ourselves:

How can uncombusted air passing though a fan form massive plumes of condensation?

Simply put, it cannot.

Now, simply put that is false. They are counting on you to believe that this stream of particulates is so dense it can be seen with the naked eye yet can be invisible coming out of the engine. Let me show you what I mean.
contrailscience.com...
There are other things wrong as well but it's tomorrow and I'm done. Maybe others will explain more about this lie they continue to spread and better than I could explain.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Much as I hate to contradict you - the bit quoted is not false:

Since the outer ring of bypass air which is not combusted is filled with particulates dense enough to see with the naked eye, we have to ask ourselves:

How can uncombusted air passing though a fan form massive plumes of condensation?

Simply put, it cannot.

That is completely true - the air that passes through the "fan" does not make a contrail.

But there is still plenty of air going through the high pressure compressor section of the engine that does get combusted and that is more than enough to form a contrail.



Modern engines are much more efficient that old ones it is true - however the increased efficiency is in the order of 10's of %'s - not orders of magnitude.

And cine they are generating multiples of times the thrust of older engines they are also burning more fuel in total - even though it is less per unit of thrust.

For example the specific fuel consumption (SFC) of a Jt3D common in the days of 707's and DC-8's is ~0.78 lb/(lbf·h) (22 g/(kN·s)) @ 4000lbf thrust M 0.82,35000ft,ISA

For a Rolls Royce Trent 500 HBR it is 0.54 lb/lbf-hr (at cruise) - so this is almost 50% more efficient assuming cruise is also at M0.82 and 35,000 ft ISA.
(both figures from the respective wiki pages)

assuming the cruise thrust is the same ratio as the max sea level thrust (which it probably isn't, but for illustration purposes), the Trent 500 will be making 56,000/17,000 * 4000lbs = ~13,176lbs. And to do so it will burn 7115 lbs/hr to do so.

The JT3D will be burning 3120lbs/hr.

So the newer high bypass ratio engine is burning 2.28 times as much fuel as the older engine, but is generating over 3 times as much power - hence it is more efficient and ALSO burning more fuel so making more water..

originally posted by: waynos
couldn't we save these other things until we've finished with the points we're already talking about?

Good point.

I will work on catching up.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
I will work on catching up.

I'm attempting to catch up in chronological order, but I had to pause to make this comment.

a reply to: Phage

In my opinion, it is almost certain that you've posted a smear of AC Griffith.

In my opinion, sometimes one has to hear the truth in someone's voice.

If members have not listened to this 6:46 audio, they can't hear the voice.

I respectfully ask you to take the time to listen. I am sorry there is background music that one might suspect is there to appeal to emotion and mislead. But that doesn't change the testimony of the person being interviewed.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
In my opinion, sometimes one has to hear the truth in someone's voice.

The same thing applies to the clip I posted, which also includes events from history that one can recall to help piece together a pattern and create a view of the big picture, putting things in perspective - as in putting together the pieces of a puzzle. This puzzle is one that we're all in together, whether we like it, or not.

The clip is 40 minutes long.

Here's the original post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ConnectDots

Interestingly that 'smear' is actually from a chemtrail site. It appears to have been written by someone who recognised Griffiths claims as originating from elsewhere with the chemtrail community and that he stole them to make himself look more knowledgable than he is.

I'll be honest, this stuns me if I've read it correctly. It displays a level of scrutiny and checking i've not encountered from a chemtrail site before.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Its all very well fitting together the pieces of the puzzle, but one must first make sure one is using pieces from the same puzzle to see the big picture accurately.

ETA - Just finished listening to the clip. It contained absolutely nothing related to the contrail/chemtrail debate at all. Just someone rambling on about super secret scalar weapons that he happens to know all about. You may feel free to consider me in denial or incapable of accepting an uncomfortable truth (my god, what a convenient get out that one is for believers!!) but it was all bull# really.

Again, you are looking for an explanation of why chemtrails are there, and you are vulnerable to this hogwash because you are unable to recognise the sheer implausibility of what is being claimed. That is why we are trying to talk about the basic building blocks. Once one understands them, garbage claims become apparent for what they are.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Much as I hate to contradict you - the bit quoted is not false:

That's never a problem. If I post incorrect info I want to know, but your emphasis here is on a different syllable so to speak. I'll try this again and tell me what you think now.

Since the outer ring of bypass air which is not combusted is filled with particulates dense enough to see with the naked eye, we have to ask ourselves:

How can uncombusted air passing though a fan form massive plumes of condensation?

Simply put, it cannot.

The only reasonable explanation is that chemical aerosols are being injected into the bypass air stream within the engine,

Are they correct?

a reply to: waynos

Thank you.

My head is spinning with the challenge of working on this.

Also, I am exhausted.

But I will follow up.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Mmmm, I'd say no.

If the only reasonable explanation is the injection of chemical aerosols into the bypass stream, what do they find so UNreasonable about the explanation that the unburned air has a cooling effect on the jet exhaust which may assist in contrail formation and contains ambient water vapour itself which may add to the contrail helping it become even larger than Gauls explanation makes clear?

a reply to: ConnectDots

I totally get that, thats why the chemtrailers have been successful with people in the past. Its not a reflection on your integrity or intelligence, these guys work hard at it. Just please try to refrain from posts like you made last light which call into question the intellect and integrity of those who disagree with you.

a reply to: waynos

Is it a chemtrail site or a front for a chemtrail site?

That has to be considered.

Do you intend to listen to the audio, or have you already listened?

a reply to: waynos
The point I made about the gap in this post www.abovetopsecret.com...
shows that there is no dense stream of particulates exiting the engine.

a reply to: waynos

Respectfully, the problem I'm having is actually the use of ridicule as a debate technique. It is not against the terms and conditions to ridicule sources, but it is still a fallacy of reason in my book.

Additionally, my opinion is that the power and the resources for confusing everybody lies with those who are maintaining the status quo, that is those who maintain that what you're looking at in the sky is normal - not with the "chemtrailers."

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: waynos
The point I made about the gap in this post www.abovetopsecret.com...
shows that there is no dense stream of particulates exiting the engine.

I agree, sorry, I didn't even consider that worth noting, I thought it was THAT obvious. I'm now resisting a joke about dense streams of another kind as I'm being nice.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Is it a chemtrail site or a front for a chemtrail site?

There are no fronts for chemtrail sites...either they push the hoax or they don't.

That has to be considered.

No it doesn't.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Where does paranoia draw the line though? If a chemtrail site disagrees with another chemtrail site then the one disagreeing isn't real?

With that kind of logic you can justify *anything* and you would never ever be able to arrive at a conclusion other than what you WANT to be right, IS right. Hardly objective.

What if that one is the real site and all the rest are fronts because the government WANTS you looking for chemtrails so you don't see what they are really doing?

You see? There is a danger of overthinking things and tying yourself in knots. Thats exactly why I prefer to take one thing at a time and examine the basics before getting into who says what and is that person lying. Forget all that, look at what you can factually know to be true, when I did that all the chemtrail claims and 'evidence' fell away like scales from my eyes and the gleaming truth was that it is all a fantasy that CANNOT exist. This becomes sparklingly obvious when "alternative physics" is needed to explain it.

You must make your own conclusion.

Yes, I listened to the clip and added my thoughts in an edit.

a reply to: ConnectDots

It is not against the terms and conditions to ridicule sources, but it is still a fallacy of reason in my book.

Well if the sources were actually credible and you had actual evidence that could be verified then I would say yes, but you haven't and it isn't.

Additionally, my opinion is that the power and the resources for confusing everybody lies with those who are maintaining the status quo, that is those who maintain that what you're looking at in the sky is normal - not with the "chemtrailers."

Funny thing here is that this hoax has been going on since the early 90's and nobody has been able to show evidence that chemtrails exist by taking a sample from one after it has been supposedly sprayed and still airborne, so why hasn't anyone done a test such as that which would make this conspiracy true?

I guess it is just easier to believe a lie than it is to actually find the truth.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Ridicule isn't a reasonable debating technique, I agree. What you see as ridicule may not be though, sometimes I know I just try to put a bit of levity into my posts to stop getting bogged down. Also, sometime the ridicule, where it does occur, might be borne out of the frustration of having to refute a claim for what feels like the thousandth time.

a reply to: ConnectDots

In my opinion, sometimes one has to hear the truth in someone's voice.

That's style over substance. Truth can not be heard in one's voice. Can't confuse sincerity, feigned or not, with truth.

Just a thought.