Operation Indigo Skyfold

a reply to: waynos

I have downloaded Phage's pdf that he supplied and bookmarked the website.

It's on my list.

(Thanks, Phage.)

Connect Dots, I'm kindof curious to see how things are going for you as far as connecting the dots is concerned.

You've been shown a couple of things in these last few pages:

- The picture of the interior of an alleged chemtrail plane has been shown to be doctored
- Despite this having been pointed out a long time ago, it's still being used by websites such as geoengineeringwatch to push their agenda
- You seem to acknowledge that the picture has been doctored, but seem to reason that it's for the greater good
- you post a couple of videos, among which a video of David Keith, edited out of context and accompanied with spooky music and contrail pictures. You have this pointed out to you
- You post a link to the Stew Webb interview with a 'chemtrail pilot' who makes very silly claims about laser weapon chemtrails over the US which cannot be seen through, and never seem to indicate whether you think this has merit and/or explain why, nor do you back any of it up.

And on and on it goes, jumping from one subject to another. I'm really hoping this is going somewhere for you, but it kindof looks like you're throwing all sorts of things to the wall, hoping that something sticks. Which is what we've seen happen a lot of times with chemtrail believers. They claim something, we debunk it, and they never acknowledge it's been debunked, but just move on to the next thing.

Is that what's happening here?

Can you help us see how you're connecting the dots?

a reply to: Phage

The first theory may be a cover story for what’s really going on.

I guess the second theory is associated with Project Cloverleaf. AC Griffith mentions it as being associated with the aircraft industry:

originally posted by: ConnectDots

Uploaded on Apr 14, 2010

Listen to this compelling interview from insider, AC Griffith, as he disscusses the military use of the covert aerosol program we know as chemtrails. I have also added stunning new video and still captures of the most recent activity here in the Dallas area. It is time to stop being in denial about this massive program. Be fearless and spread the word or we all will all suffer the consequences of non-action.

www.youtube.com...

I believe he is telling the truth as he knew it.

Regarding the fourth theory, this rings true to me:

It is believed that barium salt, polymer fibers and other chemicals in the atmosphere are the physical irritants that are either directly or indirectly responsible for the recent nationwide epidemic increase in cases of nose bleed, asthma, allergies, pneumonia, upper respiratory symptoms and a noticeable increase in arthritis symptoms, recently reported nationwide. Chemicals illegally sprayed into the atmosphere are producing atmospheric and ground conditions detrimental to human and animal health but favorable to the growth of harmful molds / fungus. These conditions are not conducive to good health. The soluble salts of barium, an earth metal, are toxic in mammalian systems. They are absorbed rapidly from the gastrointestinal tract and are deposited in the muscles, lungs, and bone. No case data is available from the medical community on the long term effects of barium in the human body.

www.anomalies-unlimited.com...

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
HOLY SH#! Did you listen to the dutchsenseless story? I'm at a loss for words at the moment. Shot 5 times with an AK 47 and he's in the hospital, rather than the morgue?

Did you raise that question to:

1. Ridicule the other side of this debate?
   
2. Open a discussion of whether or not it is physically impossible to survive such an attack; thus, it would be proven untrue?
   
3. Some other reason?
   

They left the roommate, an eyewitness, unharmed?

That's what's suspicious about it.

The roommate was not a target, only the friend.

Nothing was stolen, either.

It very much appears like a hit.

This is why you need to listen to the information about the modus operandi regarding assassinations.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: ConnectDots

Putting Reiki aside, the article says that historically, the terms "energy" and "touch" have been controversial.

It points out that it used to be that scientists believed that there is no such thing as an energy field around the human body, but that now there is certainty that it exists.

Only, it doesn't. Other than the obvious sorts of things...heated air, IR, low level microwaves etc. And again, the thread's sort of wobbling too far afield to address that.

An article about the wonders of Reiki and auras and how they measured the "energy field" of a human with a magnetometer isn't going to yield pearls of wisdom.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

It very much appears like a hit.

Or, it very much appears like dutchsinse is having you on. He has pulled the other one, and it had bells on.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
It very much appears like a hit.

Maybe it does.....but you have no idea why - the target survived, at least one shooter was caught, it was years ago and there's been no actual connection made since....

Why is it not more reasonable that someone Dutch knows pissed off someone else who shot them for reasons that have nothing at all to do with dutch??

a reply to: ConnectDots
I'm going with number 3. Sounds very sketchy for multiple reasons.

My main question is, did it even happen? If so, did the actual events even remotely resemble the story.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
My main question is, did it even happen? If so, did the actual events even remotely resemble the story.

Bingo! The first place to start is to verify the event occurred. Because it sounds a lot like a TDAMH punchline.

a reply to: waynos

Sometimes people follow up on others' posts to augment what has been posted.

I directed people to a spot in the video where they could listen to David Keith.

All the quotes were to present the context or purpose of posting the video and flagging where the interview in question started.

a reply to: Bedlam
Thinking about that interview reminded me that I first heard about ''chemtrails'' from Camelot on the Tube. Kind of ironic.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
So chemtrails were around in the 80's...interesting because chemtrail theories didn't begin until the 90's.

No, spraying was around in the 80s.

Did you hear him say we don't know what they're about? We can see trails, but the question is, what's in them?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
So chemtrails were around in the 80's...interesting because chemtrail theories didn't begin until the 90's.

No, spraying was around in the 80s.

Did you hear him say we don't know what they're about? We can see trails, but the question is, what's in them?

That presents quite a dilemma. Have you not heard people say they are contrails?

a reply to: Chadwickus

Yes, I went back and clicked on who said what, and I agree, it's not your terminology.

Thank you for responding without rancor.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
So chemtrails were around in the 80's...interesting because chemtrail theories didn't begin until the 90's.

No, spraying was around in the 80s.

Did you hear him say we don't know what they're about? We can see trails, but the question is, what's in them?

I am sorry, people didn't fall for bull# in the 80's. It wasn't till the 90's that chemtrail believers first noticed the trails in the sky. They were never,,,,NEVER like that before. (please note, the date may change depending on who is telling the story.)

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: ConnectDots
I'm going with number 3. Sounds very sketchy for multiple reasons.

My main question is, did it even happen? If so, did the actual events even remotely resemble the story.

When it first came out I found an article in a local paper that broadly supported the narrative of events - that link is here but 404's - but a search of the news site ffinds this which looks like the event

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
So chemtrails were around in the 80's...interesting because chemtrail theories didn't begin until the 90's.

No, spraying was around in the 80s.

Did you hear him say we don't know what they're about? We can see trails, but the question is, what's in them?

That's a very good question, and I'm glad you're raising it.

The answer is: we can't tell from observing them with our eyeballs.

But: we do know what happens when we have airliners using combustion engines cruising along at the altitudes they fly at. We know enough about the way they interact with the atmosphere to explain what we're seeing. And it just so happens that what we're seeing is exactly what we'd expect considering what we know about the disciplines involved.

So unless evidence comes along that points to something else being the cause of persistent contrails, this remains the default position. I'm not holding my breath as far as that other evidence is concerned though, since there's nothing else (no other chemicals or devices) that I know of to replicate the contrails as we witness them on a daily basis, all over the globe.

So it boils down to this:

1: There is already a theory in place that adequetely predicts and explains contrails in all the forms we witness them
2: There is no credible evidence of something else being the cause of them.

Therefore the default position should be 1. If you think something other than H2O is the culprit, it's up to you to make your case and substantiate your claim.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
So chemtrails were around in the 80's...interesting because chemtrail theories didn't begin until the 90's.

No, spraying was around in the 80s.

Did you hear him say we don't know what they're about? We can see trails, but the question is, what's in them?

and the answer is: water ice.

there - done.

originally posted by: ConnectDots


Did you hear him say we don't know what they're about? We can see trails, but the question is, what's in them?

Can you please answer this instead of ignore it because it's inconvenient?

Why can't the official answer that fully explains contrails be what's in them? the whole conspiracy is based on why the can't persist, but even you, and Micheal J, Murphey, fully understand that contrails can persist.

What is it that makes you believe the easy answer isn't the right one?

Regarding the technology for the alleged Project Cloverleaf, I think everyone needs to watch the archives of the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure.

The hearing provided a platform for those who have experienced first hand the reality of the UFO phenomenon, and who have subsequently been told by the military, "You didn't see this."

The secrecy surrounding UFOs ties in directly with the secrecy surrounding real physics.

In order to keep the reality of UFOs secret, the physics that explains how they work has to be kept secret.

Real physics is not taught in universities.