Operation Indigo Skyfold

a reply to: ConnectDots
Gotta do this later.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Can we rule out, however, that the footage was fake, then? In other words, did the footage itself appear genuine to you?

1. They're composite photographs. Please explain how they're valid for comparison with what we see real-time in the video. Do you know what I mean?
   
   
2. They do not form in this case?
   

originally posted by: payt69
Oh man.. at 1:17 he has that KC 10 video, which has long been explained as aerodynamic contrails.

Here's the tanker enemy version of the video:

Notice how 'spraying nozzles' are pointed out in the video. What is actually pointed out are flap fairings, which can be clearly seen in this picture of a KC 10: www.flugzeuginfo.net...

Here's the original video, posted by the guy who made the video. It was a spoof on the chemtrail believers:

And here's a closeup of the aerodynamic contrails being generated by the same plane:

In this video you can clearly see that the 'spray nozzles' are actually flap fairings.

So there you have it. Another hoax video from a chemtrail believer (tanker enemy). Are you connecting the dots yet?

First of all, that third video is beautiful. The aero contrails coming off the wing looks gorgeous.
Second of all...no, hes not connecting the dots. In fact, hes avoiding the thorny issue of chemtrail pushers lying by skirting around the issue and flooding us with more pointless videos. You will not get an answer from him and frankly, im stunned that you guys are still going on. I lost my patience with him a LONG time ago and cant bring myself to contribute much.

Kudos for being either a lot more patient tan me. Or maybe you guys are sadists and are suckers for punsishment?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Can we rule out, however, that the footage was fake, then? In other words, did the footage itself appear genuine to you?

1. They're composite photographs. Please explain how they're valid for comparison with what we see real-time in the video. Do you know what I mean?

They show the same phenomenon: IE aerodynamic contrails

They do not form in this case?

Exhaust contrails do not form, while aerodynamic contrails do form, in this case.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: payt69
Oh man.. at 1:17 he has that KC 10 video, which has long been explained as aerodynamic contrails.

Here's the tanker enemy version of the video:

Notice how 'spraying nozzles' are pointed out in the video. What is actually pointed out are flap fairings, which can be clearly seen in this picture of a KC 10: www.flugzeuginfo.net...

Here's the original video, posted by the guy who made the video. It was a spoof on the chemtrail believers:

And here's a closeup of the aerodynamic contrails being generated by the same plane:

In this video you can clearly see that the 'spray nozzles' are actually flap fairings.

So there you have it. Another hoax video from a chemtrail believer (tanker enemy). Are you connecting the dots yet?

First of all, that third video is beautiful. The aero contrails coming off the wing looks gorgeous.
Second of all...no, hes not connecting the dots. In fact, hes avoiding the thorny issue of chemtrail pushers lying by skirting around the issue and flooding us with more pointless videos. You will not get an answer from him and frankly, im stunned that you guys are still going on. I lost my patience with him a LONG time ago and cant bring myself to contribute much.

Kudos for being either a lot more patient tan me. Or maybe you guys are sadists and are suckers for punsishment?

Very much like Dane ignoring what he is told about the video, UV levels etc and repeating the same lies over and over.

originally posted by: payt69

Somebody doctored that picture to make it look like something it isnt, right? That's the hoax right there.

I intended to recap what I’ve already posted on this:

originally posted by: ConnectDots
I see the article is entitled "Why Chemtrails" and the date is in 2011.

There is a hyperlink for "original article" but it's a dead link.

For the term "GOV'T AIRCRAFT" there is a link to a Wikipedia article on government.

An important quote:

We have all witnessed the continuing trail of dying celebrities. Many of us have also witnessed our friends and relatives falling sick or dying in the past few years.

But in my own documented experience, you can clearly see from the list of ailments that I am experiencing from chemtrails (on the Ailments page) that the symptoms of mercury poisoning and chemtrail poisoning are identical. Combined with the fact that many of the symptoms we experience during spraying can only be attributed to mercury poisoning, we now have strong symptomatic evidence that chemtrails do indeed contain mercury.

This conclusion naturally leads us to the question, “Why?”

Having studied law (personally, not in school) and spending a lot of time studying political scandals and corruption, I have come to the firm conclusion that there are multiple purposes for the chemtrail campaign.

1. Cover your ankles
2. Population control
3. Centralization of power

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

The article goes on to elaborate on that.

Back to the photo.

If there is a black (extremely secret) project to spray chemicals, for whatever reason, is it feasible that the same aircraft be used for it, and in that scenario only, the “HAZMAT” sign would be put up?

If that is the case, I would say that within the context of the Geoengineering Watch article, that yes, Photoshop may have been used, in good faith, as an illustration of what the author was talking about.

But I just realized that it is ridiculous to brush off the discrepancy of Sprayer 1 for the Geoengineering Watch article vs. Sprayer 5 for the Educate Yourself article; therefore, perhaps I was wrong to suggest that it was a doctored photo to illustrate an article about government, the powers that be, and handwriting on the wall. My mistake.

Perhaps the Sprayer 1 sign was in reality inside a government aircraft; as in a commercial aircraft being put to an alternate use.

So, I’m going back to the drawing board.

originally posted by: payt69]
Had that not been the case, who knows what he might have believed.

That scenario or phenomenon or whatever it should be called applies to both sides of this debate.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Perhaps the Sprayer 1 sign was in reality inside a government aircraft; as in a commercial aircraft being put to an alternate use.

Or perhaps it isn't, and the sources you keep using to find the truth aren't going to actually provide one, so why keep using them?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

The lines in the sky and the subsequent spread of some to form cloud cover are a chemical spray, so you don't have the scientific explanations for contrails at your disposal.

Maybe the focus should shift from the trails to what's showing up in the soil as well as data on illnesses.

originally posted by: mrthumpy
Absolutely not. The tanks are made of a material that is specifically designed so that it dissolves if anything other than water is put in there.

originally posted by: network dude
Sure. they are tanks. You could put sulfuric acid in them and it might last as long as the acid didn't eat through the tank liner.

But you are still faced with the problem that the plane isn't outfitted with sprayers of any kind since this rig was made to transfer weight around the plane.

First, I respectfully ask you to stop accusing me of bias, and simply take my questions at their face value, and if you choose to share your expertise, answer them, leaving out the derogatory remarks.

As a practical matter, could planes be retrofitted to add the sprayers?

a reply to: waynos

I didn't post it to show my belief in chemtrails.

I didn't even know who she was until a member on this thread posted her name.

And when I asked, I was told to google the name.

So, my curiosity was peaked.

After watching the video, I was struck by her personal story.

Perhaps the debate should shift from "chemtrails" to "geoengineering," since the name David Keith came up on this thread previously, as well, since some members are interested in his proposal.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Maybe the focus should shift from the trails to what's showing up in the soil as well as data on illnesses.

And what exactly is it they are finding in soil samples?

And before you answer remember the Earth's crust is 8% aluminum.

And exactly what illnesses would those be coming from something that doesn't exist?

a reply to: ConnectDots

I didn't even know who she was until a member on this thread posted her name.

That would be because I thought we could bet her out of the way early, as she would be the next so called chemtrail/geoengineering activist to be brought into this thread.

And when I asked, I was told to google the name.

And see it worked.

After watching the video, I was struck by her personal story.

Sp what exactly was it that struck you about her story?

originally posted by: [post=19572799]ConnectDots

Can we rule out, however, that the footage was fake, then? In other words, did the footage itself appear genuine to you?

I don't know whether those images are fake or not, but they certainly look like fairly normal aerodynamic contrails to me.

They're composite photographs. Please explain how they're valid for comparison with what we see real-time in the video. Do you know what I mean?

I am not "comparing them" I am providing them as an example of aerodynamic contrails illustrating a paper on the topic, by way of illustrating that this phenomena is well recognised.

They do not form in this case?

I don't know what you are referring to with this question.

a reply to: network dude

Kristen Meghan is introduced as a person who would be talking about geoengineering, not chemtrails. She said she started her research because, first of all, she was slightly disillusioned about the military, and subsequently someone asked her if she knew what chemtrails were. She hadn't so she went online and began. She said her research changed her life dramatically (Reminds me of 9/12 truth.)

So that I'm not repeating myself here, I'll refer you to what I've already commented on regarding what she said:

originally posted by: ConnectDots

There are two red flags in that video that should give people a cause to think:

1. What she said about the manufacturers not being listed.
   
2. What she said about her superior suggesting that maybe she needed a mental evaluation instead of treating her in a professional manner.
   

The manufacturer not being listed is not normal. It suggests a secret program.

Her anecdote about her efforts at doing a professional job being rewarded by a suggestion that she needed a mental evaluation was absolutely compelling.

If the only thing you care to hear about is the proof from the other side of the debate that you are participating in had to offer re. chemtrails, then I can see that there's nothing of interest there for you.

But honestly I think it's time to change the debate from chemtrails to geoengineering. Is there evidence of geoengineering already going on on planet earth?

I think we've exhausted the topic of how a contrail forms.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Meghan's original issues with potentially unlabeled material not anything to do with geoengineering - the materials concerned are all perfectly normal industrial chemicals used in all sorts of processes, and she never said anything about them being used for geoengineering until much later.

ETA:

There is no debate here. there is only you continually raising a stream of questions and refusing to make or accept any conclusions as the weight and validity of evidence.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

she never said anything about them being used for geoengineering until much later.

Especially when she figured out it was an easy money maker.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Yes.

And I'm beginning to think the contrail - chemtrail debate is a waste of time and effort.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Yes.

And I'm beginning to think the contrail - chemtrail debate is a waste of time and effort.

there is no debate.

there is only people who insist chemtrails exist despite a total lack of evidence, credibility or anything else that might support their case...excepting passion!

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Yes.

And I'm beginning to think the contrail - chemtrail debate is a waste of time and effort.

Sadly, you will ignore this as well, since it doesn't fit your narrative.

Contrails (or if you like to call them chemtrails) are a product of powered flight and the right conditions at or above 25,000 feet or so. ) The information that we have been offering, clearly explain that to a degree most children would fully grasp the concept.

Geo-engineering (it's a really big topic and covers a lot of different areas, so to just refer to it in regards to spraying from a plane misses about 90% of what it really is.) SRM, which is a portion of the Geo-engineering idea, is the spraying of a substance from a plane at very high altitudes. Higher than where normal planes fly and just entering the stratosphere. If it were to be done, as has been pointed out and ignored by you, there is little chance if any that we could see it from the ground. The tiny particles would not spread into a thick layer of ice crystals and cover the sky, they would dissipate and hang very near the area they were sprayed at, until wind drift moved them. All the while, remaining virtually invisible to all of us.

So if you detect a tiny bit of sarcasm in my posts to you, as you make post after post of every chemtrail video, and theory that exists on the internet, while never actually discussing any of them after you present them, perhaps with a good bit of study, and reflection, you can start to discern why that might be.

Until then hate me, grind your teeth at me, and tell all your friends how mean I am. But remember, no matter how fun it is to believe Dane WIggington is the second coming of Christ, he isn't. He lies to you and if you do a serious 5 minutes of research on SRM you will also see that there is a better chance of him being a shill for the government, then there is for him giving a sh!t about "the environment". If he cared at all, he would stop chasing unicorn piss and start looking into real life things to worry about.

Have a super day.

a reply to: ConnectDots

And I'm beginning to think the contrail - chemtrail debate is a waste of time and effort.

Never, but here I will offer you a few more names to lookup in the chemtrail realm...so here you go.

Scott Stephens

Ted Gunderson

Enjoy...