Operation Indigo Skyfold

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: payt69

I recognize that Contrail Science website from Kristen Meghan's talk.

That, and Metabunk.

Yes, she actually made a couple of posts on Metabunk, where she famously stated:

My whistleblowing is not related to chemtrails, it is related to industrial ground activities that overexposed the workers and they didn't want it reported, and since I took the samples, they wanted to demonize me in case I spoke out.

It is going through what I did as a whistleblower than led to my activism. Chemtrails and the TSA are my biggest topics I am linked to.

in post 49 in this thread: www.metabunk.org...

Might be an interesting read for you

This contrail - chemtrail merry-go-round reminds me of the left - right paradigm that Alex Jones has pointed out.

The merry go round is pretty easy to get off by checking a few facts, and check the claims made by chemtrail people, as well as by contrail people, Which ones can you verify for yourself?

It's probably all engineered just to keep us occupied while the powers that be go about their merry (sarcastic) business.

If I were part of some global elite with a need to distract people from real issues, I'd have them worry about harmless stuff such as contrails. In that sense, the whole chemtrail debacle could be right up their alley. But I'm starting to sound conspiratorial here

Things just keep on keeping on.

Well, my advice is: educate yourself, so you can recognize things for what they are.

Just now a video was posted in the chemtrails section which claimed to be proof of a spray plane. It shows a boeing 747 with white lines coming from the wingtips, not form the engines. So they're not contrails. If you don't have any detailed knowledge of what can cause such a phenomenon, this video may pose a challenge for you.

Now imagine you've been told that the government has jets that spray us with some nefarious stuff.. well, you may start to think that that's what you're looking at. But if you're familiar with what a fuel dump looks like (which is what's shown in that video), you'll instantly recognize it when you see it.

For all I know the government may be spraying us with something. But the problem is: so far everything that has been presented as 'evidence' for that being the case doesn't hold up, and some of it has even been doctored to make it look like something it isn't. So we're left with nothing tangible to substantiate the idea that spraying is actually going on.

The only defence we have against finding yourself on a merry-go-round between ideas is to educate yourself. Make sure you KNOW what you're talking about.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I didn't say anything about "shill." What are you talking about?

Begin @ 17:40

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
Do you know approximately when the term "chemtrails" started? Perhaps who coined the term, as well?

In what context? The conspiracy theory began in 1996, IIRC. I have read a name or two but can't recall at the moment.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
Do you know approximately when the term "chemtrails" started? Perhaps who coined the term, as well?

As far as I know, the use of the term 'Chemtrails' in it's current contrext was started by William Thomas, who wrote the following statements about them:

Wallace has been watching formations of high-flying jets weave grid-like contrails above his home since last summer [summer 1998]. Each time, “We get a taste in our mouth,” he reports. He and his wife Ann get “kind of tired and sick,” having “no energy to do anything.”
[…]
Series of aircraft contrails in a high traffic region over the northern Gulf of Mexico 1992 (Images courtesy NASA)
[…]
Wallace and his wife are not alone in their plight. In March, 1996, Dr. Greg Hanford bought an expensive camera and binoculars to keep an eye on jets spraying white bands above his Bakersfield, California home. Hanford has counted 40 or 60 jets on some “spray days.”
[…]
Pseudo-color, multispectral images taken April 20, 1994 by a NOAA satellite, reveal a number of contrails over Oklahoma and Kansas.
[…]
Pat Edgar has been watching the jets spraying over eastern Oklahoma since a sunny day in October, 1977 when as many as 30 contrails gradually occluded the sky. “They look like they’re playing tic-tac-toe up there,” he says. “You know darn well it’s not passenger planes.”
[…]
Rogers, does not attribute his strange malady to the mystery jets. But neither he nor his doctors can explain his breathing difficulty, which began shortly after spraying began in November, 1997, and is getting worse.

web.archive.org...

Well, it's quite a gift to be able to taste stuff that's being 'sprayed' some 6 or 7 miles up there.. lol. And we've also found out that they ARE in fact passenger planes, for the most part.

Anyway, even back then you can already see some of the nonsensical claims being made about 'chemtrails'. Most of these are no longer being claimed. Instead chemtrail people seem to now claim that persisting contrails are in fact geoengineering at work, and seem to be moving away form using the term 'chemtrails'.

Apparently they still haven't solved the mystery of what makes a contrail persist. I'll give them a clue: cirrus clouds.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Got it.

I can see why you would take offense at that.

It is name-calling.

I feel the same way about Wigington being called a "liar."

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Got it.

I can see why you would take offense at that.

It is name-calling.

I feel the same way about Wigington being called a "liar."

Would you still feel that way if someone could demonstrate to you that he lies? Kindof in the same way that Kristin lies about knowing that Mick West is a paid government agent?

a reply to: ConnectDots
One difference is that she just lets the accusation fly as far as I've seen with no attempt to support it.

That's not the case with Dane's opposition. There's plenty of evidence that he's wrong about many things. I'm trying to refrain from using the term liar with him because I can't prove intent, myself. I can't prove he knows better, only that I think it's reasonable to believe he should know better.

a reply to: waynos

You make the assumption that there is no problem with mainstream science.

It is as if you think all the answers presented can be trusted and should not be challenged.

I think that is not a sound assumption.

You are trying to make a claim of authority.

I reject it.

a reply to: ConnectDots
Do you reject anything specific regarding the science that explains contrails? For example, would you argue that water should not freeze at -40°?

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

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

Because you have used the word "images," I'm concerned that we are not communicating.

I asked you to watch the video as opposed to screenshots, because I thought it was important that Wigington stated to the audience that what they were looking at was a plane actually spraying.

I assume he said that because of the start, stop, start, stop, etc.

Before we discuss aerodynamic contrails, I need to ask you: Didn't that look like a plane that was spraying? Or not?

a reply to: ConnectDots

I see that every day. The plane entered an area where the atmosphere was too dry for a contrail, then entered another area where contrails can form, then a dry area again.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I see.

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

Start at 1:34:05.

thank you - I did so.
He says he worked in an experiment by Sandia Labs, dispersing Aluminum oxide "from containers" out the back of C130's - that hey had to wear masks (which you'd expect when working with any dust), that he was told it was for weather tests to "accelerate rain", and that there were atomisers on the side of the aircraft.

Broadly I think that this is plausible - I cant' find anything about using aluminum oxide for cloud seeding, but as I understand it there have been many tests of materials to see if any work better than others.

There are only 2 "odd" bits about it:

1/ he sort of snorts when mentioning wearing masks, as if to say "well if it's safe why do we need masks?" (IMO) - but particle masks are a basic safety equipment when dealing with any dust.

2/ He mentions atomisers - but you don't' put solid materials through atomisers - they are for liquids. I suspect he is probably just not using the correct terminology for some sort of piped dispersal system.

So my take on it - he likely did work on some cloud seeding experiments as he has described.

a reply to: ConnectDots

we are talking about the same thing - a video is just a set of connected images.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

You make the assumption that there is no problem with mainstream science.

whatever problems there may be with mainstream science, identifying contrails and the impossibility of chemtrails are not among them.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

You make the assumption that there is no problem with mainstream science.

It is as if you think all the answers presented can be trusted and should not be challenged.

I think that is not a sound assumption.

You are trying to make a claim of authority.

I reject it.

The beauty of science is that it uses the scientific method. So if you see something wrong in an explanation, you can point it out, substantiate it, and other people will look at it (peer review) and see if they can reproduce your findings, and if you're right, your new theory will be accepted.

That's why referring to scientific findings is not a claim of authority.

A claim of authority would be something like me claiming that contrails can't persist, and me expecting you to believe me without me having to back up my statement, because I'm supposed to be an authority on contrails.

That's not how things work in science. IF I make such a statement, I'm supposed to be able to explain why I believe that to be the case.

And you know what's funny? I've seen the claim being made by chemtrail believers, but despite my asking over and over again to explain why contrails can't persist, I've never received an answer. Instead I've been called a paid government shill/troll for not readily believing it... from authority I suppose.

So if there is a problem with the mainstream theory that explains contrails, which was arrived at through the scientific method, then feel free to point that problem out.

But of course, in order to do that, you have to know what that mainstream theory is in the first place. And I doubt that you know that.

Thanks for watching.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

. . . (which you'd expect when working with any dust)

What dust is that with what they were doing?

. . . but you don't' put solid materials through atomisers - they are for liquids.

Aluminum oxide is considered a solid?

a reply to: ConnectDots

the dust is aluminium oxide, and yes, it is considered a solid - the reason being that it is a solid.

You could have answered these questions yourself with a little research!! en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ConnectDots

If you've flown much and watched the wing surfaces on takeoff or landing you will see arrodynamic contrails quite often coming off the flaps.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

Aluminum oxide is considered a solid?

It's a common abrasive powder used for machining and sandpaper.