Proof that Geoengineeringwatch had been lying all along.

originally posted by: intrptr
I don't have any proof anyway of rows of disinfo specialists sitting side by side somewhere deep in 'Fusion' centers, promoting endless argument about 911, MH17, flags, guns, racism, endless war, debt…

With enormous resources backing them up.

As in the shadow government.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: intrptr
I don't have any proof anyway of rows of disinfo specialists sitting side by side somewhere deep in 'Fusion' centers, promoting endless argument about 911, MH17, flags, guns, racism, endless war, debt…

With enormous resources backing them up.

As in the shadow government.

Funny it doesn't require enormous resources for Dane to keep up the flow of disinfo

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: intrptr
I don't have any proof anyway of rows of disinfo specialists sitting side by side somewhere deep in 'Fusion' centers, promoting endless argument about 911, MH17, flags, guns, racism, endless war, debt…

With enormous resources backing them up.

As in the shadow government.

Well at least we've been able to pin down at least ONE source of disinformation, and that's the subject of this thread.

But maybe you can explain why you still regard Dane Wigington as a credible source?

originally posted by: payt69

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: intrptr
I don't have any proof anyway of rows of disinfo specialists sitting side by side somewhere deep in 'Fusion' centers, promoting endless argument about 911, MH17, flags, guns, racism, endless war, debt…

With enormous resources backing them up.

As in the shadow government.

Well at least we've been able to pin down at least ONE source of disinformation, and that's the subject of this thread.

But maybe you can explain why you still regard Dane Wigington as a credible source?

What if he IS Dane?? Duh duh duuuuuuuuuuuh!

originally posted by: ConnectDots
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Dude..id love to believe you that you will explore this with an open mind...but i dont. We havew provided more than enough evidence to show hes a liar and you still wont accept it. Sorry, but you wont. And may i suggest science websites are the correct plce to do your "research".

Trawling Youtube videos and crackpot websites is in no way reasearch. Its entertainent. Please dont sully the word research.

Either way, bonne chance!

a reply to: ConnectDots


I posted the information about the fuel dump event on the Geoengineering watch page. It has now been deleted just as have all the comments on the fb page, their website and youtube. Speaks volumes to me

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: payt69

Why not? How is it different from any other kind of pollution?

People that think its 'normal' to seed the biosphere with a zillion tons of of aromatic hydrocarbons and soot are abnormal.

What do you plan to do about this?

a reply to: mrthumpy

I can definitely understand why you feel that way.

But it's possible that it's the only way that Dane Wigington can cope. When I say that, of course it's based on the assumption that he is a genuine concerned citizen going up against the military-industrial complex, which answers to the shadow government.

I have a lot of work to do to follow up on questions that I'm still working on regarding the allegation that GeoEngineering Watch posts Photoshopped photos with the intention to deceive.

Specifically there is the article "Why Chemtrails" which I mistakenly thought was authored by Dane Wigington, but the author is actually Bruce Conway. In my opinion, the overall theme of that article was not about proof of chemtrail spraying, but was about the shadow government and what we can expect out of them.

I have already tried to reach Bruce Conway, since he's the one who should know about the photo at the top of his article, (I guess), but the email address I found for him rejected. I'm still working on communicating with him on the issue, however.

Additionally, I have emailed Dane Wigington for assistance locating Bruce Conway.

a reply to: ConnectDots

If you ever feel like asking Dane the difficult questions, you may want to see why he pushes the contrails are chemtrails thing, when SRM would be done well above the level normal planes fly and quite possibly well above the level contrails form.

This is assuming he as done a little research into "geo-engineering".

a reply to: network dude

Well, it could be that he started out thinking that, but at present he's just talking about geoengineering, in general.

(I'm still learning all the terminology. I haven't been researching this for years, as you have.)

What I'd like to point out is that my strength lies with awareness of the shadow government, and also, awareness of the fact (in my opinion) that there is extremely advanced technology that is used in black projects, that the general public is clueless about.

This is where watching the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure is important, because real, live, normal people who have experienced firsthand what it's like to be in the military, and to be subjected to extreme pressure to keep their mouths shut and to do as they are told, are given the opportunity to testify, because the organizers of that hearing took it upon themselves to do what Congress should have done, but didn't. That, of course, is a topic of its own.

What I'm trying to say is that it is highly likely that the way the spraying is done would not be obvious to the public, because the shadow government, which controls the military, makes sure you're thoroughly misinformed about what's going on.

a reply to: ConnectDots

What I'm trying to say is that it is highly likely that the way the spraying is done would not be obvious to the public

So then chemtrails are invisible, aren't what is known as lingering or persistent contrails?

If its not obvious to the public why has there been a conspiracy about it since the 90s claiming the white trails are chemtrails if the public are in teh dark?

a reply to: ConnectDots

I don't expect you to have the answers. Which is why I thought you may want to ask Dane that one.

None of that requires the shadow government to be or not to be. It's really quite simple. And I do suggest that if you plan to discuss this topic, you look into SRM just a bit. (it's the crux of Dane's sight, yet you'd never know it by all the pretty contrail pictures.)

a reply to: InhaleExhale

I am just starting to learn about the possibility of the chemtrails being invisible.

I don't know whether it's something new, or whether it's always been the case.

And I don't know how the term persistent contrail fits into the big picture. It's not a term used by Geoengineering Watch, is it? It's used by those who don't believe we're being sprayed. Correct?

Anyway, what I meant is that the public does not know about the goings on in black projects.

But the public, (some of them) have noticed unusual things in the sky. And some of the public has been getting sick, and they blame their sickness on what's raining down from what they see in the sky.

a reply to: network dude

But SRM according to whom?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
And I don't know how the term persistent contrail fits into the big picture. It's not a term used by Geoengineering Watch, is it? It's used by those who don't believe we're being sprayed. Correct?

What was called a "persistent contrail" for decades is now called a "chemtrail" by the chemtrail conspiracy believers.

Sometime in the 1990s, chemtrail conspiracy people (websites, etc.) began pushing the incorrect notion that all contrails should disappear after a few minutes, and if a trail persists and last for hours, then it cannot be a contrail, and hence is a chemtrail. They also claim that prior to the 1990s, persistent trails did not exist, and only began to be seen then because of secret spraying of poisons from specially-made secret spraying aircraft

That, of course, is a complete fabrication of the facts by the people who push chemtrail conspiracies. Persistent contrails have been described by science since the beginning of high-altitude flight. Persistent contrails were common during WWII.

Here is a paper published in 1972 that mentions persisting trails, and how spreading contrails create cirrus clouds:

Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
(This links directly to a PDF file)

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

But SRM according to whom?

David Keith, Dane Wiggington, Wikipedia, Then National Science Foundation, Al Gore, Encyclopedia Britanica, And Sam Pinkerton. To my knowledge, the definition and ideas for it's deployment (note that David Keith is the guy who initially came up with the idea, so it's kind of silly for him not the know what it's about) isn't up for debate, it's accepted as truth by everyone. If you find that is an incorrect statement, please correct me with citations.

ETA:
www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk...