Operation Indigo Skyfold

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

No, he didn't.

Activists aren't doing what they're doing to be right.

They're trying to participate in saving the planet.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The reply to Bedlam was to show when they started.

The document that shows it is about the military and what their goals are.

What is your point of contention?

Double talking obfuscation and I ain't havin' it!

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

You brought it up in reference to the Herndon interview that you posted, though.

So, there's no point in listening to it again?

No I did not. Check it.

ETA: Only the initial statement concerned Herndon. The entirety of the next portion beginning with ''Unrelated fun fact'' was all about Wigs. I can't believe you didn't recognize that as a Wigington claim. I'm pretty sure you posted in a thread on that subject. I'll look to confirm or retract.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

No, he didn't.

Activists aren't doing what they're doing to be right.

They're trying to participate in saving the planet.

Yes, he did. It's a simple tautology. Undeniable.

Is Mary Mary just being contrary?

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

As I stated, I was interested in the knowledge of the person who brought it up.

You didn't frame it that way - you just asked what is the official position on WW2 contrails.

Why are you so hostile?

hostile?? I certainly don't see myself as hostile.

I do like pointing out inconsistencies to give people an opportunity to improve their own knowledge tho'.

Isn't that your objective here - to gain knowledge??

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

No, he didn't.

Activists aren't doing what they're doing to be right.

They're trying to participate in saving the planet.

it seems a bit silly to be "saving the planet" if it won't actually save the planet - so I think "being right" is very important in that sense!!

So he got the "secret" information from a guy he's known for six months that told his cousin who then told him.....that's not very good evidence.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Cloudseeding and chemtrails aren't the same

a reply to: NiZZiM
Who you gonna believe? Him or the gubmint?

(As if those are the only two options lol)

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

You're not trying to obfuscate, are you?

tautology

What are you talking about?

a reply to: ConnectDots
No I'm not. Somehow I confused the meaning of that word in my memory. I used the wrong word.

Help me out here Mary. You choose the word for me. What word would you use to describe a statement that's so obviously true that Stevie Wonder could #ing see it?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
I'm not interested in the word that you need to express yourself.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation
I'm not interested in the word that you need to express yourself.

Express this. This is a post of mine in a thread of yours www.abovetopsecret.com...

How is the ''Researchers Without Retention'' project coming along?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Do I have to frame it that way when Chadwickus had challenged Wigington's statement about programs beginning in the 40s by bringing up WW2 trails?

I was asking for clarification of the opposing view.

a reply to: ConnectDots

I can't read your mind - only the words you wrote.

And I answered your question - why are you so hostile??

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: ConnectDots
How is his knowledge of meteorology?

Unrelated fun fact, combustion of fossil fuels yields about 125% water by mass. That's true even with high bypass ratio turbofans. The amount of humid air that passes through the engine that isn't combusted adds to the amount of water available for ice crystal formation. Ask Wigs about that sometime. If he even answers, it could be kind of funny.

We've been through this before. This crap from Dane about the newer engines not producing contrails.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
I can't read your mind - only the words you wrote.

True, but now that I've explained, you could consider what I've told you.

For whatever it's worth.

a reply to: waynos

The description for the video says that the presentation was another one in Northern California, where apparently agriculture has been severely affected by something.

My sense is that the people in the audience are very upset about the state of things where they live and are not looking for the kind of information or proof that you are.

a reply to: ConnectDots

It's been affected by a drought.

a reply to: ConnectDots

I read your reply and had to click on my name to see what you were replying to. As I suspected there is no connection at all between what I said and what you replied with. My post was nothing to do with angry people or crops, it was purely about the information that Dane presented as if it was some sort of fait accompli, when it was nothing of the sort. Can you explain how that does not seem dishonest to you (my actual question)?

IMO, it would have been honest of Dane to put it the way you did. Crops have been affected by something, but what? As Zap said, drought is a very strong candidate for that, so why tell lies and say it's definitely the result of chemtrails and that there is "no debate".

Also, how about my next post about the aircraft interiors?