Operation Indigo Skyfold

a reply to: ConnectDots

Some are. Let me guess...there's some sort of "dark ray" involved? Which is supposedly HAARP?

a reply to: Bedlam

Here is the complete text of the anecdote in question:

originally posted by: ConnectDots

Northern California, March 2015

On March 19, the chemtrails were blatantly present as if daring anyone to look up and see them. They were less obvious as clouds moved in on March 20. Then on March 21, there were many older chemtrails blowing in from off the coast and many new ones being formed as we watched. In addition, there was another phenomenon that I had witnessed once before. When there was cirrus above to form a white background, one could see what I believe was the HAARP beam activating the chemtrails. It was very well defined like a narrow searchlight beam, but it was translucent black. One could see through it, and it was perfectly straight without the fuzzy appearance of an expanding chemtrail, visible from horizon to horizon wherever there was a white background above. When there was cirrus above to form a white background, one could see what I believe was the HAARP beam activating the chemtrails. It was very well defined like a narrow searchlight beam, but it was translucent black. One could see through it, and it was perfectly straight without the fuzzy appearance of an expanding chemtrail, visible from horizon to horizon wherever there was a white background above.

Additionally, because of Zaphod58's input, I have been in contact with Lew Price to ask him about contrail shadows.

Price has mentioned that he should have used the term "beam path."

Here is a second description from him to me to try to clarify for me what he (and his wife) have observed:

What we saw was only visible where there were clouds above that would allow one to see the darker particulates moving in the beam path. Apparently, the beam caused them to move. The clouds above blocked any sunlight from coming through. Where there were no clouds, the sun came through and the visible beam paths were no longer visible. So there would be a visible beam path, no clouds and no visible beam path, then more clouds in the background and more visible beam path. This scenario went from the tree line on one side to that on the other side. The two beam paths on this occasion were straight but appeared broken in places because the white cloud background was broken. There was no lower layer of clouds to act as a screen for shadow projection.

The other time we saw this there was only one beam path visible.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Right. Zaphod's right. That's a contrail shadow. Some are very dramatic. But they're well known.

You really have to ask yourself - in what way could a 2-10MHz radio wave "absorb light". There not being even a remote chance that this could happen, you need to look for other explanations.

Two of my favorites:

a reply to: ConnectDots

Could you save me some time?

Who's she?

Google is all you need to know.

a reply to: Bedlam
Thanks, Bedlam.

a reply to: ConnectDots

YW, it takes a number of conditions to get one. You have to have a low thin even haze layer to project the shadow onto, and the sun has to be fairly low but "over" the haze, and you need a dense contrail in just the right spot.

BTW, earlier I said I had seen one in a 60's show, here ya go, from "The Invaders", episode 2:20 "The Organization", about 26 minutes in...





You can see the other cirrus and alto-cumulus in the minutes up to this shot that precede weather changes and provide the sort of conditions for persistent contrails. In the cop shot, you can see a fading but very wide contrail to the left of the cop over the telephone pole. But above, you see "mackerel sky" or alto-cumulus. They indicate moisture saturation. In the second photo, you see at least three persistent contrails, and there are cirrus clouds, indicating ice precipitation high aloft, and generally predicting the formation of cloud cover, especially with alto-cumulus telling you the lower atmo is saturated. Thus do you get old saws about mackerel sky and mare's tails.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Price has mentioned that he should have used the term "beam path."

Well send him this link so he knows what they are and how they form.

www.atoptics.co.uk...

originally posted by: Bedlam
YW

"You're welcome"

Not

"Yes, well"?

(I'm tired.)

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Bedlam
YW

"You're welcome"

Not

"Yes, well"?

(I'm tired.)

Definitely you're welcome. I often use Nu? for "yes, well?"

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: network dude
In fact, I remember questioning the reason for all this back in the late 70's.

The reason for all what? Were trails being discussed in the news, or something?

. . . the fact that I see a few persistent trails (the kind that last for hours and spread out into cirrus) means that if they aren't chemtrailing me, it is remotely possible that those white lines are just contrails.

I'm not following your reasoning there.

Can you rephrase that for me?

I remember asking why some trails stayed in the sky and some went away quickly. I was 7 and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet, so to find the answer, I would have had to go to the library, and I apparently didn't need to know that bad.

And my comment about the few trails I see. If the trails I see are contrails, yet they look just like the ones you claim are chemtrails, it's it remotely possible that even though you see more of them than I do, they are still just contrails? Is that even something you would consider?

originally posted by: network dude
I was 7 and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet . . .

Thanks!

I needed a laugh.

a reply to: network dude

You're saying that when you were 7 you noticed that there are contrails and persistent contrails.

But that leaves chemtrails.

What I'm saying is that we must have three terms to make any sense out of the confusion:

• contrails
  
• persistent contrails
  
• chemtrails
  

Do you agree?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Additionally, because of Zaphod58's input, I have been in contact with Lew Price to ask him about contrail shadows.

What did he have to say about the scientist being murdered after appearing on a radio show? I need a name, for closure.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Grid patterns for example. On a daily basis there are over 20,000 commercial flights over the US alone. Add in general and business aviation and that skyrockets. Show me any possible way to fly that many aircraft anywhere and NOT see them crossing paths and leaving a grid. It can't be done unless every single one of them is flying in exactly the same direction, or parallel to each other the entire time.

The grid in question should usually dissipate fairly quickly, no?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I do, too.

We're still working on that.

a reply to: ConnectDots

What I'm saying is that we must have three terms to make any sense out of the confusion:

contrails
persistent contrails
chemtrails

SO we have two that can be proven scientifically worldwide and agreed upon, but you want to add a word that was made up in the 90's and has nothing scientifically to prove they actually exist and you want that term to be used to make any sense out of the confusion...

I see your confusion...chemtrails.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Not if the atmosphere is saturated. In that case, it'll spread and turn into the even cloud cover you see. See also: supersaturation, nucleation.

a reply to: ConnectDots

The grid in question should usually dissipate fairly quickly, no?

Depends on conditions.

As it does with contrails.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

What did he have to say about the scientist being murdered after appearing on a radio show? I need a name, for closure.

Probably nothing as that has been proven a lie...so closure may never come.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: network dude
I was 7 and Al Gore hadn't invented the internet yet . . .

Thanks!

I needed a laugh.

a reply to: network dude

You're saying that when you were 7 you noticed that there are contrails and persistent contrails.

But that leaves chemtrails.

What I'm saying is that we must have three terms to make any sense out of the confusion:

• contrails
  
• persistent contrails
  
• chemtrails
  

Do you agree?


I don't agree that I ever even thought about chemrails. Back then, before there could be web pages full of "alternative information" we had the knowledge from the science we learned. Believe it or not, I saw planes making contrails and just accepted that they did that. Then, to my surprise, later in life I learned exactly why they do that, and I also learned the answer to my (not so burning) question.

Do you agree that there is a possibility that the entire scientific community is right and maybe those trails are just contrails?

a reply to: Bedlam

Is there a catch there?

What about the reason the atmosphere is saturated?