Operation Indigo Skyfold

a reply to: Bedlam

You might read the entire article. Or, did you do that already?

And you might consider the fallacy of reason called ridicule.

Is it possible that magnetic fields are energy?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam

You might read the entire article. Or, did you do that already?

Yes. I did.

And you might consider the fallacy of reason called ridicule.

It isn't one if it's ridiculous. That article is. It's not a scientific paper by any stretch of the imagination.

Is it possible that magnetic fields are energy?

No. It takes energy to create one, and that energy is returned when one collapses. But they are not energy.

It's not uncommon for *ahem* sites that like to use terms like "life energy" or the like (your Reiki site sort of balls up everything from magnetic fields to qi as some sort of energy field) are often, let's say, scientifically illiterate. I haven't seen a Reiki site that wasn't. Because Reiki is a pure form of woo.

Both "therapeutic touch" and "reiki" fail to disprove the null hypothesis whenever tested by neutral arbiters. I can fake a reiki session and have the same odds of "helping" someone as a 'reiki master'. Same with therapeutic touch. It's a lot of piffle, basically, and you wouldn't expect to get anything technically accurate from a reiki site, and this 'scientific article' is typical.

eta: we're sort of afield from the topic. But back to the original question, identical molecules are identical, and you'd need a better metric to assess that than some fakir's assessment of an aura. You might, if you like, start a thread about how much you think reiki is real in one of the science based forums, it would be more appropriate to address it there, I'd suspect.

a reply to: ConnectDots

And you might consider the fallacy of reason called ridicule.

I'm pretty sure it's only considered a fallacy if ridicule and only ridicule IS one's argument.

How about appeal to (false) authority?

How about 'appeal to hearsay'?

originally posted by: Bedlam
It isn't one if it's ridiculous. That article is. It's not a scientific paper by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, it is one if there is science that is shut out of the system, as in people who can't get published, and conversely, a skewed view in the science community, via. the tyranny of peer review caused by corruption of academia by vested interests.

a reply to: network dude

No.

But there is a fear factor.

It can be compared to the topic of UFOs. People in the Air Force who have seen UFOs will sometimes not report them for fear of ridicule.

And those who are in the loop are threatened. They're told, "You didn't see this."

People sometimes fear being killed, or having their loved ones threatened.

Have you listened to the clip I posted?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Yes, it is one if there is science that is shut out of the system, as in people who can't get published, and conversely, a skewed view in the science community, via. the tyranny of peer review caused by corruption of academia by vested interests.

Or in the true scientific world...pseudoscience isn't credible.

Or they don't push BS for a peer review.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Horizon to horizon spraying for another. Even using nanoaluminum, whatever that is, a 747, which is the largest commercial freight aircraft, and it would have to be a freighter, couldn't carry a fraction of the material to spray from horizon to horizon. It just can't be done.

What about military aircraft and perhaps advanced technology that is not public knowledge for "reasons of national security"?

Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

No.

But there is a fear factor.

It can be compared to the topic of UFOs. People in the Air Force who have seen UFOs will sometimes not report them for fear of ridicule.

And those who are in the loop are threatened. They're told, "You didn't see this."

People sometimes fear being killed, or having their loved ones threatened.

Have you listened to the clip I posted?

I disagree completely. UFO's are something we can capture on film and look at, not knowing what it is. (hence the U part)
with contrails, we can look at them, take pictures of them, film them, and all the while, sit comfortably in the knowledge that every rational mind in the world will see the same thing other rational minds do. Ice crystals emitted through the process of powered flight.

There will be a fringe element who refuses to believe that a tree is made of wood, cement is wet at first, then hardens, and birds can both fly and run. Those are the people who, because of paranoia, refuse to believe the undisputed science that fully explains contrails. They must manufacture fantastic stories in their mind to make their delusions appear a tad less nutty. (usually to no avail)

Rational people can both understand that the government is untrustworthy, and science can be accepted as factual all at the same time.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

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?

No. You seem to get it that a contrail can persist, so why not a grid of them? That's how the "chemtrail" confusion began. Some people who didn't understand how contrails can persist decided to call them chemtrails and make websites about them. Fast forward a decade or two and here we are, people think there must be something to them because of the vast amount of web pages they can find on the subject, oblivious to the fact (yes, fact) that they all lead back to the same error/ Lie that began it all.

Chemtrails are just persisting contrails. Everything else is fluff and obfuscation.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam

Is there a catch there?

What about the reason the atmosphere is saturated?

The reason is weather. It's been going on millions of years. What are you inferring?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

I'm still having a problem viewing a cirrus cloud as having two types, natural and man-made.

My intuition is ringing alarm bells.

But I'm listening.

Or trying to.

Maybe it's like vitamin supplements. If the molecule is the same, is synthetic just as good as natural?

And protein. If the protein is the same, is vegetable protein as good as animal protein? I've heard that the energy field of people who eat animal protein is better than that of vegetarians. If that is true, then maybe the protein appearing to be the same to scientists is not the whole picture.

You are over complicating it unnecessarily. Forget proteins and vegetables, that is not a valid comparison.

1 There is water vapour in the air, at varying levels, everywhere and always.

2 There are also particles blowing in the air, dust etc

3 When the humidity in the air reaches saturation point water vapour will nucleate and freeze on the dust particles forming cirrus clouds. How long they stay around for depends on the level of humidity, as this level drops the cloud will sublimate back into vapour.

Now, for comparison
1 There is water vapour in jet exhaust, 1.25t for every 1t of fuel burned, plus the ambient water vapour in the bypass air drawn through the front fan.

2 jet exhaust also contains particles of soot and even minuscule particles of metal from wear on the engines

3 when the aircraft is flying at the altitude where Cirrus forms the combination of water and particles results in a contrail of frozen ice crystals, formed exactly the same way as cirrus clouds are.

Now, in drier air, these trails will sublimate and disappear very rapidly as the ice turns back to vapour. In more humid air they will hang around for a while, and in air where it was virtually ready to start producing cirrus anyway, the two combine and the sky is covered in a sheet of cirrus where the two are indistinguishable.

Does that help?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Horizon to horizon spraying for another. Even using nanoaluminum, whatever that is, a 747, which is the largest commercial freight aircraft, and it would have to be a freighter, couldn't carry a fraction of the material to spray from horizon to horizon. It just can't be done.

What about military aircraft and perhaps advanced technology that is not public knowledge for "reasons of national security"?

am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

Yes, you've misunderstood.

The most basic reason we can be sure that chemtrails are nonsense is because the theory requires the aircraft to lay out the trail as it goes "spraying" something it is carrying, but if you could gather a contrail back up to weigh it, it would be in the order of 100 times greater than the lifting capacity of the worlds largest aircraft. In short, impossible.

Likewise spreading out yo cover the sky. This mysterious chemtrail is somehow required to spread out and cover the entire sky. Not getting thinner and thinner to the point of invisibility that *anything* sprayed actually would, but getting thicker and multiplying as it goes.

You're a fan of common sense aren't you?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Have you any thoughts on those chemtrail plane interiors yet?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Air Force 2025 - Final Report consists of 5 volumes and 1,085 pages.

Volume 3, "Power and Influence," contains the document "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" on page 958. That is the document you linked to.

Why did you link to it, saying that Prof. Chossudovsky had not referenced the Final Report, as stated?

Just so you know that wasn't an official Air Force document . . .

Since the words “. . . according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report“ do not include the word “official,” don't you think you might be splitting hairs?

a reply to: ConnectDots

understanding things you read are key to knowing what is really happening. But just hoping the title of the article is enough to satisfy your curiosity isn't quite the scientific way to approach things.

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

Disclaimer
2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The
views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or
events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.
This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared
for public release.

a reply to: network dude

I read the Disclaimer.

That Disclaimer does not say to me that it is not an Air Force document.

It was prepared for the Air Force, was it not?

a reply to: ConnectDots
What part of the document discusses "chemtrails?" Or contrails for that matter.

a reply to: ConnectDots

It was an assignment for USAF Cadets. So while it was an official Air Force Document in the sense that it came from the USAF, (we are back to that common sense thing you are so damn fond of) to think that cadets would have any special "sooper secret" knowledge on controlling the weather, is a bit out there even for a chemtrail believer. (unless the title was just too perfect as is the case here)

a reply to: ConnectDots

Here, you will come unglued over this one.

saive.com...

And after you are thoroughly amazed, and you tell all the chemtrail buddies what you found, you can reflect on Phage's post and ask yourself that same question.

(hint, there is nothing in that document about contrails or chemtrails)
But that won't matter much as the title is freaking amazing!

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

I read the Disclaimer.

That Disclaimer does not say to me that it is not an Air Force document.

It was prepared for the Air Force, was it not?

Were your students' compositions ''School documents''?