Operation Indigo Skyfold

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

I don't think that's a very sound argument.

You're assuming that they don't have another function.

I'm not willing to assume that.

More investigation is in order.

Knowing what something is for and what it does is an extremely sound argument, I can't believe you would try to say otherwise. Your own position on these tanks relies entirely upon supposition, Because there is nothing factual to back it up. How's that for unsound?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

Those of you who might not be too privy to chemistry, you know that there are natural elements occurring in earth. Aluminum is one of them. However Barium, radioactive, and Strontium are not [naturally occurring]

(seriously - radioactive ns not a "natural element"

Aren't you glad you know that!!)

Is it possible that there is more than one form of barium? That what she meant was to specify the radioactive form of it?

Have you noticed a pattern yet where you are having to make excuses for what Dane said, what the tanks may do, what Kirsten may have meant etc etc

Does this not tell you something?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam
Why do you suppose that was on The History Channel?

How do you regard the History Channel?

A - the Broadcasting arm of the Smithsonian Institute/British Museum?

B - a commercially funded entertainment network?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Phage

I don't think her citing the History Channel show negates the accuracy of her personal story and her knowledge in her area of expertise. I think she can be forgiven for it. I think it would be a big mistake to ignore what she says because of it.

I don't see how anyone can watch that video and not sense the truth in what she's testifying to.

I don't know what you're talking about with the tanks.

My opinion is that she started out on solid ground, whistleblowing about something she had personal experience of, H&S implications of Air Force chemical handling procedures. Whether she had a point with that I just don't know, but once the CT crowd started to see the words "chemical" and "Air Force" together and she went off piste with them she exposed her own lack of knowledge in the field of aviation and meteorology (and nature) and just made herself look stupid.
The spite and venom in her appearances since her abject performance on metabunk also suggest to me that she knows this.

a reply to: waynos
Beyond that, what is the purpose of saying these tanks could contain chemicals used in a nefarious spraying operation? To what end? I spotted her the spraying operation for the sake of argument, but apparently that's a stumper!

a reply to: ConnectDots

Because I searched the Geoengineering Watch article for an explanation.

Why wouldn't you go to the source of a lie to find the truth.

I recognize that name.

Why is that not surprising?

Let me ask you this. Do you believe mainstream television news?

What exactly does that matter?

I am going out on a limb here and say you don't?

a reply to: ConnectDots

It would behoove you to listen to the interview.

Why he is a known hoaxer and loves the misinformation game.

a reply to: ConnectDots

I don't see how anyone can watch that video and not sense the truth in what she's testifying to.

Ah yes, Kristen Meghan...the whistleblower that never was concerning chemtrails.

Can't say I wasn't expecting this.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I agree, they could also contain candy floss and clouds are just a really nasty tease on people with a sweet tooth. I have as much evidence to support me in that as there is to support any claim that they aren't ballast test tanks.

Further to the point - given that a horizon to horizon contrail is estimated to weigh about half a million tons, and a Boeing 747 MTOW is app.450 tons, of which app.195 tons is the aircraft itself. What sort of chemtrail would those piddly little tanks create?

a reply to: waynos
Zackly! That's why I decided to momentarily abandon the debate concerning the validity of the ''chemtank'' photos. They're so busy trying to prove something is ''possible''. That's what the debate is mostly about for them, to prop up a convoluted sense of plausibility. But even when given what they fight for they can't connect the dots from tanks of chemicals in a plane to a cloud of chemicals weighing many times more than the entire plane and cargo that supposedly sprayed it in any rational manner.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots
This is an interview of Dutchsinse uploaded on Aug 19, 2011:

Listen regarding what happened to Dutchsinse's friend: Link

Listen to Gene Chip Tatum being interviewed, including the topic of the modus operandi in relation to assassinations: Link

Have you seen a conspiracy on YT that you don't believe?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
HOLY SH#! Did you listen to the dutchsenseless story? I'm at a loss for words at the moment. Shot 5 times with an AK 47 and he's in the hospital, rather than the morgue? They left the roommate, an eyewitness, unharmed?

Oh yeah, and they shot his friend to silence Dutch????? Makes so much sense. How could an adult mind simply accept this at face value, seemingly no skepticism whatsoever?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Yeah I've seen it before - but don't over-rate shooting - think of Malala....the human body is a resilient machine.

I did see this at the time (2011) - if it was a "warning" then it didnt' work and they didn't follow up - Dutch is still spouting drivel

Yesterday, each volcano up the state of california blew off a huge steam plume...

Mount Shasta volcano, Clear lake volcano, Inyo Craters, Mono Lake, Long Valley Caldera, and Desert Hot Springs.

Wonder if they'll flag my comment down too??????

originally posted by: ConnectDots

a reply to: Chadwickus
Are you suggesting that it's not customary for the patent number to be there at all, so it must be photoshopped, or what?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

I'm wondering why he didn't post the doctored photo. If it's in the article, I missed it. I need to see what he's talking about. Is it on this thread already somewhere?

Why do you suppose, with beaucoup photos presented in the article (I thought it was over-kill), the author didn't post the alleged doctored photo?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

Are you suggesting that it's not customary for the patent number to be there at all, so it must be photoshopped, or what?

I can't find chad's original post, but I understand his confusion - there ARE so many false photos and lies out there.

But no - that photo is not photoshopped - it is from the Evergreen 747 super tanker - which, of course, is no longer flying..

a reply to: ConnectDots
A visual aid to add to Gaul's post

Uploaded on Jun 11, 2009
As fire season approaches, Oregon-based Evergreen International Aviation demonstrated its new B747 Supertanker at an airfield outside Sacramento, CA.. It's billed as the world's largest and fastest firefighting aircraft.

a reply to: ConnectDots

I explained it in a post to thorfourwinds..

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: thorfourwinds

Turns out it was another one I was thinking of, this one..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And the original..

www.airliners.net...

The one above is from Evergreen aviation's firefighter supertanker..

www.metabunk.org...-11196

edit on 13/7/15 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

. . . which, of course, is no longer flying..

Are you suggesting that Wigington did that on purpose?

But no - that photo is not photoshopped - it is from the Evergreen 747 super tanker

Thank you for the link.

This is an interesting photo:



And I learned a new term: very large air tankers (VLAT)

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Thanks.

That helps alot.