Operation Indigo Skyfold

originally posted by: payt69
Yes.. It's a prototype airliner. They go through a rigorous testing program, and this is one of the tests they perform to establish how an airliner behaves under different weigth distributions. The tanks contain water, and the water can be pumped around to shift the center of gravity, so the tests can be performed.

But in a different scenario, could the tanks contain chemicals?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: payt69
Yes.. It's a prototype airliner. They go through a rigorous testing program, and this is one of the tests they perform to establish how an airliner behaves under different weigth distributions. The tanks contain water, and the water can be pumped around to shift the center of gravity, so the tests can be performed.

But in a different scenario, could the tanks contain chemicals?

Absolutely not. The tanks are made of a material that is specifically designed so that it dissolves if anything other than water is put in there.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I understand your post now.

The first time around I didn't see the word "Gotcha..."

All I saw was the emoticon.

originally posted by: payt69
The doctored one is here (on a chemmie site, of course)

educate-yourself.org...

May I ask you to link me to the Geoengineering Watch post that used the photo?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: payt69
Yes.. It's a prototype airliner. They go through a rigorous testing program, and this is one of the tests they perform to establish how an airliner behaves under different weigth distributions. The tanks contain water, and the water can be pumped around to shift the center of gravity, so the tests can be performed.

But in a different scenario, could the tanks contain chemicals?

Hypothetical scenario for you. What If they did? I'm giving you the ball.

Can. You. Score?

How do you turn those tanks of chemicals into what is claimed to be ''chemtrails''?

Also, in this scenario Dane is correct about jets being virtually incapable of producing contrails. The lines in the sky and the subsequent spread of some to form cloud cover are a chemical spray, so you don't have the scientific explanations for contrails at your disposal.

Even if only for the education I'm truly interested in how that could be done.


Also, if the connection can't be plausibly made then what's all the fuss really about? Why all the effort to fight for the validity of evidence if it doesn't even make the case?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: payt69

A "hoax" is something that is intentionally put forward to deceive; just like a lie.

Somebody doctored that picture to make it look like something it isnt, right? That's the hoax right there. Sites that promote the picture to still misrepresent what the picture actually shows only perpetuate the hoax. And it's not like it's difficult to find out what the picture really shows, so ignorance/neglect figures in there too. Apparently some people are so eager to come up with 'proof' of chemtrails being a reality, that they seem to forget to check their sources, and cling to anything that confirms their beliefs.

The Educate Yourself site - a chemmie site as you put it - shows clearly the process that the players went through to establish that the aircraft was an ordinary aircraft.

I'm not sure that it does. All I see is Ken Adachi posting a picture reportedly showing an interior of a chem plane, and Philip posts Ted Twiedmeyers' response to the picture, which suggests it is a hoax. I never see Ken retract his previous statement or acknowledge that it's a hoax, so I'm not sure if anything was established in the end.

On another aspect of this dispute, I will quote this passage:

DISCLAIMER

I do not post this to imply that there are no chemtrails. In fact, I acknowledge these DO exist. My goal is to simply stay with the facts and not lead people astray, or permit others to think that a seriously mis-interpreted photo like this is something it isn't. Since chemtrail sprayers are among the blackest of the black projects, no one will risk being shot just to take a photo of the inside of one.

educate-yourself.org...

Yes I noticed that too. Goes to show that even chemtrail believers sometimes recognize a hoax for what it is Twiedmeyer was lucky enough to recognize the equipment, as he states:

I have stood inside a new aircraft at the plant in Everett, WA back in the mid-80s, where Boeing aircraft were manufactured. Inside it looked almost identical to the one in this photo.

Had that not been the case, who knows what he might have believed. He's alo mistaken a refueling pod for a chemtrail device previously:

www.whale.to...

Later, after having people explain to him what the device actually is and how it works, he acknowledges his mistake (a rare thing for a chemtrail believer to do) :

www.rense.com...

Sadly, this is a rare occasion. Most of the chemtrail nonsense is still being regurgigated in chemtrail circles, despite having been debunked. If you need examples, I can provide them.. but you can look it all up yourself as well.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: payt69
The doctored one is here (on a chemmie site, of course)

educate-yourself.org...

May I ask you to link me to the Geoengineering Watch post that used the photo?

Sure:

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: payt69
Yes.. It's a prototype airliner. They go through a rigorous testing program, and this is one of the tests they perform to establish how an airliner behaves under different weigth distributions. The tanks contain water, and the water can be pumped around to shift the center of gravity, so the tests can be performed.

But in a different scenario, could the tanks contain chemicals?

Sure. they are tanks. You could put sulfuric acid in them and it might last as long as the acid didn't eat through the tank liner. You could fill those tanks with the blood of unborn babies, mixed with nanobots. But you are still faced with the problem that the plane isn't outfitted with sprayers of any kind since this rig was made to transfer weight around the plane.

I am sure you realize by now the bias that you have on this subject. Anything that is shown to you to be a lie, you quietly shrug off and offer a free pass to whomever did the lying. But, if we show you a scientific article stated something as science fact, you seem to immediately disregard it as a possible lie "from the establishment" and then promptly change the subject to the next bit of chemtrail folly.

As I stated, you don't seem to be capable of rational discussion on this subject. Until you are willing to accept that you may be wrong, you cannot move forward. (all of us here are fully aware that if a piece of evidence was to come forward that we could not debunk, our only option is to accept it's validity.)

I see the article is entitled "Why Chemtrails" and the date is in 2011.

There is a hyperlink for "original article" but it's a dead link.

For the term "GOV'T AIRCRAFT" there is a link to a Wikipedia article on government.

An important quote:

We have all witnessed the continuing trail of dying celebrities. Many of us have also witnessed our friends and relatives falling sick or dying in the past few years.

But in my own documented experience, you can clearly see from the list of ailments that I am experiencing from chemtrails (on the Ailments page) that the symptoms of mercury poisoning and chemtrail poisoning are identical. Combined with the fact that many of the symptoms we experience during spraying can only be attributed to mercury poisoning, we now have strong symptomatic evidence that chemtrails do indeed contain mercury.

This conclusion naturally leads us to the question, “Why?”

Having studied law (personally, not in school) and spending a lot of time studying political scandals and corruption, I have come to the firm conclusion that there are multiple purposes for the chemtrail campaign.

1. Cover your ankles
2. Population control
3. Centralization of power

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

The article goes on to elaborate on that.

Back to the photo.

If there is a black (extremely secret) project to spray chemicals, for whatever reason, is it feasible that the same aircraft be used for it, and in that scenario only, the “HAZMAT” sign would be put up?

If that is the case, I would say that within the context of the Geoengineering Watch article, that yes, Photoshop may have been used, in good faith, as an illustration of what the author was talking about.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

If there is a black (extremely secret) project to spray chemicals, for whatever reason, is it feasible that the same aircraft be used for it, and in that scenario only, the “HAZMAT” sign would be put up?

If that is the case, I would say that within the context of the Geoengineering Watch article, that yes, Photoshop may have been used, in good faith, as an illustration of what the author was talking about.

See, this kind of solidifies my point. You think they added the "hazmat" and "Sprayer 1" in good faith. Sure it was intentionally added and used to lie to the gullible readers of that site, but they had good intentions. Just trying to get people to "look up".

I am just glad your posts will remain here for all to see. it's a perfect example of a true chemtrail believer.

Nothing will sway your opinion. nothing.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
If that is the case, I would say that within the context of the Geoengineering Watch article, that yes, Photoshop may have been used, in good faith, as an illustration of what the author was talking about.

Similarly, that would explain the anonymity that was necessary for the players talked about in the OP YouTube video. As far as I know, we don't even know who the YouTuber is other than the username.

People aren't supposed to talk about black projects, and when they do, there are consequences.

a reply to: network dude

Not just to get people to look up, but to get people to educate themselves about the reality of black projects and what they are doing to the planet.

My understanding is that there are people in the Air Force who know what's going on, but they're too scared to open their mouths.

I can't say that I blame them.

This is why we have to look around at other topics on the internet besides the chemtrail/contrail debate.

It's why I referenced UFOs previously. People in the military have testified that they're told, "You didn't see this."

Can you begin to try to understand my point of view?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

People aren't supposed to talk about black projects, and when they do, there are consequences.

Except that there is no clandestine spray operation. It's funny, when your side wants to drive home this point, they usually bring up the Manhattan project, and claim it was kept secret for years. Then, when it's shown that even a project of that magnitude had huge leaks in security, the goal posts are moved yet again.

io9.com...

If for over 20 years there was an operation to spray the entire globe with something, somewhere, a ramp worker, fuel truck driver, loadmaster or someone, would have spilled the beans. So far, the only whistleblowers have been proven to be fakes. Much like the rest of the chemtrail evidence.

It's time to face facts. You MUST disregard Undisputed science in order to believe in the chemtrail fantasy.

originally posted by: ConnectDots


Can you begin to try to understand my point of view?

I was in the Air Force. I had security clearence for what I worked with. I fully grasp the process of launching, recovering, and repairing aircraft. I know all the individual parts involved in that process.

Why won't some of you "truth seekers" join the damn service and expose this for what it is? Why don't you get a job at an air port so you can be "on the inside"? It's the same reason none of you want to test the trails. Deep inside, you know it's all a joke. You just can't bring yourself to accept that you were that easily duped for so long.

Prove me wrong, test the trails, get a job in aviation. DO SOMETHING.

originally posted by: network dude
If for over 20 years there was an operation to spray the entire globe with something, somewhere, a ramp worker, fuel truck driver, loadmaster or someone, would have spilled the beans. So far, the only whistleblowers have been proven to be fakes.

Okay let's tackle that one.

Please list them, (their pseudonyms), and explain your reasons for your opinion.

It's time to face facts. You MUST disregard Undisputed science in order to believe in the chemtrail fantasy.

I see you linked to the definition of "undisputed."

So, you're saying there's no debate about how contrails are formed.

But there is a debate about what we're looking at up there, would you agree?

a reply to: purpledragons
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Could it be that it’s true that we’re just looking at contrails, but that there is harmful spraying going on using military craft, and that the evidence for the harm is showing itself in things such as people getting sick, etc., which can't logically be explained by some other cause; which would consequently negate the need for proof of chemtrails?

a reply to: ConnectDots

I am going to pull a card from the chemtrail debate handbook. I am not going to do your research for you. Google chemtrail whistleblowers and read.

Undisputed. If you look up the definition, you will notice that it says "not challenged or questioned"
Meaning that the science that explains contrails, their formation and persistence, is not up for debate.

If you have anything at all to challenge the science, I am sure it would make for a wonderful debate.
cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...
science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

Please, review those links, and point out anything incorrect in them. Anything at all.

And once you have done that, please explain how chemtrails are different than contrails. Using the same science.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: purpledragons
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Could it be that it’s true that we’re just looking at contrails, but that there is harmful spraying going on using military craft, and that the evidence for the harm is showing itself in things such as people getting sick, etc., which can't logically be explained by some other cause; which would consequently negate the need for proof of chemtrails?

Be careful, you might actually get close to understanding something.

a reply to: network dude

You know what?

It's time for you to cut the crap.

I've been overlooking your comments.

But that's going to stop.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

You know what?

It's time for you to cut the crap.

I've been overlooking your comments.

But that's going to stop.

What is it you don't like?

Please, if I have violated any of the T&C, please alert the post in question and let the staff know.

My last comment to you must have really set you off. Realizing that what I have been trying to tell you for pages is starting to sink in scare you?

Contrails are contrails. (see also, undisputed)

If they were to spray something for SRM or as your best buddy likes to say geo-engineering, none of us would see it from the ground. Much like all the volcanic ash that still floats around up there. (the basis for SRM in the fist place)

And while you and all the other chemtrail believers are screaming about those white trails, nobody is discussing, or even concerned with the stuff you can't see.

just look up.