Operation Indigo Skyfold

a reply to: ConnectDots

Is anyone interested in the spraying that Tatum did in the early 80s? What he had to say about it?

So chemtrails were around in the 80's...interesting because chemtrail theories didn't begin until the 90's.

Here you go a video all about...well you'll see.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h
Who proved it a lie?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots
The following clip from a YouTube video published April 17, 2015 is from a radio show of host Stew Webb of the Veterans Truth Network. It is a discussion with Gene Chip Tatum, who also has his own show on the network. The discussion has a little bit about spraying that Tatum did in the early 80s, but most of the clip is about the shadow government and the reality of the system we live in as brought to us by the powers that be - what I would call the face of evil.

Also in the clip is the voice of an alleged chemtrail pilot who uses a pseudonym for security purposes. (I would, too, if I were him.)

Additionally, there is a Dr. William Croft participating.

Link

Is anyone interested in the spraying that Tatum did in the early 80s? What he had to say about it?

lol.. well here's the blurb on BIN, which of course thinks all of this is genuine!

The first one, who went by the name “Secret Agent Man” certainly put out secret information only known by somebody very familiar with the program! It seems there is some type of a laser that can hit the chemtrails and put a shield over the US which cannot be seen through! So one aspect of the chemtrail program is a weapon. Nobody else has put out this information so make sure it goes viral by sharing this interview! This man knows a lot about the chemtrail program. In fact, at the end, “Secret Agent” man had to get out of the location he was at because he thought he was being tracked. This wasn’t some “Tip of the Spear” hoax either, he is a real secret agent man and he was sensing danger at the end and had to bail out of there! I hope he is okay and safe!

(emphasis mine)

Yay laser weapon chemtrails over the US which cannot be seen through! Why the heck not! LOL.. Chemmies NEVER ask for evidence, so you can pretty much claim whatever you want, and they'll bite as long as it sounds scary and makes the government look bad

Got any more stuff like that?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Who proved it a lie?

The people that know the truth, and I am pretty sure that has already been shown in this thread...by me.

But here so you can ignore it again...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Separately, Lew Price posted on his website a YouTube video, which is now marked "Private," so it cannot be viewed, that was of an interview with the scientist, and which subsequently was updated (before it was made "Private") that the scientist had been killed.

The comment about the 3 people has nothing to do with the video that Price posted.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Are you suggesting that Wigington did that on purpose?

I don't know how the subject got into the debate so I'm not sure what the original claim was by anyone - however I do believe that Dane Wigington, among others, has been told many times about the reality of things such as the 747 super tanker, and that I now count any misrepresentation as deliberate.

Perhaps such people do not know the specifics of any given item they misrepresent - but they have no excuse for not knowing, and deliberate ignorance is no excuse.

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

Every day should be a school day

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

DHMO stands for Dihydrogen Monoxide?

a reply to: ConnectDots

He said the photo appears genuine but that's not what he saw.

Which photo is he talking about, and where is his pic to back the claim?

Ask him that.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Putting Reiki aside, the article says that historically, the terms "energy" and "touch" have been controversial.

It points out that it used to be that scientists believed that there is no such thing as an energy field around the human body, but that now there is certainty that it exists.

Do you believe that it exists?

I know this is off-topic for this thread but it's not off-topic for the general issue of mainstream science vs. alternative science and trying to have civil discussions about what is possible or probable and what is not.

a reply to: ConnectDots

The comment about the 3 people has nothing to do with the video that Price posted.

And I never said it was, as I was replying to this comment you made...

But meanwhile, are you familiar with the names of Eugene Franklin Mallove, Juventina Villa Mojica, and Dorothy Stang, Environmental Scientists who released lab test results linking chemtrails to the mass death of fish, plant, and animal life?

Which is in fact a lie, as none of the three were killed because of anything related to chemtrails...as I have shown twice.

SO please pay attention to what is being said and you won't have this problem...again.

originally posted by: waynos
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.

I've never heard that before. How was that determined?

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.

It's alleged that chemtrails spread out to cover the entire sky?

It's alleged that chemtrails spread out to cover the entire sky?

Contrails are known to sometimes spread out and form a layer of cirrus, which may actually spread over a big portion of the visible sky in any location.

Here's a paper in which this is stated:

www.aero-net.info...

Abstract. Condensation trails (contrails) are aircraft induced cirrus clouds, which may persist and
grow to large cirrus cover in ice-supersaturated air

Later in the paper (point 7) is the technical explanation why this is the case, if you're interested.

Anyway, of course chemtrail believers have observed this property of contrails as well, and regard it as a deliberate property of chemtrails.

originally posted by: network dude
Here, you will come unglued over this one.

That is the kind of unnecessary remark that I respectfully ask you to refrain from making.

saive.com...

I see the title is "Chemtrails" and I can see from the URL that it is a Chemistry Manual for the USAF Academy.

It's a 202 page .pdf file.

So, why is there a manual like that on chemtrails?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: network dude
Here, you will come unglued over this one.

That is the kind of unnecessary remark that I respectfully ask you to refrain from making.

saive.com...

I see the title is "Chemtrails" and I can see from the URL that it is a Chemistry Manual for the USAF Academy.

It's a 202 page .pdf file.

So, why is there a manual like that on chemtrails?

See here: www.metabunk.org...

The short of it:

Reality: The book is a lab manual for freshmen at the academy who take chemistry course # 131 as an ordinary part of graduation.
"100" level courses are for freshmen students.
The lab manual contains nothing of relevance to the subject of aerial spraying, and the name is simply a play on the words contrails and chemistry.
This was found out by chemtrail believer Diane Harvey in 2001, but continues to be bandied about as part of chemtrails lore.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
I've never heard that before. How was that determined?

(regarding the mass of water in a contrail)

Here's a thread where I posted some calculations about how much water is in a cirrus cloud - www.abovetopsecret.com... - a moderate sized contrail - 100km long by 100m thick by 1km wide might contain as much as 200 tons of water.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: waynos
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.

I've never heard that before. How was that determined?

Here is one discussion on the subject;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are other sites that talk about weighing clouds. It's a matter of maths.

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.

It's alleged that chemtrails spread out to cover the entire sky?



That's what Chemtrailers often claim, but they are exaggerating, they mean the visible sky of course. Do you know of any chemical that can float in the sky, spreading out to "block out the sun" or "turn blue skies grey" as the turn of phrase often goes, without thinning and becoming transparent?

a reply to: waynos

Phage asked me about the terms "chemtrail" and "contrail" (no, Phage did not put contrail in quotation marks) in relation to the document "The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: 'Owning the Weather' for Military Use." I can understand the question because that's what we're discussing in this thread.

But the reason I posted the document was to show the apparent starting date for the interest of the military in weather modification as a weapon. (Assuming that perhaps that's what chemtrails are for.)

The starting date issue had been raised by Bedlam. I was responding to it.

I agree that the document opened a can of worms by my posting it.

Maybe later it can be discussed in detail.

a reply to: network dude
Would you think it is funny had that happened?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
I always feared the rest of her would succumb to the massive assault being waged by that forehead.

On a more serious note though, anyone who says ''I public speak for a living'' probably doesn't anymore.

Is that your way of saying that she is not telling the truth?

originally posted by: waynos
If you follow it through, Kirsten herself joins and explains that she is not a whistleblower for chemtrails. Her campaign was about service men and women being exposed to hazardous materials when handling them on the ground with improper protection, then the chemtrailers roped her in. More dishonesty from the side that is supposedly trying to expose a dishonest operation.

Have you watched the entire video?