Operation Indigo Skyfold

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Yes.

Additionally, there are other issues, such as the whistleblowers that have not been given the respect they deserve.

Nothing but a bunch of ridicule on this thread.

a reply to: ConnectDots
Why should respect be given to someone telling stories about something that can not be happening?

Also, you seem quite concerned about groups messing with people's minds. What makes you so sure the ''chemtrail'' 'theory' isn't being used to do that?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
No, persistent contrails are irrelevant at this point as far as I'm concerned.

The real question is, "Are we being sprayed?"

If we are, then we have chemtrails. If we're not, we don't.

IF we are being sprayed, then who is spraying? What does it look like?
Why is it being sprayed? Where is it being sprayed?
What is being sprayed? Who manufactures it? What color is it?
What does it smell like? What does it taste like?
Does it look good at night?

Yes, I can see you have a firm grasp on reality. You get some answers to these questions, and then we will all have a good time trying to figure out if any of that has a flucking thing to do with contrails.

a reply to: AndyMayhew
What would you say in response to someone claiming that the trails in the sky are really Geoengineering in the form of SRM? Is there any evidence that says the trails actually have adverse effects on climate, such as warming?

If so that would make the claim that we are witnessing SRM in action when viewing the trails seem rather bizarre.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I would say that they are indeed a form of geoengineering. As is deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels.

But not with an intended consequence, rather the opposite.

Edit: and all available evidence suggests that contrails/chentrails are contributing towards AGW

ie as per this paper

a reply to: AndyMayhew
Do the trails have the opposite effect that would be expected of SRM in the form of 'spraying' the sky?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: AndyMayhew
Do the trails have the opposite effect that would be expected of SRM in the form of 'spraying' the sky?

All evidence suggests that theu do

Though it should be explained that over temperate regions they may lead to a slight daytime cooling, but a larger night time warming. Over polar regions the warming is more significant.

In order to have an overall cooling effect they would be best deployed in tropical regions - around the equator - and avoided in Europe and N America.

a reply to: AndyMayhew
Would deployment altitude matter?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

If the intent were to replicate the effects of volcanic eruptions, causing cooling then deployment would need to be in the stratosphere - higher than aircraft normally fly and above the levels at which clouds normally form. Of course, at such altitude - above 10,000m - we would not see any aircraft and there is no reason to suppose chemtrail spraying would produce clouds at lower altitudes, or indeed, be in any way visible from the ground at all. This later fact being IMO the elephant in the chemtrail room.

For the record, cloud seeding would not faciliate SRM.

Cloud seeding does not mean growing clouds.

Cloud seeding means spraying particles into pre-existing clouds to act as cloud condensation nuclei and make it rain/snow.

Edit: if anything, cloud seeding causes clouds to dissipate, although probably only to very small extent.

a reply to: AndyMayhew
Why in the stratosphere? Much longer residence times than in the troposphere, or is there more to it?

a reply to: AndyMayhew

For the record, cloud seeding would not faciliate SRM.

Of course. Still good info for anyone who needs to learn that though, so I'm glad you said it.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: AndyMayhew
Why in the stratosphere? Much longer residence times than in the troposphere, or is there more to it?

Yes, any particles (sulphates) sprayed in the troposphere would fall to earth quicker. The higher they are deployed, the longer they last and the further they spread. This is why a very large volcanic eruption like Pinatubo has more impact than lots of smaller ones.

There may be more to it than that - but certainly I have not heard of any plans to spray sulphates or other particles in the troposhere and I assume those who study the subject know what they are talking about (though that is no reason to suppose that they may not be mistaken).

And now I am afraid I must end this Q&A session (thanks DO ) cos its time for bed! I will leave those following it with an interesting articie on SRM and why we are not, and IMO shouid not, do it:

climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...

a reply to: network dude

Those are questions to seek answers or leads to answers from whistleblowers.

People inside are the only ones who can testify to it. Those who have the guts to talk.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

Those are questions to seek answers or leads to answers from whistleblowers.

People inside are the only ones who can testify to it. Those who have the guts to talk.

Is that a fact?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Yes.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

Those are questions to seek answers or leads to answers from whistleblowers.

People inside are the only ones who can testify to it. Those who have the guts to talk.

Those answers need to come with pictures, documents, or some form of verification, or someone with a wild imagination could just claim to be a previous employee of Evergreen Aviation, and tell you all about when he sprayed for the CIA, in between drug runs. And with a story like that, who needs proof right?

a reply to: network dude

If there is the alleged black project going on and the allegation of killings over it is true, it is unrealistic to demand documentation. You're lucky to get someone to talk about it.

You have to use your intuition in evaluating the speaker. There is no other choice.

For anyone new reading this post, here is a link to an interview of whistleblower AC Griffith:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, here is a link to the transcript of the testimony of the whistleblower in the OP video (located in Comments):

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: ConnectDots

Unless they have evidence to support their claims, your 'whistleblower's' words mean nothing.