Operation Indigo Skyfold

originally posted by: payt69
As far as status quo: I don't mind if it gets changed. But for that to happen, you'd need to come up with something rather good, and so far what I've seen from the chemtrail community doesn't qualify as such. In fact everything I've seen can be shown to be bunk. The subject of this thread is a case in point: A friend of a cousin talking about chemtrails and claiming to be a pilot. Nothing can be verified, except for the fact that these people talk utter nonsense.

Do you have any appreciation for the situation people who speak out about this subject find themselves in?

originally posted by: payt69

But I do see why you'd need alternative physics, because in real physics, contrails can and do persist (given the right conditions), and since one of the fundamental pillars of chemtrail-thinking is that contrails CAN'T persist, you need 'alternative' physics.

So present these alternative physics then, so we can all have a look at it and see if it holds any water. I can't wait to see what experiments have been conducted to lay the foundation of these physics, read the papers, and finally find out what theory lies at the foundation of an alternative physics that does allow for (cirrus)clouds, but not for persisting contrails, even though they're the same thing.

What are you saying about cirrus clouds? That by definition they're persisting contrails?

originally posted by: payt69
And yes, fringe areas of science do get updated. But the kind of physics required to explain clouds and persisting contrails has been in place for a long time now, and hasn't been challenged by any credible alternative hypothesis. The only ones challenging the fact that contrails can persist are chemtrail believers.. they just state that contrails can't persist, and never seem to bother explaining why that is the case. I''ve asked lots and lots of believers why they believe a contrail can't persist and what physics supports that idea, but never got an answer. You may be the first one to rise to the occasion though, but I'm not holding my breath.

I've been very confused about the terminology because I thought the conspiracy theorists were saying that contrails are extremely rare and what we're seeing in the sky has to be chemtrails. I didn't learn the term persistent contrail until recently.

Is it correct to say that there's no argument that persistent contrails exist? It's just that one has to prove that they contain harmful chemicals?

a reply to: ConnectDots

You have it backwards. Contrails, persistent or not, are cirrus clouds.

a reply to: Zaphod58

In view of this:

cirrus clouds

Lacy or wispy clouds that form at high altitudes, generally before a change in the weather.

How so?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Zaphod58

In view of this:

cirrus clouds

Lacy or wispy clouds that form at high altitudes, generally before a change in the weather.

How so?

Masses of frozen water vapour floating around in the sky? No, nothing like cirrus clouds at all. Completely different thing altogether.

Are you serious?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Seriously?

Cirrus clouds
Cirrus CloudsCirrus clouds are composed entirely of ice crystals and occur above ~6 km, covering approximately 30% of the Earth’s surface. Extensive cirrus cloud development has been observed after the formation of persistent contrails. The science on this relationship is still developing, and while cirrus clouds are acknowledged to have a net warming effect, the significance of this effect is still uncertain. The scientific understanding of cloud formation and modification due to air travel is still limited. As the most recent IPCC assessment report notes:

“Because spreading contrails lose their characteristic linear shape, a component of [aviation-induced cloudiness] is indistinguishable from background cirrus” (IPCC, 2007, AR I, section 2.6.3, p 187).

www.co2offsetresearch.org...

originally posted by: mrthumpy
Are you serious?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ConnectDots
Seriously?

Just so there is no misunderstanding of your intent, why do you ask?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: mrthumpy
Are you serious?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ConnectDots
Seriously?

Just so there is no misunderstanding of your intent, why do you ask?

Just so there is no misunderstanding of your intent, why do you ask?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ConnectDots

I wonder what made the contrails abnormal? I'd love to hear his "scientific" point of view on it.

At this point in the debate, what is the central question or point of contention, more specifically?

The main point of contention in all this is those persistent contrails are called "chemtrails", and it seems only because someone at some point made the claim that contrails cannot persist. So when someone claims they saw trails that were "abnormal", that is somehow justification for calling them chemtrails, and that leads to some idiots claiming to know exactly what's in them. (barium, strontium, aluminum)

Science explains contrails, persistent contrails, and cirrus clouds the same it has for over 70 years. In all that time, no alternative science has been brought forward. But, those who perpetuate the chemtrail theory MUST ignore that same science in order to continue to believe. When pushed to answer, you get, "you can't trust NASA and the government". WTF?

What is it you believe those white trails in the sky are?

a reply to: network dude

And the ridiculous thing is that no oneis asking you to trust them. Figure out the very simple science for yourself! But do it from NON conspiracy web sites.

AAAARGH!

a reply to: ConnectDots

Because it is a well known fact that a contrail is a cirrus cloud. It's been known almost as long as contrails have been studied.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam

We should stop using the term "chemtrails"?

I noticed this is [in] the Global Research article about the Case Orange report:

Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Is it true that all contrails contain chemicals because they're aircraft exhaust?

If it is, then we don't need the term "persistent contrails." Why use two words when you can use one?

Just say contrail or chemtrail.

Guess we will find out soon enough
Pastbin

After several years with maintained access to NASA drone servers thanks to the dark army, we have more than enough data to start leaking webcam logins, drone GPS, atmosphere statistics, chemical analysis and video logs. For the past year we have been intercepting all traffic on drone servers and recording the data to recreate the flight paths. Encrypted Full copies of the over 100GB leak of data has been sent to WikiLeaks and TheGuardian with instructions on how and when to release if our demands are not met.

First we want NASA to stop editing its atmospheric data to try and disprove Global Warming and also delete trace evidence of Chemtrails, including but not limited to samples of high amounts of aluminum, barium, strontium and other hazardous or radioactive chemicals being found in the upper atmosphere
Also we want NASA to stop lying and disclose its technological capabilities and accomplishments relating to black project operations for like Operation Indigo Skyfold, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Solar Warden, the Earth Defense Force and the Mars Defense Force.

If these demands are not met within the next month, all +100GigaBites data will be leaked promptly and we will continue to propagate deeper into your network and employees lives. We are literally everywhere and can not be stopped, beware of our CyberMafia..."

a reply to: ConnectDots

Because there is a difference between the two. You don't call a rain storm a hurricane even though they both have rain.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.

That is false. Can you spot the lies?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

No.

a reply to: network dude

Thanks. That's very helpful.

What is it you believe those white trails in the sky are?

I'm still a little unclear on how common a contrail is, and I need to bone up on cirrus clouds, so I have work to do.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
If you click on that, one of the items on the next menu is “Chemtrails and HAARP” added February 18, 2014.

I'm very impressed with Lew Price's testimony here:

Northern California, March 2015

On March 19, the chemtrails were blatantly present as if daring anyone to look up and see them. They were less obvious as clouds moved in on March 20. Then on March 21, there were many older chemtrails blowing in from off the coast and many new ones being formed as we watched. In addition, there was another phenomenon that I had witnessed once before. When there was cirrus above to form a white background, one could see what I believe was the HAARP beam activating the chemtrails. It was very well defined like a narrow searchlight beam, but it was translucent black. One could see through it, and it was perfectly straight without the fuzzy appearance of an expanding chemtrail, visible from horizon to horizon wherever there was a white background above. When there was cirrus above to form a white background, one could see what I believe was the HAARP beam activating the chemtrails. It was very well defined like a narrow searchlight beam, but it was translucent black. One could see through it, and it was perfectly straight without the fuzzy appearance of an expanding chemtrail, visible from horizon to horizon wherever there was a white background above.

And here:

YouTube has many good presentations on chemtrails. One of the latest shows Shasta County taking steps to confront the issue. Another is a radio host interviewing a scientist who knows exactly what is happening along with some good guesses as to the perpetrators. After this national radio broadcast that scientist was murdered. Several whistleblowers have also been murdered.

And here:

What bothers me most is that it may be too late for us to escape what happened to Venus which now has a 900 degree plus surface temperature and is fated to stay that way. The maniacs that started this temperature increase deliberately through HAARP and spraying may have doomed the planet itself. Earth is a beautiful place, a water planet that has survived many catastrophes even when it takes years for it to recover. But going the way of Venus will be the death of the planet forever, along with all life on it. Even future microbes from space will not be able to revive Earth. We know that not many worlds such as ours exist in the universe. How can anyone want to eliminate it for all time?

a reply to: ConnectDots

That's a contrail shadow. Nothing to do with HAARP. Not unless it's been active since 1955, which is when the first shadow was documented.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ConnectDots
Not unless it's been active since 1955, which is when the first shadow was documented.

Huh?

You may want to read the post again, because I added to it, I think after you replied.

a reply to: ConnectDots

The first bit of testimony that you were fascinated by is a contrail shadow. They've been documented since 1955 in pictures. They don't have anything to do with HAARP.