As a corollary to this proposition, I would like to address the issue of covert geo-engineering or atmospheric-aerosol spraying--known in present military jargon by the codename Indigo Skyfold, and pejoratively as chemtrails. Pejoratively, I say, because the elites, through support of the corporate media, label chemtrails a conspiracy theory, as they do with all of their actions which, once revealed, would prove harmful to the positions of power they occupy.
A few words about the term "conspiracy theory": As many are doubtless aware, it was coined by the CIA in 1964, in response to those who raised questions about various doubtful facets of the Warren Commission Report--including, most often and plainly, its conclusion. It has since been utilized by the Powers That Be as a sort of all-purpose leverage-tool that proactively applies the concept of peer-pressure to cow those with the temerity to question government-sanctioned and, thus, government-benefitting stories on controversial events that arise in the American ethos.
It is, in truth, a bullshit term, derived from the same Edward Bernays-Operation Paperclip-Madison Avenue mold as so many other words and euphemisms designed to drive mass public perception into confused, indecisive and obsequious realms of consciousness.
Personally, I refute "conspiracy theory" in toto, and I encourage all others to do the same. For consideration, I submit as an alternative what I feel is a far more accurate and much less derisible term: collusion exposure. Its adherents and practitioners would, then, be referred to as "collusion exposers."
It is the "theory" part of conspiracy theory that is, after all, problematic. If we are going to need to have for use at our disposal a term to express the concept of perceptive and instinctual questioning of nefarious government activity--and moving forward, it seems plain we will--let's at least use a term that we can feel comfortable owning. Not some debased CIA-proferred mind-scheme drivel that seeks to undermine our inborn right to and intellectual duty towards critical thinking.
Recently, the corporate mainstream media released the results of a survey in which a cabal of 76 purported leading atmospheric scientists--headed by Dr. Steven Davis of the University of California, Irvine--refuted, quite unscientifically, the existence of a Secret Large-Scale Atmospheric [Spraying] Program (SLAP). Unscientifically, I say, because the survey offered little scientific foundation to support its findings. Just a categorical, near-blanket denial, in which the terms chemtrail and contrail were conflated, along with the opinion that "...it is possible that climate change is causing contrails to persist for longer than they used to."
"Is possible"? Again, hardly scientific. More than a denial, though, such a hollow, general dismissal smacks of gross disinformation. This survey, I contend, was released by a group more adept at propaganda dissemination than credible science.
Chemtrails are not contrails. It requires only a working set of eyes and a vestige of memory to recognize the difference. I have sat at length with binoculars--by day and moon-lit night--watching planes in the sky overflying my area, in outrageously close proximity, criss-crossing each other in horizon-spanning patterns that defy logic. The emissions from those planes linger in the sky for long minutes before they begin to dissipate and turn into a pale mist that obfuscates the previously clear sky--an unnatural, gradually settling, pall of toxins, which water and soil samples indicate are comprised of--among other foul ingredients--potentially lethal amounts of aluminum, barium, strontium and mercury. https://youtu.be/xFQ2_0QNiks
Rarely--at some point in the sky, while this is occurring--a true commercial airliner might appear (I live within 10 miles of a major airport). When it does, I am given an atavistic glimpse of a real condensation trail, which disappears from behind the plane that is emitting it almost as quickly as it forms.
...Multiple planes in the same sky that are virtually identical (and indeed designed to appear to be just that); using what one, then, imagines is the same type of fuel; and leaving entirely different emission trails in their wake.
How is that possible?
The short answer is...it isn't possible. Not at all.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).