Who would have ever thought that even Auroras could be fake? Artificial Auroras began back in the 1940s
I wrote up my thoughts on chemtrails here:
https://fakeologist.com/fak968-ips-joint/#comment-49858
What I see in the sky does often seems unnatural, I think weather can be altered. I think it is being altered (we are not being poisoned tho) and the alteration is to create the impression of climate change. Like wildfires, fake weather bolsters the idea that ‘we need to change everything to save the earth’. ‘Changing everything’ has benefits to certain elites, as they can introduce technocracy, an alternative financial system, and whatever else. No one wants or likes change though – its a hard sell – so you need an emergency (a ‘climate emergency’) for people to readily go along with it – and they need to see the emergency to really believe there’s a problem.
I am bringing this together for the sake of those reading.
What “al” wrote on the post https://fakeologist.com/fak968-ips-joint/#comment-49858
“At around 33 mins, IPS references the first, 1807 reference to cirrus clouds. Did he verify it really was 1807 by checking for Wikipedia’s first ‘cirrus cloud’ entry? If so, it would be surprising, as Wikipedia only started 2 centuries later, in 2001. Does he also accept wiki’s claims that cirrus clouds exist on other planets?
Re Ab saying he never sees chem trails at the airport. That is such a poor argument, and he makes it regularly! Surely he realizes that no one is claiming planes are spewing out trails on runways? Ab, this is something that only occurs at high altitude. If it is a weather modifying effect, why would anyone squirt stuff to create clouds (those things high in the sky) on the ground? Every time I hear that comment, it seems an attempt to descend the debate into farce – its akin to asking “yeah, but why don’t people don’t fall off the edge?” in a flat earth discussion.
Ips also conflates what he calls “chemtrails” with poison in the air? Who says it’s poison? Does anyone know this?
Re the appleman(?) logical fallacy chart, that allows people to misread evidence… Sure, but you would need a true baseline to determine the false interpretation. Ie what is the truth about the cause of trails? I would ask IPS to provide the evidence of him verifying that when he releases warm air at 20,000 feet, there is a trail created and that the lasts for the remainder of the day. If he doesn’t have that, isn’t he just assuming that the scientific evidence provided is true? I’m sure IPS can find lots of examples of science being faked for political or monetary gain, so why does he find it compelling to trust this evidence?
The larger point is this – IPS is happy to call the media a liar, say that the body count is zero – good call, I agree. Surely ‘science’ received via the media is also ‘media’, right? And the same applies to ‘history’. Or does he claim he can discern ‘the wheat from the chaff’ in science and history? It’s sad that all the science that one can personally verify, is pretty uncontentious and uninteresting – but can we just accept that this is all the truth one can access? Apparently not.
I’ll say what I think is most plausible, given the evidence of my own senses. This is of course just a hypothesis, but I am comfortable with it, after observing clouds for years.
It seems clear to me that the trails planes leave are doing something. I have seen natural cloud formation – if you look at mountains/tall hills, you will sometimes see cliffs forming. Occasionally you will also see other random phenomena, clouds forming and disappearing.
With planes, it seems clear that planes pass, and some leave a trail. One can see the trail expanding, joining with others, and then the whole sky is cloudy. I have also seen the opposite, where trails occur and then what few clouds there were dissipate.
The most telling signal to me is that trails are anomalous. I have seen planes fly, and leave a trail. Another flies the same route, but does not. Then another will pass and leave a trail for a bit which then stops. Then in one section of the sky planes leave trails – but other sections are empty. It is possible to me that certain ‘sky quadrants’ are meant to be ‘cloud covered’ so trails are switched on to provide that coverage. I assume that this is to achieve cloud cover/rain/no rain/something else in certain areas.
I don’t even say that the areas with trails are the same ones that are the intended recipients of the manufactured weather. Eg if you know there is a lot of evaporation, such as from the lake near Toronto that Ab mentions – ie something that naturally generates a lot of weather – and there is such-and-such a wind, you might be able to confidently say that causing a cloud to form here will result in rain at such-and-such a place tomorrow.
I’m also saying that the governance system would surely have interest in knowing and controlling the scope of the weather. It seems possible that over the years you would be able to undertake certain experiments to see how much you can manage the weather. And that this endeavor might have been quite successful.
So, no – it doesn’t seem that the government is trying to kill anyone. But, yes, it seems within the realms of possibility that a large organization (the government) can change and have impacts on the weather. I personally think the impacts aren’t even that major – but that there are impacts.
Incidentally I think John the beggar’s testimony on the show was interesting. Do pilots or engineers know everything that is on a plane? Of course not. When his friend found some cannisters on the plane – could these not insert something-or-other into the exhaust? Planes have GPS, right. So, at a given signal an automated process could occur whereby the injection starts or ends. The pilot, engineer would not have the slightest idea. It seems that the means for adding something to planes, without anyone really knowing is there.
Going to the fakeology angle now – what use would such a power (controlling bits of the weather) be? How could this ‘trick’ be utilized to the greatest effect?
Well, the obvious thing is that it can provide the evidence to fool the unwitting that climate change is real. If you prevent rain from falling, or make it fall sooner than it would naturally, or in that place or whatever, you do have a real world impact. Fires will then be more likely in dry regions. Flooding will occur in places where it didn’t before. The man on the street will be pushed over the edge and demand the treatment to make the (fake, controllable) symptom go away.
For me, the change in environmental conditions caused by trails (and other factors, such as building on flood plains, failing to undertake controlled burns, etc) are equivalent to the toilet paper and masks of covid. They are that thing that everyone gets involved with at a local, personal level and allows them to buy into the larger event. Unlike covid, this operation will run for longer, decades.
The larger event is not even climate change. For me, there is no climate change – but the idea of climate change, leveraged adroitly, provides the excuse to dismantle of the existing economic and political system, in order to replace it with something else. This would be the ‘mega plan’ that ‘climate change’ enables. Probs things like plastics will disappear – cheap products from China will disappear, life will get a bit crappier. But, for those running the trick, most of the population will be kept busy – carving wooden spoons and straws, no doubt. And most will agree to whatever crappy new governance solution is proposed (probs some sort of technocracy, with metered resource usage). In all honesty, it might not even be that bad.
Anyway, that is my take on “chemtrails”. An ongoing prop to support the idea of “climate change” to kid the turkeys (people) into voting for Christmas. Only there will be no mass slaughter of the turkeys – just a different organizational process for society.”