It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Operation Indigo Skyfold

page: 25
24
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

When I used the metaphor of the puzzle, I was not referring to the contrail/chemtrail debate.

I was referring to the big picture within which the contrail/chemtrail debate is just one of the pieces.

Please consider that what everyone is doing with debating the trails ad nauseam amounts to not seeing the forest for the trees.

I told you that most of the clip was about historical events and what I called the "face of evil."

To me, if you're not dealing with that reality, you're not focusing on the most important part. And you're not informed. You're driving in the dark.




posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots




When I used the metaphor of the puzzle, I was not referring to the contrail/chemtrail debate.

I was referring to the big picture within which the contrail/chemtrail debate is just one of the pieces.




Gotcha...



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

Additionally, my opinion is that the power and the resources for confusing everybody lies with those who are maintaining the status quo, that is those who maintain that what you're looking at in the sky is normal - not with the "chemtrailers."


Taking this separately, I respectfully disagree.

The power and resources to confuse people exists wherever one can create a website. It only takes one or two other people to absolutely believe it and create their own websites, then they each get three or four more and so on. This is how i have seen the chemtrail meme grow from a simple claim, back in the 90's, that contrails cannot persist and so the grids of trails you see in the sky must be chemtrails, which was claimed, with no other evidence or reasoning, to be proof that the government was spraying its citizens. Most people ignored it, people with knowledge of aviation and weather laughed at it, but several believed it and took it on, everything you now see about the subject has evolved from that one starting point, such is the power of the net.

The claims that what you see in the sky is normal did not originate in the 90's to refute chemtrail claims. The effects of aviation have been observed throughout the history of powered flight. when contrails were first encountered, questions were asked and investigations took place. The phenomena was seen widely during 1940 over south East England during the Battle of Britain, and then across Europe from 1942 when the USAAF took on daylight bombing raids from higher altitudes than the RAF operated from.

As the jet age arrived contrails became normal as aircraft operating altitudes increased and cabin pressurisation became the norm. As traffic grew and technology advanced more and more contrails were observed and we all understood that some would persist, some would spread and some wouldn't. we understood that they were dependant on weather conditions. None of this was anything from "TPTB", it was basic knowledge that you could test for yourself, people seem to have lost that ability in their reliance on websites.

During the 1980's, when the B-2 bomber was being developed the USAF invested in trying to suppress contrails as they would completely undermine the stealth of the aircraft, their final solution was to fly lower and take care with the weather forecast so that the conditions could be avoided. No magic cure.

Then someone, out of the blue, started claiming they were chemtrails. THEY were the ones that who were making claims that things were different now and out to convince people, right before they started selling chemtrail medicines and other nonsense.

Unless you think that the chemtrail operation was planned for from about 1920, that 'the government' foresaw the invention of large transatlantic jet aircraft and an operation to spray the public in 70 years time.

Does that sound like a common sense explanation to you?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

When I used the metaphor of the puzzle, I was not referring to the contrail/chemtrail debate.

I was referring to the big picture within which the contrail/chemtrail debate is just one of the pieces.



And so, how important is it to understand how claims of the reality of chemtrails and the supposed properties of contrails have been fabricated. Thats how these people operate, "these are chemtrails and they are real, now what do you think is going on here, what are they doing~?" When my response is, hold on a minute, WHY are they chemtrails and why do you believe that? First show me that something is there before you ask me what i think its for?

Isn't that the common sense way to approach anything?


Please consider that what everyone is doing with debating the trails ad nauseam amounts to not seeing the forest for the trees.


Or they don't want you looking at the trees because you might see they are painted onto cardboard.


I told you that most of the clip was about historical events and what I called the "face of evil."

To me, if you're not dealing with that reality, you're not focusing on the most important part. And you're not informed. You're driving in the dark.


But again, you're accepting it IS reality with nothing but a claim from someone you don't even know.

How come these claims are acceptable as truth, without examination, but our attempts to explain trails scientifically and factually are batted away as simply our opinion. why is there a difference there?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
There are no fronts for chemtrail sites...either they push the hoax or they don't.

The certainty with which you make that statement tells me that you have not been researching what's going on in the world outside of the contrail/chemtrail debate.

I don't want to veer this thread off-topic.

But your post speaks volumes and perhaps there is nothing more to discuss.

Why go round and round in circles?

A waste of time and energy.






posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

if you can't trust anyone, then how do you function in life?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

Yes, there is a danger of tying yourself in knots, I agree. But I would agree based on not thinking enough in this case rather than overthinking.

The shadow government has enormous resources. They are professionals in the art of persuasion, and they run psychological operations on us. One of them is the use of front groups.

The point is, AC Griffith might be telling the truth.

The material Phage posted might be a smear or it might not.

The chemtrail site may really be a chemtrail site or it might be a front for one.

I would suggest that everyone at least listen to the audio. The whole thing. And go from there. He's talking about people getting killed over this. What if he was right? (He's now deceased. No, I'm not suggesting he was assassinated. I haven't even looked into that.)



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots


He's talking about people getting killed over this. What if he was right?

If they were killing people over this then how did he manage to 'expose' this for so long?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

The shadow government has enormous resources. They are professionals in the art of persuasion, and they run psychological operations on us. One of them is the use of front groups.


You state that as if you have no doubt everything you think is true. Who are the shadow government? What is an example of one of their "front groups"?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


What is an example of one of their "front groups"?


Maybe it's groups like GEwatch or globalskywatch? It appears to me they disseminate an awful lot of misinfo if not disinfo.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

It is your opinion that the sources were not credible.

So, the use of ridicule to express your opinion is perfectly acceptable according to the terms and conditions.

For the member who is trying to have a civil discussion about a topic, it is exhausting to deal with the ridicule, especially when it's piled on.

A sample of one after it has been sprayed and still airborne?

Well, are there serious logistical problems with accomplishing that?

And would the cost of doing it be prohibitive for the concerned citizen, for example, who is trying to do this voluntarily?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

Another problem I have is sarcasm.

Sometimes, it will go right over my head, which causes me to spin my wheels puzzling over something which was intended to mean the exact opposite of what I thought.

Bottom line, I've just wasted my time, and I don't have time to waste.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
Take note of which 'side' actually wants this testing to occur and which 'side' is full of excuses.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 12-7-2015 by DenyObfuscation because: no cur dogs here. german shepherds can be resurrected however


And how about this?


I have made an offer any number of times. My lab has a Learjet 25D that would be perfect for trapping a sample and I will rent it for the cost of fuel alone (300 gallons of Jet A for the first hour) And my lab can do the testing since we have the capabilities for GC/MS, HPLC, X-ray diffraction/crystallography and a number of other qualitative tests. For some reason there have been no takers. That's very telling.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12-7-2015 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Well, I think what you might be expressing is the difference between the left and right brain.

When you say substance, I think that you're speaking from your left brain.

When you say style, I think that's your left brain describing your right brain.

In other words, I think to be balanced, we all need to trust both our left and our right brain.

What I'm trying to say is that I think that a person's voice communicates truth or falsehood to the right brain of the listener.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
Well, I have no idea what you mean.





posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
The substance is the info. Only sincerity can be evaluated by ''voice''. Lies are told with the appearance of sincerity.

There's this thing called acting. How sincere was Tom Cruise when he said ''You complete me''?

Acting is not confined to Hollywood.

edit on 12-7-2015 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

I agree that the ability of the common man, so to speak, to have a website and put whatever out there for all the world to see has meant that there's all kinds of crap on the net.

But I'd rather have that than not have it because if anything is going to save us, it will be the power of the people to counteract the powers that be through the communication tool, the internet.


The claims that what you see in the sky is normal did not originate in the 90's to refute chemtrail claims.

From that point on, you lost me.

Please rephrase your point for me.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

People have been saying that contrails are normal for a lot longer than they've been saying that chemtrails are real.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

I don't think the whole thing needs rephrasing, maybe it works better if i just point out that contrails are normal and what one would expect to see (what you may term the official story), founded on knowledge built up over decades, frequently tested and proven to be correct.

Then the chemtrail theory claim popped into existence from nowhere, yet its not that which is questioned?

ie, from my perspective you have it backwards. Chemtrailers are telling me that something has been happening for 20 years on a massive scale, and yet there is no trace of it whatsoever, and when evidence has been presented it has been SEEN to be faked.

Why would someone fake evidence to convince you of something, if they aren't just trying to scam you?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: waynos
When my response is, hold on a minute, WHY are they chemtrails and why do you believe that? First show me that something is there before you ask me what i think its for?

If the topic is new, yes, at the get-go that should be the approach.

But if a debate has been raging for some time, maybe the presenter has given up trying to supply what the listener is demanding.

This is a tricky subject, is it not?

If the government is pulling the wool over our eyes, the general public is at a huge disadvantage trying to make sense out of the confusion, I would think.


Or they don't want you looking at the trees because you might see they are painted onto cardboard.

I think you missed my point.

I'm saying that both sides of the debate within the general public, us, are caught up in a situation where, if I'm correct, the powers that be are keeping us busy arguing back and forth, back and forth, with each other, while they go about their business maintaining their control over the world.

That's why conspiracy theorists need to be respected just like everyone else, and not ridiculed. Because ridicule is a fallacy of reason.

And that's why we need to listen to whistleblowers.


But again, you're accepting it IS reality with nothing but a claim from someone you don't even know.

How come these claims are acceptable as truth, without examination, but our attempts to explain trails scientifically and factually are batted away as simply our opinion. why is there a difference there?

You missed my point.

But I've already replied to try to clarify that point, so I won't repeat myself.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join