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: 26
24
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

Lets try it like this. The chemtrails have been sprayed for over 20 years according to chemtrail people like yourself. Knowing that patents are nothing more than proof of an idea, please present anything, one single bit of evidence that has been accepted at fact, that proves, or even shows there "might" be a chemtrail conspiracy.

Keep in mind, anyone here can show you multitudes of peer reviewed UNDISPUTED science explaining contrails and their ability to persist.




posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots




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.


So because I say something in a chemtrail thread that means I don't have a clue about what is happening in the world around us...oh my that statement alone is very telling.



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


Why because I don't believe chemtrails are real and have had the same discussion with many others that have tried to push this hoax on ATS, so you aren't wanting to discuss this with me...boy that sounds familiar.



Why go round and round in circles?


I think you should ask those who keep pushing this crap with the same old debunked so called evidence as that is all they are doing, but as they do it they have gullible folks that feel the need to try and keep it going as they are new to the subject...such as yourself.



A waste of time and energy.


Which is what get's me with those who push chemtrails...all of it gone and still no proof of chemtrails existing. It really is mind boggling.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude




Keep in mind, anyone here can show you multitudes of peer reviewed UNDISPUTED science explaining contrails and their ability to persist.


But if it doesn't say chemtrails exist they are lying...or that is what I get from all of this.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Oh I trust some people.

And I don't think you really mean to say that I don't trust anyone.

I was responding to the statement "There are no fronts for chemtrail sites...either they push the hoax or they don't."

You're not suggesting that we have to take all chemtrail (or contrail) sites at their word, I hope.

Because we just can't do that. It doesn't work. The first thing we have to do is consider that the site might be a front. At least keep it in the back of our mind.

Otherwise, we can be easily fooled.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
Can you name one ''chemtrail'' site you consider trustworthy?

ETA:


The first thing we have to do is consider that the site might be a front.

Ok, then what should we do next?
edit on 12-7-2015 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
You really have to ask yourself - in what way could a 2-10MHz radio wave "absorb light". There not being even a remote chance that this could happen, you need to look for other explanations.

Why did you zero in on that frequency range?

That is a range, right? I'm not misreading it?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
Watching a 1968 program, the sky behind the actors in one shot is absolutely full of persistent contrails.

In response to my inquiry about contrail shadow photos, which I asked about because it had been alleged that what Lew Price observed was nothing unusual; you agreed that what Lew Price had observed was a contrail shadow.

You went on to say it takes a number of conditions to get one.


You have to have a low thin even haze layer to project the shadow onto, and the sun has to be fairly low but "over" the haze, and you need a dense contrail in just the right spot.

You're still talking about a contrail shadow, there, correct?

Then, you reference your earlier post about the 1968 program and the persistent contrails.

And you say:


BTW, earlier I said I had seen one . . .

So, I need to make sure I understand.

You switched the topic from contrail shadow to persistent contrail, and they're two entirely separate things, no?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots




You switched the topic from contrail shadow to persistent contrail, and they're two entirely separate things, no?


A persistent contrail can have a shadow if the conditions are right...so they can be about the same thing.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I don't follow your reasoning.

Are you saying why wasn't he killed?

He may have been. He is deceased.

But if he wasn't assassinated, that doesn't make his allegations untrue.

One can't make the blanket assumption that all whistleblowers get killed.

It's not that cut and dried.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

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?


Why only if it is new? What if the question was never answered in the first place? You see? I don't believe in free passes simply due to longevity.


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.


But yet again, you are talking as if the government controls your own knowledge or the principles of scientific exploration. They do not. Are you also asking whether the chemtrail promoters are also pulling the wool over your eyes?



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.


And we do listen. Then we consider what is said and do further research where it is required. The difference seems to be that some of us then identify the holes in what is being said, some are more obvious than others. Where believers appear to just dismiss the holes.

If you simply believe a claim because it is contrary to what the government might say, then one is being simply foolish. For whistleblowers and theorists to be taken seriously, what they say must hold merit. Its fair enough if one does not know enough to determine this, then such things are considered 'undetermined', but when it is blatantly full of faults and discrepancies, it does nobody any favours to ignore them and simply dismiss those faults as 'opinion'.



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.


I've not seen any answer to that particular question. It is quite specific and not a generalisation so could you point me to it if i've missed it?
edit on 12-7-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
Anytime someone goes around for years freely 'exposing' something and claims others have been killed for 'exposing' that same thing, that someone is lying.

Cut and dried.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots


In response to my inquiry about contrail shadow photos, which I asked about because it had been alleged that what Lew Price observed was nothing unusual; you agreed that what Lew Price had observed was a contrail shadow.

I don't see where Bedlam said anything like that. Can you link the post you got that idea from?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
You state that as if you have no doubt everything you think is true.

That's because I've spent so much time listening to whistleblowers and reading since 9/11 happened. One book that had a huge impact on me is 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley.


Who are the shadow government?

My understanding is that there are extremely wealthy families at the top of the pyramid who believe themselves to be superior to ordinary humans and thus have a right to rule the planet.

Below them are millions of minions, some of them well-meaning, and some of them doing dirty work, such as assassinations.

I believe most governments of the entire planet are corrupt, in that the real governments have the shadow government behind the scenes calling the shots. Politicians are largely bought off, and can easily be blackmailed if they don't toe the line. That's because they have been recruited into politics by the shadow government in the first place.

In the United States, both major political parties are corrupt, and it makes no difference which party is in the majority. It's all for show. Alex Jones is right when he calls it the left-right paradigm. It's just to keep us occupied.


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

Excellent question.

I recommend listening to the researcher Alan Watt on things like that.

In fact I think I learned the term "front group" from him.

He says the United Nations is a front group.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I see that is network dude's OP:


What would it take to prove chemtrails are either real, or a paranoid delusion? From all I have seen here, the only real way to do this is to fly up and test a trail that everyone agrees fits the narrative of a chemtrail. The only issue I see with this is determining what is a chemtrail and have that answer accepted by all chemtrail pushers.

Having seen the success of go-fund-me projects, I have no doubt we could raise enough money to rent the plane and get the air samples, so that part is easy. I would like to hear from the chemtrail side on this to understand if they would be receptive to this idea. In the past, the only argument I have heard is how expensive it would be. having that part removed, are there any other reasons this might not work?


Please leave the "do they exist-I know what I see" discussion for another thread.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that "chemtrailers" might feel that the "contrailer" suggesting this is not in good faith.

I have to say I pick up a sarcastic tone in the OP.

And I've also encountered sarcasm on this thread that you could cut with a knife.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots


My understanding is that there are extremely wealthy families at the top of the pyramid who believe themselves to be superior to ordinary humans and thus have a right to rule the planet.

True or not, none of them have enough money to turn water in the sky into aluminum.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

But you're not going to know whether the substance/info in question is true or not without using your intuition (right brain) to help you with that.

The left brain helps us with critical thinking about the information; the right brain helps us with intuition about the source of the information and the validity of it for our own lives. That's what people mean by having a gut feeling.
edit on 7/12/2015 by ConnectDots because: Grammar



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots


The first thing that comes to my mind is that "chemtrailers" might feel that the "contrailer" suggesting this is not in good faith.

I don't care what they might ''feel''. Do they want the truth about this or not?

The truth is in the trails. Anyone claiming they're seeking the truth needs to test the trails.

The testing has to come from the ''chemtrail'' side. They reject anything from anyone who disagrees with them.

Hell, if Dane himself presented test results that were negative for ''chemtrails'' the believers would instantly turn on him and label HIM a disinfo agent, lol. But as long as the testing is sound, at least the rational world would have that.

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



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Okay you're bringing up the argument of mainstream, scientific authority.

That's a whole other can of worms.

There are so many issues.

Do you ever explore alternative history? Alternative science?

If you don't believe that we have a shadow government, you're probably not even going to be willing to peak into this can of worms.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Wasn't there a place in my post to click on that would take you there?

Do you know what I mean?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
BFD.


Excuse me if I can't take you seriously.




new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join