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: 28
24
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
If something is contaminated then decontamination seems reasonable, no? The same goes for bunk. Debunking is simply the right thing to do. No?




posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots




When I hear that word "debunked" I get alarm bells big time.

You think bunk is a good thing?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
It's the attitude conveyed by the entire word that is relevant.

edit on 7/12/2015 by ConnectDots because: Typo



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

You're welcome to your interpretation.
I'll stick with the definition.
www.merriam-webster.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
This particular show was debunked 6 years ago

When I hear that word "debunked" I get alarm bells big time.

The connotation of the word suggests to me destroy the enemy, as in us and them.

It does not suggest to me an earnest search for the truth.

My two cents.


And yet it is exactly a "search for the truth".

Apart from being something you sleep on, and the English cionnotation of skiving off school, Bunk is defined as:


bunk
/bʌŋk/

noun informal

noun: bunk

nonsense.
"anyone with a brain cell would never believe such bunk"

Origin
early 20th century: abbreviation of bunkum.

(from google "define:bunk")

so to "debunk" means nothing more than take away that which is nonsense (or untrue or unsupported)

It has become a "snarl word" for conspiracy theorists because so many conspiracies are full of so much bunk that the term has come into general use whenever showing a conspiracy theory has no actual real evidence to support it.

as such yeah - CT's consider "debunkers" the enemy - and yet when CT's say "find the truth" they should be doing debunking too - they should be examining all eth evidence, sorting out fact from fiction from wishful thinking.

It is to their shame that they do not.

If a conspiracy relies upon bunk to support it then why support it?



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

originally posted by: waynos
Yes, but that was ages ago, you've posted many many more times since then without giving your verdict, unless that post was an acceptance that the images were misrepresented and I failed to pick up on it?

No, I did not intend to imply anything.

I mentioned at the end my intent to read an article. I haven't read it yet.

I was really only posting the screenshots to set the stage for a discussion.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Phage
It's the attitude conveyed by the entire word that is relevant.

Well that's it. No more debunker attitude for me. From now on it's strictly bunker attitude.

Wait, what's so good about the attitude of bunkers? That doesn't sound right.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
That's the denotation of the word. I was commenting on the connotation of it, which I don't think dictionaries routinely focus on for words.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots




I was commenting on the connotation of it

Connotation is subjective.
I said you're welcome to your interpretation



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation


Wait, what's so good about the attitude of bunkers? That doesn't sound right.


bunkers are usually full of oil or coal aren't they??



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity


From the Description for the video:


Published on Jan 27, 2014

NOTE: Please be patient as Kristen has received an overwhelming number of emails for lab requests and will answer them all as soon as possible.

Kristen Meghan, Ex-Military, former Air Force Sr. Industrial Hygienist/Environmental Specialist. Her job was Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) was 4BOX1, Bio-environmental Engineer.

www.youtube.com...


a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I think that's where the red flags of the manufacturers not being listed and the inappropriate treatment she got from her superior come in. These are indications of something wrong going on in the military. I suspect she is under extreme pressure to keep her mouth shut.

This is where an awareness of what whistleblowers are saying is essential. You can't connect dots if you ignore the handwriting on the wall. That's what it takes when you have a corrupt government. If you don't believe we have a corrupt government, then you're dismissing things you shouldn't dismiss and you can't see the big picture.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
Can we discuss her statement about barium and strontium not occurring in nature or however she stated it?

I don't believe that's true. Maybe I'm missing something.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

I think that's where the red flags of the manufacturers not being listed and the inappropriate treatment she got from her superior come in. These are indications of something wrong going on in the military. I suspect she is under extreme pressure to keep her mouth shut.


Well that obviously hasn't worked.

and yeah - ther aer "things wrong" everywhere...personal likes and dislikes and disputes, bullying, sexual harassment, etc.

None of which affects the validity of evidence.

She has not been silenced...and yet all her "evidence" is still nothing.


This is where an awareness of what whistleblowers are saying is essential. You can't connect dots if you ignore the handwriting on the wall. That's what it takes when you have a corrupt government. If you don't believe we have a corrupt government, then you're dismissing things you shouldn't dismiss and you can't see the big picture.


Acknowledging a corrupt government still doesn't make geoengineering or "chemtrails" real - and it is part of het "bunk" that lots of people like to throw up because they have no ACTUAL evidence.......

Think about it - why does a corrupt government mean chemtrails are real? what is the link??
edit on 12-7-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tags



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: ConnectDots
Can we discuss her statement about barium and strontium not occurring in nature or however she stated it?

I don't believe that's true. Maybe I'm missing something.



Here's a transcript of a video - the comment is in it:


Those of you who might not be too privy to chemistry, you know that there are natural elements occurring in earth. Aluminum is one of them. However Barium, radioactive, and Strontium are not [naturally occurring]


(seriously - radioactive ns not a "natural element"
Aren't you glad you know that!!)

the comment occurs at 4.57 onwards -




posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
But I have searched and I can't find exactly what a top secret cryptographic clearance entails, or how it can be verified by the public.


Crypto as used in the stuff you cited is a type of SCI clearance, which is in addition to your TS clearance, and requires a SSBI, if I recall, to get. I think there's also a requirement for regular poly, but I might be wrong. We handle some canned crypto stuff but nothing that climbs to the SCI level.

You would verify it as you do any of them, by looking the guy up in Scattered Castles, which requires access to JWICS. To do so out of curiosity would be a felony. Alas.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Here is what I heard him saying: "The chemtrails are being used in conjunction with HAARP. I spray metal oxides into the air above enemy skies, then directing ELF waves from HAARP to heat those metal oxides. The temperature of the sky is raised to more than 100° F, preventing the accumulation of water vapor that would otherwise form clouds and produce rainfall."


Alas! This won't work, for oh so many reasons.

Metal oxides are not conductive. Metal oxide "spray" would involve very small particles. There is a sad truth that EM interacts with objects that are fairly close to the wavelength of that EM. The wavelength of ELF would be many many miles long. It isn't going to interact with metal oxide aerosols. At all.

Next, HAARP doesn't emit ELF. Can't. Never ever did, not even once. When it was operational, it emitted radio signals in a cone either +/- 15 degrees from vertical or less, depending on whether you were using the high or low band antennas, in the frequency range from 2 to 10 MHz. Although it couldn't quite hit 10 on the top side most of the time.

HAARP could stimulate the production of ELF from the auroral electrojet by several means, or by a cyclotron resonance trick, but the very best they ever managed was to get about 35W of emitted power from the electrojet on one run. You generally got something more like 8-10W. And you couldn't get THAT except at certain times when the electrojet was available. The resonance trick got you even less, but was more flexible.

That meaning, you might have 35W to work with. That's not going to toast a piece of bread, much less heat some amorphous cloud of non-conductive metal oxide aerosols somewhere halfway around the globe.

And, of course, there's the sad truth that you can't "aim" ELF. You're not able to focus EM sharper than about 1/2 wavelength, which is why you can't see viruses with a light microscope. Not yours. And ELF has a very very long wavelength, that's why it's ELF. So "focus" in that case means the left or right half of the US. Not some single arbitrary spot in BumFark, NE.

So the statement is lies, start to finish.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Strontium and barium occur naturally in soil, at low levels. They are not particularly rare, or expensive. You use a ton of both in fireworks.

There is nothing particularly alluring about either in terms of radio signals.

The entire strontium and barium thing goes back to Carnicom, who is not someone whose input I would value scientifically.

The reason he brings them up, I suspect, is that they have some incorrect association in the public's mind with nuclear weapons.

eta: the naturally occurring percentages of barium and strontium in the Earth's crust are 0.034% and 0.036% respectively. As a comparison, sulfur is present at about 0.042%, so they're about as "rare" and "non-existent" as sulfur.
edit on 12-7-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
Meghan brings it up as well. See the Gaul's post a few up.

I just hear things from her that make me think she doesn't know what she's talking about half of the time so I brought that up first.



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Bedlam
Meghan brings it up as well. See the Gaul's post a few up.


I think she's parroting Carnicom. Why waste a good meme?



posted on Jul, 12 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
She did say she first head about ''chemtrails'' in 2006 I think and started looking on the net then. He was pretty big at that time IIRC.

Now I'm wondering what took her so long to come on the scene?




top topics



 
24
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join