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: 30
24
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
Next, HAARP doesn't emit ELF. Can't. Never ever did, not even once.

HAARP stands for High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, right?
And ELF stands for Extremely Low Frequency?

That's such a blatant contradiction it makes me wonder.




posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

That's such a blatant contradiction it makes me wonder.
At how badly your source screwed up?
Do the lies about the tanks make you wonder too?



edit on 7/13/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h


Neither the original article nor the Geoengineering Watch article can be found. I tried Wayback Machine, too. It brought up an URL for each, but the links were dead.

There were screenshots of the article but it's hard to go by that.


Do you remember the fake snow debacle we had a while back...

I confess I don't.

When you say fake snow, are you referring to chemically nucleated snow?


The snow was real.

Can you cite your source?



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I don't think her citing the History Channel show negates the accuracy of her personal story and her knowledge in her area of expertise. I think she can be forgiven for it. I think it would be a big mistake to ignore what she says because of it.

I don't see how anyone can watch that video and not sense the truth in what she's testifying to.

I don't know what you're talking about with the tanks.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots




When you say fake snow, are you referring to chemically nucleated snow?


I guess you do know then why did you say this?



I confess I don't.




Can you cite your source?


Every real meteorologist in the country. But here you go...

wtvr.com...

water.usgs.gov...

And the fact that I live in GA where this was supposedly happened I went outside and checked for myself...and guess what I found, you got it real snow.

Here you go all about it...

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=


edit on 13-7-2015 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)


www.metabunk.org...
edit on 13-7-2015 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

After pages and pages of your ideas surfacing, I have come to one conclusion. You offer a free pass to anyone who says what you want to hear, and automatically discount anything you don't want to hear. Even if it's sourced and accepted.
I doubt any conversation with you would be of any use, and I seriously doubt you would ever believe science fact. The Earth is flat, and Chemtrails are real. Good luck with that.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Because I searched the Geoengineering Watch article for an explanation.

You had asked me if I remembered. I did not personally remember that from the news.

I noticed this in the Description of the YouTube video:


Enjoy the video Dutchsinse! (another hoaxer)

www.youtube.com...


I recognize that name.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe mainstream television news?



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   
originally posted by: ConnectDots

Enjoy the video Dutchsinse! (another hoaxer)
www.youtube.com...


This is an interview of Dutchsinse uploaded on Aug 19, 2011:




edit on 7/13/2015 by ConnectDots because: Remove word

edit on 7/13/2015 by ConnectDots because: Fix tags



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

This is an interview of Dutchsinse uploaded on Aug 19, 2011:


Project Camelot and Dutchsinse. Two things that are alike.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

It would behoove you to listen to the interview.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
This is an interview of Dutchsinse uploaded on Aug 19, 2011:


Listen regarding what happened to Dutchsinse's friend: Link

Listen to Gene Chip Tatum being interviewed, including the topic of the modus operandi in relation to assassinations: Link



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam
Why do you suppose that was on The History Channel?


Because hey regularly broadcast stupid sh*t like that? Sadly...

Are you REALLY puttign weight onto the fact that it was on the history channel. Clutching at straws my friend...



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I don't watch television.

I was also curious about Bedlam's personal opinion on the rationale of the History Channel putting that on.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam

It would behoove you to listen to the interview.


Dutchsinse doesn't understand anything whatever about the subject matter, he's concocting it for your entertainment. And Project Camelot is beneath contempt. So I'm not sure why it would behoove me to watch MORE Dutchsinse babbling.

Hint: there are no such things as scalar waves
edit on 13-7-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

I was also curious about Bedlam's personal opinion on the rationale of the History Channel putting that on.



Profit. Head count on key demographics. Did you think they had another?

At one time they were more about history, now it's more about crap.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ConnectDots

I was also curious about Bedlam's personal opinion on the rationale of the History Channel putting that on.



Profit. Head count on key demographics. Did you think they had another?

At one time they were more about history, now it's more about crap.


Wasn't it referred to as the Hitler Channel in previous years?



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam
Why do you suppose that was on The History Channel?


Because hey regularly broadcast stupid sh*t like that? Sadly...

Are you REALLY puttign weight onto the fact that it was on the history channel. Clutching at straws my friend...


i dont care if you watch TV or not. YOU put weight on the fact that its on the History Channel. Now you are backtracking....



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Bedlam
Next, HAARP doesn't emit ELF. Can't. Never ever did, not even once.

HAARP stands for High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, right?
And ELF stands for Extremely Low Frequency?

That's such a blatant contradiction it makes me wonder.

What contradiction are you seeing? You quote Bedlam saying it never emitted ELF then claim blatant contradiction.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots


I don't see how anyone can watch that video and not sense the truth in what she's testifying to.

I don't see how anyone could even think that.

That kind of thinking would make a jury member very valuable to a guilty defendant with acting skills, or with no conscience perhaps.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

The description for the video says that the presentation was another one in Northern California, where apparently agriculture has been severely affected by something.

My sense is that the people in the audience are very upset about the state of things where they live and are not looking for the kind of information or proof that you are.

I was trying to say that the people there suspect that geoengineering is causing their drought and that's why they were being addressed. Not only that, but they were probably very upset.

They were not an audience that needed the kind of evidence that a regular audience would need.

Therefore, I don't think Wigington should be faulted for lack of evidence.


It's not a lack of evidence I fault him for, it's presenting stuff that isn't evidence as if it is, like the interior pictures, for example.





My question to you is, why couldn't the barrels have more than one function?


I've been down this path many a time. We already know what their function is. These ballast set ups are not new, novel or secret. The photographs in question (apart from the ferry fuel tanks in the 717) show the interiors of the prototypes, one development airframes as they are known, for the Boeing 777-300, 787 and Airbus A380. The A350 has now joined this list as it is the newest commercial aircraft in service.

The 717 ferry tanks simply allow the aircraft to be delivered to a location beyond its normal range. Yes, you CAN suppose that these tanks MAY be used for another purpose if you want to, but that's not presenting evidence, is it. It is simply making stuff up from your imagination without any just cause. Thus when such an image appears with a claim that it shows a chemtrail interior, that claim is also made up, imaginary, a lie.

So much of chemtrail theory relies completely upon the phrase "yes, but what if...." That it should be clear that it's a fantasy. Such speculation is ok within practical defined limits, but when it's the whole thing? Where is the credibility?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join