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: 41
24
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation




I have read a name or two but can't recall at the moment.


William Thomas would be who your probably thinking of.




posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I did do research.

It was insufficient to answer my question.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I did do research.

It was insufficient to answer my question.


I don't consider cpnspiracy website and youtube videos to be research.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I did do research.

It was insufficient to answer my question.


Where did you look to find out what Aluminium Oxide is that didn't tell you it is a solid??



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I did do research.

It was insufficient to answer my question.


Well if you will insist on using sources like geoengineeringwatch....



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

No, that's not an argument from authority. What, precisely, do you reject? That water is present in the air and so is particulate matter, both of which are increased when a jet flies through?

That water nucleates onto particles?

That water freezes at sub zero temperatures?

That relative humidity dictates persistence?

That chemicals cannot replicate themselves out of nothing?

What's is actually wrong?

What is the correct explanation in its place?





edit on 16-7-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Back to the video in the OP.

Judging from the remarks so far, I suppose this is considered by most to be a fake photo, or in some other way deceptive by Wigington?



And this is a picture of contrails from lots of air traffic in today's busy world, or, a fake Wigington photo?



And what about the TEXT OF PILOT MESSAGE: December 8, 2014?

Is it phony?


originally posted by: network dude


So far, the only whistleblowers have been proven to be fakes.


Does that include the whistleblower for this thread?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Back to the video in the OP.

Judging from the remarks so far, I suppose this is considered by most to be a fake photo, or in some other way deceptive by Wigington?


nope, it's a real photo. It doesn't belong on a chemtrail web site, since it has nothing to do with trails. So the deception is how it's represented. You probably can't see it through those rose colored glasses.


And this is a picture of contrails from lots of air traffic in today's busy world, or, a fake Wigington photo?


Not fake. Looks like contrails. can you verify what chemicals are in those trails by sight alone, or were they tested and Dan forgot to mention that? Or, can you explain why they are chemtrials and not contrails?


And what about the TEXT OF PILOT MESSAGE: December 8, 2014?

Is it phony?

A friend of a friend told me....... I think you can muster up some of the common sense you champion and come up with an idea what the rest of the people think.



originally posted by: network dude


So far, the only whistleblowers have been proven to be fakes.


Does that include the whistleblower for this thread?




It appears so. A whistleblower would be a pilot who had pictures of the spray operation, or some paperwork from the spray operation. It's not "my cousins, best friend's sister".
I think you should post some more videos that are at least an hour long and get huffy when nobody watches them.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

Does that include the whistleblower for this thread?




Which whistleblower? Someone's friend's auntie's mother's cousin's hairdresser's dog's groomer?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
You probably can't see it through those rose colored glasses.

There you go again.




So the deception is how it's represented.

Do you have any thoughts on the Facebook part of it, and what that might suggest for the issue of a possible secret geoengineering program?


Not fake. Looks like contrails. can you verify what chemicals are in those trails by sight alone, or were they tested and Dan forgot to mention that? Or, can you explain why they are chemtrials and not contrails?

That's not what I asked.

I asked about whether those trails are the result of today's volume of air traffic. What is your answer to that question?

Who is Dan? Do you mean Wigington?


A friend of a friend told me....... I think you can muster up some of the common sense you champion and come up with an idea what the rest of the people think.

You're taking it upon yourself to speak for everyone, (with the exception of ConnectDots, of course)?

Your answer is yes, it's phony?

Consider, for the sake of argument, that there is a black project going on, and people have been killed over it. Can you then imagine why "a friend of a friend" might come forward anonymously?


It appears so. A whistleblower would be a pilot who had pictures of the spray operation, or some paperwork from the spray operation.

You have that criterion for the modus operandi that a whistleblower must follow in order for you to pay attention?


I think you should post some more videos that are at least an hour long and get huffy when nobody watches them.

What does that remark contribute to the thread?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

I take it the allegation that "So far, the only whistleblowers have been proven to be fakes" is untrue.

Because the testimony in question on this thread is the testimony of a whistleblower, is it not?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy


Because the testimony in question on this thread is the testimony of a whistleblower, is it not?


Maybe you should ask Snowden what he thinks of that



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

You asked about the photo, not the caption. I have two thoughts about it for you.
A the copyright holder complained resulting in its removal
B The claim is rubbish.

Can you say why you accept the caption as true?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

I don't know what you mean.

Don't tell me to google it.

If you're serious and not sarcastic (remember I've shared my problem with sarcasm already), you might pay me the courtesy of telling me what you mean.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy

I don't know what you mean.

Don't tell me to google it.

If you're serious and not sarcastic (remember I've shared my problem with sarcasm already), you might pay me the courtesy of telling me what you mean.


No you really don't do you.

Don't you think a whistleblower should present some kind of evidence? All we've got hear is someone saying that someone said something.


My brother's friend's dad is Air Chief Marshall in the RAF and he says that chemtrails are a hoax.
edit on 16-7-2015 by mrthumpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: waynos


You asked about the photo, not the caption.

Fair enough.


I have two thoughts about it for you.
A the copyright holder complained resulting in its removal
B The claim is rubbish.


The caption reads, "Please do not post this photo apparently showing the inside of an aircraft used to create chemtrails on Facebook. Your account may be frozen or even removed."

It doesn't say copyright violation. It seems that if copyright violation were the reason, it would say so.

The message sounds as if Facebook is telling the user that the photo is a breach of national security. Perhaps chemtrails are considered a necessary evil?


Can you say why you accept the caption as true?


It may not be true.

It could be part of a psychological operation to keep the public busy throwing mud at each other, like on this thread.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
The message sounds as if Facebook is telling the user that the photo is a breach of national security.

So you think copyright (or similar) issues are out of the question, because it doesn't specifically say anything about copyright, but you jump to this? Smh...



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

Oh please.

Do you expect a peer-reviewed scientific paper?

Let me ask you this.

Have you listened to the whole video?

And have you read the entire text?



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: admirethedistance

Well, for copyright to be the true issue, but not stated as such, perhaps you could suggest the reason for that, since you're bringing it up?

Or, if there is some other explanation, what do you say it is? Since you brought it up.



posted on Jul, 16 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
It looks to me like a 747-8 test plane photo. Others might be able to confirm.

Wish I could stick around this morning, but I can't.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join