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: 46
24
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: payt69
Why do you think this Griffith guy is credible?

Because I listen with my mind and my heart.

And overall, I already knew what he testified to.

I read a lot.

9/11 truth changed my worldview.

Respectfully, my feeling is that people are almost brainwashed by Metabunk.

I know from experience that all people who speak out about the goings on of the shadow government will be smeared. Some will be killed.


Respectfully. No you don tknow that. Thats what you THINK will happen. And respectfully, if anything on ,etabunk is wrong, why dont you call them out? Simple question and i dont expect an answer dont worry.




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: payt69

Personal experience.

No, that picture doesn't really mean anything to me. As in, how to transfer the information to this:



a reply to: payt69


originally posted by: payt69
Depends on what you're debating. If you're trying to hash out the truth of the chemtrail claim, I think it's best to avoid all these subjective matters and stick to the facts as much as possible. It'd be a rather technical debate, as far as I'm concerned.


“Facts” are determined by people according to their personal experience. In reality, when a person states, “Here are the facts . . . “ the person is about to express his or her opinion of what the facts are. One scientist will say one thing about the facts, another scientist will say something else, for example, but they’re both scientists.

Facts can be stated in textbooks and be absolutely false.

Facts can be stated on Metabunk or Geoengineering Watch, either one, and be incorrect.

Do you follow me?


I vividly recall a debate between Dane Wigington and Mick west, and Mick hads to explain to Dane what an aerodynamic contrail is. You'd think that after all the time Dane has spent refuting contrails, he'd at least know what he's talking about.. but he doesn't!


I suspect there are things about the history of such things as black projects and government which are important to know in this debate that Mick is not familiar with, as well. The two have different perspectives. That doesn’t make either one of them incompetent.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Yes, that’s what I think will happen – for good reason – based on my research.

I have no reason to communicate with Metabunk.

I’m doing my communicating here. Hopefully we can start making some progress soon, instead of having so much sarcasm and ridicule on the thread.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Hopefully we can start making some progress soon, instead of having so much sarcasm and ridicule on the thread.


So at some point, you are going to respond to the difficult questions, or will you continue to ignore them?
For the sake of progress.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude
First, you have read all my posts?
Second, what is still pending?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

There were quite a few earlier, but the main one deals with persisting contrails. You admit that they can persist, you just learned that here. So what is the difference between a persisting contrail and a chemtrail?

And keep in mind, this is the chemtrail/geo-engineering forum, not the shadow government, whistleblower forum. We all know the government is full of nasty folks who do nasty things. Nobody here disputes that. But that in itself, proves nothing.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

Have you looked into SRM yet, and do you understand what it is, and how it's proposed?
(it's the crux of the site Dane Wiggington has)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I disagree.

How in the world are we to determine the difference between a persistent contrail and a chemtrail, given the situation we are in regarding secrecy, and things such as the fear of harm that people in the military, for example, have to deal with?

a reply to: network dude

On his site I see three categories:

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)
Solar Radiation Management (SRM)
Stratosperic Sulfate Aerosols Geoengineering (SAG-SRM)

I also see his definition of Chemtrailing:




www.geoengineeringwatch.org...


I learned the name David Keith by participating on this thread. And I’ve seen it alleged that Wigington is preventing a debate on Keith’s proposal for SRM, so he’s doing everyone a disservice. (My paraphrase.)

Is that what you’re driving at?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

I disagree.

How in the world are we to determine the difference between a persistent contrail and a chemtrail, given the situation we are in regarding secrecy, and things such as the fear of harm that people in the military, for example, have to deal with?



Well according to the hoax there is no difference between persistent contrails and chemtrails since it's impossible for a contrail to persist so therefore any that do must be chemtrails.


But since we know that is a ridiculous claim and there is no reason why contrails cannot persist everything else is irrelevant. There's no need for secrecy and there's no fear of harm since there's nothing to be covered up.

There's no mystery to be solved here - the trails that people are calling chemtrails are persistent contrails.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

You are grossly over-simplifying the situation.

Now, I agree with you, based on what I'm trusting is reliable information learned from members like you, that persistent contrails do exist.

But there has been a great deal of confusion about terminology, and that is documented on this thread.

There is much more to consider besides that confusion, as well.

And, I beg to differ: There has been a great deal covered up.

And there's much more to discuss.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding whistleblower AC Griffith:


originally posted by: ConnectDots


Riley:
A. C. Griffith was associate within NSA, he carried top secret clearance, a cryptographic clearance, and in more recent times he was associated with CIA operations. He was married to lady lawyer judge, his father in law was a chief justice of the supreme court of Virginia.


and what I regard as something to be expected with a whistleblower, I posted this:


originally posted by: ConnectDots
In my opinion, it is almost certain that you've posted a smear of AC Griffith.


And regarding AC Griffith’s credentials, I was wondering, how can the general public vet this whistleblower? That was the question I had in my mind when I posted this:


originally posted by: ConnectDots
This is a short Griffith bio, according to information apparently picked up from the Veritas Show with Mel Fabregas:



A.C. Griffith was associated with the National Security Agency. He carried a top secret, cryptographic clearance. In more recent times he was associated with Central Intelligence Agency operations . He was married to a lady lawyer - judge and his father-in-law was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

www.zoominfo.com...


Continuing to try to vet Griffith, regarding the cryptographic clearance, I posted this:


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.


To which I received this response:


originally posted by: Bedlam
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.

My conclusion is that the public does not have the wherewithal to check that alleged security clearance.

So, having done due diligence, I think the next step is to simply consider the testimony itself and go from there.

Again, I can’t stress enough the importance of taking whistleblowers seriously. We are living in a culture of lies from the government. It is up to us to find out the truth for ourselves.

edit on 7/17/2015 by ConnectDots because: Format

edit on 7/17/2015 by ConnectDots because: Clarify

edit on 7/17/2015 by ConnectDots because: Capitalization



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy

You are grossly over-simplifying the situation.

Now, I agree with you, based on what I'm trusting is reliable information learned from members like you, that persistent contrails do exist.

But there has been a great deal of confusion about terminology, and that is documented on this thread.

There is much more to consider besides that confusion, as well.

And, I beg to differ: There has been a great deal covered up.

And there's much more to discuss.




The white lines across the sky are contrails. Everything is based on the false belief that they are something else.

What more is there to discuss?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

Facts don't change. If I state that it's a fact that there are 5,000 flights an hour over the US, it's not going to change because there are 15 an hour over Fargo, ND.

If I state it's fact that a 747 has a fixed maximum takeoff weight, it's not going to change because someone saw a different takeoff weight.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The facts will vary if your source made a mistake or someone else disagrees and it is determined who is correct later, etc., etc., etc.

I understand your point, but can you understand mine?

Especially in view of the fact that we have whistleblowers trying to communicate with us that there is something very rotten in Denmark, so to speak.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Zaphod58

The facts will vary if your source made a mistake or someone else disagrees and it is determined who is correct later, etc., etc., etc.

I understand your point, but can you understand mine?

Especially in view of the fact that we have whistleblowers trying to communicate with us that there is something very rotten in Denmark, so to speak.


What do these whistleblowers have to say about contrail persistence?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy


originally posted by: mrthumpy
The white lines across the sky are contrails.

I'm not convinced that is true in this case:




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy


originally posted by: mrthumpy
The white lines across the sky are contrails.

I'm not convinced that is true in this case:





Because?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

Listen to this whistleblower and then ask yourself whether or not you're focusing on that which is most important:


originally posted by: ConnectDots
Another interview of AC Griffith:




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

So if a scientist states that we've known about persistent contrails and that they form since 1918, and have studied the phenomenon for decades, and a non-scientist comes along and says those lines are spraying, then in your eyes, the "facts" have now changed, and the non-scientist is right.

Got it.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy

Listen to this whistleblower and then ask yourself whether or not you're focusing on that which is most important:


originally posted by: ConnectDots
Another interview of AC Griffith:





What does he have to say about contrail persistence?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy


originally posted by: mrthumpy
The white lines across the sky are contrails.

I'm not convinced that is true in this case:





Why aren't you convinced those are contrails?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

I disagree.

How in the world are we to determine the difference between a persistent contrail and a chemtrail, given the situation we are in regarding secrecy, and things such as the fear of harm that people in the military, for example, have to deal with?

a reply to: network dude

On his site I see three categories:

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)
Solar Radiation Management (SRM)
Stratosperic Sulfate Aerosols Geoengineering (SAG-SRM)

I also see his definition of Chemtrailing:




www.geoengineeringwatch.org...


I learned the name David Keith by participating on this thread. And I’ve seen it alleged that Wigington is preventing a debate on Keith’s proposal for SRM, so he’s doing everyone a disservice. (My paraphrase.)

Is that what you’re driving at?


No, I am trying to lead you to discover that SRM, which is the process Dane is so against, is proposed to be deployed at higher levels than normal flight. It will be done in the lower stratosphere. it won't look like white lines in the sky.

once you grasp the concept of SRM and you really, really try to fully understand it, you see that it has NOTHING at all to do with contrails. Then, you have to wonder is Dane that stupid? Is he incapable of grasping something so easy to understand? he sure doesn't seem like a drooling idiot. He can put full sentences together. So you have to ask, why is he still promoting the contrails are chemtrails and that means Geo-engineering is happening. In order to get to this point, you will be forced to use common sense, but we have already established you like that, so I am not worried at all.

Please share with me your thoughts on this thus far. Do you agree or disagree, and why.

And please, this needs to be done in baby steps so we don't go convolution men in black with this. It's a really basic thing that doesn't require any secret government plot.






edit on 17-7-2015 by network dude because: fixed quote



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join