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: 47
24
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No, that's not what I was saying.

You basically alleged that facts are facts - end of story. Correct?

My point is that you can't really make that statement and expect others to go along with you.

It's not that cut and dried.

And my example was of two scientists not a scientist and a non-scientist.

Additionally, my emphasis is not on the academic debate that's been raging on this thread, but on the behind-the-scenes factors which render the debate to become almost moot.




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:53 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 @ 08:57 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:





You have done a lot of research into whistleblowers. Great. When you boil all that down, you see that all sorts of wild claims are made. 9-11 was an inside job. Holographic planes were used. Directed energy weapons were used. No, it was non thermite. are you seeing a pattern here yet?

try this, chemtrail are real. A whistleblower said so. One said they were here to depopulate the planet, one said they were here to hide Niburu. One said they were here to cool the planet. One said they were spraying bio toxins (which the elite have immunity from due to their vaccinations you aren't privy to)

So which is it? Do we just assume that chemtrails must be real, and the reason isn't really that important?

Then we have the original reason they were chemtrails in the first place. Because contrails don't last longer then a few minute. But we just spent 45 pages showing you they do in fact last as long as conditions allow. So if you can add 2+2 and get to 4, you can also see that the entire premise for chemtrails is wrong. The likely answer is they are just misidentified contrails. None of that is to say that people who see them are crazy. They just don't understand what they are looking at.

Is any of this sinking it, or are you rejecting it?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Zaphod58

No, that's not what I was saying.

You basically alleged that facts are facts - end of story. Correct?

My point is that you can't really make that statement and expect others to go along with you.

It's not that cut and dried.

And my example was of two scientists not a scientist and a non-scientist.

Additionally, my emphasis is not on the academic debate that's been raging on this thread, but on the behind-the-scenes factors which render the debate to become almost moot.


verifiable, undisputed facts. They are the ones you can look for information on and validate that they are in fact, facts. Do you agree with that?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

And the facts that are under discussion have been facts for decades, and have not changed, no matter what scientist studies them. The facts about air travel have been facts for years, no matter who studies them. The facts about planes have been facts for a hundred years, no matter what type of aircraft you're talking about.

So what facts are you claiming have changed?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

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:





You have done a lot of research into whistleblowers. Great. When you boil all that down, you see that all sorts of wild claims are made. 9-11 was an inside job. Holographic planes were used. Directed energy weapons were used. No, it was non thermite. are you seeing a pattern here yet?

try this, chemtrail are real. A whistleblower said so. One said they were here to depopulate the planet, one said they were here to hide Niburu. One said they were here to cool the planet. One said they were spraying bio toxins (which the elite have immunity from due to their vaccinations you aren't privy to)

So which is it? Do we just assume that chemtrails must be real, and the reason isn't really that important?

Then we have the original reason they were chemtrails in the first place. Because contrails don't last longer then a few minute. But we just spent 45 pages showing you they do in fact last as long as conditions allow. So if you can add 2+2 and get to 4, you can also see that the entire premise for chemtrails is wrong. The likely answer is they are just misidentified contrails. None of that is to say that people who see them are crazy. They just don't understand what they are looking at.

Is any of this sinking it, or are you rejecting it?




Excellent comment mate.


Second line



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

The term was not used.

You knew that, didn't you?

Whistleblowers aren't focusing on contrail persistence.

They are irrelevant, knowing what they know.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:20 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 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy

The term was not used.

You knew that, didn't you?

Whistleblowers aren't focusing on contrail persistence.

They are irrelevant, knowing what they know.


No they don't focus on contrail persistence, they just accept the myth that contrails can't persist and any that do must be something else. Much like yourself and all the other chemtrail believers



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
You have done a lot of research into whistleblowers. Great. When you boil all that down, you see that all sorts of wild claims are made. 9-11 was an inside job. Holographic planes were used. Directed energy weapons were used. No, it was non thermite. are you seeing a pattern here yet?


I have posted something on this already.

But to address this further:

9/11 was an inside job is not a wild claim at this point in time. But we don't want to veer off-topic, so I'll leave it at that.

I agree that the debate within the truth movement is extremely confusing. Plus, there is unfortunate in-fighting.

However let's don't fail to see the forest for the trees.

In my opinion, there is no doubt the terror was staged for the purpose of furthering the shadow government's agenda.


try this, chemtrail are real. A whistleblower said so. One said they were here to depopulate the planet, one said they were here to hide Niburu. One said they were here to cool the planet. One said they were spraying bio toxins (which the elite have immunity from due to their vaccinations you aren't privy to)

So which is it? Do we just assume that chemtrails must be real, and the reason isn't really that important?

Then we have the original reason they were chemtrails in the first place. Because contrails don't last longer then a few minute. But we just spent 45 pages showing you they do in fact last as long as conditions allow. So if you can add 2+2 and get to 4, you can also see that the entire premise for chemtrails is wrong. The likely answer is they are just misidentified contrails. None of that is to say that people who see them are crazy. They just don't understand what they are looking at.


First,



Is any of this sinking it . . .


There you go again.



To answer your question, you are wrong. The entire premise for chemtrails is not wrong.

Please open up your mind to the possibility that there is another way of framing the debate besides what you've learned on Metabunk.

Now, I need a breakdown of these alleged whistleblowers and who said what. Because I have feeling you are using the term "whistleblower" quite loosely. In fact, I suspect you're butchering the language.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots


To answer your question, you are wrong. The entire premise for chemtrails is not wrong.





Can contrails persist and spread across the sky?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy

The term was not used.

You knew that, didn't you?

Whistleblowers aren't focusing on contrail persistence.

They are irrelevant, knowing what they know.


I don't get you. I thought you just said you now know about how contrails can persist. If they can, and you accept that, (as all of the scientific, avionic, meteorologic community has for decades. Undisputed.) then how does the misidentification made by these whistleblowers factor in? Are you just assuming that they are all 100% correct and incapable of making a mistake since they are "whistlblowers"?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:31 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 that they are contrails?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

Please learn what a whistleblower is.

A whistleblower is an insider with special knowledge of what's really going on who, sometimes at great risk to personal safety, comes forward and speaks out, because of the inability to keep quiet due to having a conscience. That's a true whistleblower. Yes, it's possible to have some other motive besides doing what's right, but that's where people have to assess the person on a case-by-case basis.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

network dude,

Listen carefully, please.

The whistleblowers don't misidentify anything.

The subject of persistent contrails is irrelevant.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy

Please learn what a whistleblower is.

A whistleblower is an insider with special knowledge of what's really going on who, sometimes at great risk to personal safety, comes forward and speaks out, because of the inability to keep quiet due to having a conscience. That's a true whistleblower. Yes, it's possible to have some other motive besides doing what's right, but that's where people have to assess the person on a case-by-case basis.


You should probably start by assessing their opinions on contrail persistence



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:38 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 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
First,



Is any of this sinking it . . .


There you go again.


It wasn't meant as a jab, I really need to know if you grasp this, refuse to believe it, fully understand it, accept it, or just don't understand it. It's critical to the discussion. I have made the mistake with you before thinking you understood the point, only to go three or four pages and have you repeat the wrong thing.

It's time to man up a bit and quit worrying about how fragile your perceived feelings might be.


To answer your question, you are wrong. The entire premise for chemtrails is not wrong.

then please explain. remember, up until a day or two ago, you didn't' know contrails could persist.


Please open up your mind to the possibility that there is another way of framing the debate besides what you've learned on Metabunk.

Metabunk is just a place where a lot of this information is lumped in one, easy to find place. The science that is used to explain/debunk all the stuff we are discussing is all over, in different places. If you see anything we offer as fact, that you disagree with, say something. Right then. So we can get it clear.
(again, do you understand that and or agree?)



Now, I need a breakdown of these alleged whistleblowers and who said what. Because I have feeling you are using the term "whistleblower" quite loosely. In fact, I suspect you're butchering the language.


I don't care about any whistleblowers. YOU are the one who keeps bringing other random folks opinions into this. Lets just deal in facts. Things that can be proven to be true. Is that agreeable?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

network dude,

Listen carefully, please.

The whistleblowers don't misidentify anything.

The subject of persistent contrails is irrelevant.



Um no.

If you don't get this, I suggest you turn off your PC, take a nap, and regroup. We are discussing chemtrails vs. contrails.

the white lines that form behind planes. Please tell me you get this. It's very important.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It's not that facts have changed and that's what the problem is.

It's that the information on Metabunk - the facts as the website presents them - and the posts on this thread regarding the authority of those facts is a narrow view of things.

What's important to establish is this: Is there harmful spraying going on?

That's where the whistleblowers come in. And as far as I know, they are the only individuals who can provide any information on that. The government denies it, am I correct? Or not?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join