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: 48
24
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:52 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 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Have you forgotten all about the OP of the thread?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

And if a whistleblower comes forward with "facts" that go against things we KNOW are correct then that discredits them. The fact that they're a supposed whistleblower doesn't automatically get them credibility.

If a whistleblower comes forward from a black project no one has ever heard of before there is no way to prove their credibility, but people give them an automatic pass because it either conforms to their beliefs, or because they have the whistleblower tag. Just because they're a whistleblower doesn't mean they're automatically right or credible.
edit on 7/17/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

You asked me that before using the term "persistent contrail," correct?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
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?



I see that you aren't going to drop the whistelblower thing. Try this. IN the hostroy of whistleblowing, why has not ONE, NOT ONE of these pinheads grabbed a cell phone picture, or quick video of something to back up their story? NOT FRIGGIN ONE!

My theory is.....they are full of #.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

Have you forgotten all about the OP of the thread?


In 48 pages? Hell yes I have. We can't get past "water is wet" with you, so the rest is getting to be pointless.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:01 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.


I suggest you bring on a credible whistleblower then.

So far we've seen Kristin Meghan, and I suppose we agree she's not a very good source for anything.

Then we have A.C. Griffith, a guy whose own son makes the following statement:


AC Griffith was my father. His actual name was Arvon Calcote Griffiths. He was not really an expert on any government activities. I find these untrue and intentionally misleading claims to be offensive with his passing. He served in the USAF and worked for the US postal service, not the NSA. It's a lie. He simply had a way of storytelling that captured the imagination and seemed like he knew everything about the subject. Ask me anything you want to know about his life. Charles Griffiths


www.truthnews.com.au...

So looks like another storyteller with no facts to back him up. Why should we listen to this guy?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:02 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 these are contrails?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

A whistleblower would not be a whistleblower were there not something wrong with the establishment.

But you are content to reject the individual if there is a conflict with mainstream "facts."

You seem to have a lot of confidence in the mainstream.

For example, do you trust mainstream television news reporting?

I say you have to at least listen to the alleged person from the black project.

Otherwise, you're assuming too much.

You are ignoring an opportunity.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

Kristin Meghan is touted as a whistleblower about chemtrails and is frequently held up as proof they're spraying. She herself says she doesn't know anything about chemtrails except what she read about them on the Internet.

In what possible way is she a credible whistleblower on the topic?

How do you know what I feel about the media? I would bet that I have more aircraft experience than any three or four chemtrail pushers combined. That includes both the flight and maintenance side of things. I don't need some idiot reporter or someone that knows that an airplane flies and that's about it to tell me what I'm seeing.
edit on 7/17/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: mrthumpy



It's one of those 'difficult" questions she was taught not to answer.


Difficult to form the correct picture if you tippex out the dots you don't like



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:34 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 these are contrails?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots



It's time to focus on what constitutes a psychological operation, in the sense that I have been using the term.


Here are some notes I made from the beginning of the video:

  1. Frederick Gates, of the Rockefeller established General Education Board, in The World's Work, August 1912, is quoted as saying, "In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands."

  2. The Tavistock Institute was associated with The British Psychological Society.

  3. The Royal Institute for International Affairs created the Tavistock Institute at Oxford in 1921, with later funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.

  4. Is the nerve center for the global manipulation of human consciousness.

  5. Co-founders were John Rawlings Rees and others.

  6. Became the core of Britain's Psychological Warfare Bureau, studying the effects of shell shock on British soldiers.

  7. Played a crucial role in creating the OSS, which was the precursor of the CIA. Dr. Kurt Lewin, Allen Dulles, the German Nazis and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff were involved.

  8. Project Paperclip Nazi Scientists were associated with it.

  9. Tim Rifat, author of Microwave Mind Control quote: "Research into the use of microwave weapons and their use for mind control began in the 1950s at Tavistock. The UK institute was researching into ways of mind controlling the British population without them knowing."


A screenshot:




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
You asked me that before using the term "persistent contrail," correct?


Scrolling back I can't find that you did. It must have been some other post I was thinking about.

As I have posted on the thread already, this photo:



does not look like normal trails to me because the explanation for the pattern observed, that of busy air traffic, does not hold water for me.

Why?

In conflicts with my personal experience.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Here are some notes I made from the beginning of the video:

  1. Frederick Gates, of the Rockefeller established General Education Board, in The World's Work, August 1912, is quoted as saying, "In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands."

  2. The Tavistock Institute was associated with The British Psychological Society.

  3. The Royal Institute for International Affairs created the Tavistock Institute at Oxford in 1921, with later funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.

  4. Is the nerve center for the global manipulation of human consciousness.

  5. Co-founders were John Rawlings Rees and others.

  6. Became the core of Britain's Psychological Warfare Bureau, studying the effects of shell shock on British soldiers.

  7. Played a crucial role in creating the OSS, which was the precursor of the CIA. Dr. Kurt Lewin, Allen Dulles, the German Nazis and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff were involved.

  8. Project Paperclip Nazi Scientists were associated with it.

  9. Tim Rifat, author of Microwave Mind Control quote: "Research into the use of microwave weapons and their use for mind control began in the 1950s at Tavistock. The UK institute was researching into ways of mind controlling the British population without them knowing."



10. Halflife 3 confirmed

11. Chemtrails are real.


All kidding aside.. I don't see how this proves that those lines in the sky contain anything other than what they should contain. Care to help me out?

It strikes me that you've got things the wrong way around. You start by assuming that there must be something in those trails because of all the stuff you stated above, whereas the more sane approach would be to first check what's in contrails and what makes them persist, and then take it from there.

It just so happens that contrails have been researched for a long time already, and it's well known what causes them, what causes the patterns.. It's actually really basic stuff. But for some reason you choose to ignore all that and go by how you feel about contrails. And since you've been reading all this paranoid chemtrail nonsense, you don't feel good about them.
edit on 7201517 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots
You asked me that before using the term "persistent contrail," correct?


Scrolling back I can't find that you did. It must have been some other post I was thinking about.

As I have posted on the thread already, this photo:



does not look like normal trails to me because the explanation for the pattern observed, that of busy air traffic, does not hold water for me.

Why?

In conflicts with my personal experience.



And that's enough for you to declare chemtrails? You did nothing to find out what might be causing such a pattern, but just decided that 'it doesn't hold water for you'?
edit on 7201517 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots
You asked me that before using the term "persistent contrail," correct?


Scrolling back I can't find that you did. It must have been some other post I was thinking about.

As I have posted on the thread already, this photo:



does not look like normal trails to me because the explanation for the pattern observed, that of busy air traffic, does not hold water for me.

Why?

In conflicts with my personal experience.



And yet it concurs with my personal experience and knowledge both of meteorology and aircraft flight patterns.

I guess we have an impasse?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots
You asked me that before using the term "persistent contrail," correct?


Scrolling back I can't find that you did. It must have been some other post I was thinking about.

As I have posted on the thread already, this photo:



does not look like normal trails to me because the explanation for the pattern observed, that of busy air traffic, does not hold water for me.

Why?

In conflicts with my personal experience.



Use your imagination



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: payt69

I think you know it doesn't and is not purported to, if you have taken anything I've said seriously.

I don't think the Tavistock Institute is a good subject for levity, either.

No, persistent contrails are irrelevant at this point as far as I'm concerned.

The real question is, "Are we being sprayed?"

If we are, then we have chemtrails. If we're not, we don't.

That's why we need to put a lid on the contrail - chemtrail debate which has been going on ad nauseam.


It just so happens that contrails have been researched for a long time already, and it's well known what causes them, what causes the patterns..


I'm suspicious of that official story, for good reason.


And since you've been reading all this paranoid chemtrail nonsense, you don't feel good about them.

A very pejorative choice of words on your part.

The OP for this thread was testimony from a whistleblower. A bunch of nonsense was posted about that testimony.

I say that to move on, a new avenue needs to be taken.

I challenge you to not make jokes about it or otherwise use the fallacy of ridicule in your replies.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join