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: 50
24
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

So if someone comes out and says they're a whistleblower we should automatically believe them?
edit on 7/17/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots


If there is the alleged black project going on and the allegation of killings over it is true,

How do you go about determining the alleged black project IS going on?

Even in a case where someone has actually died, how would you determine it was in connection with a project that you don't even know is going on?

People can read about an incident and claim a personal link to the victim, for example.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: network dude

If there is the alleged black project going on and the allegation of killings over it is true, ....




IF...and IF......perhaps these things are happening....but you have no actual evidence, so you are speculating and making "solid" conclusions based on that speculation.

It is not worth debating.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

Because there's really no backing.

Two things I've never understood about chemtrails.

- Why does the US only take flak over it, when contrails are seen in Russia, Iran, India, China, and every other country?

- What is the point? Are the leaders and the people, maintenance crew, pilots, and everyone involved in the whole operation putting themselves at risk, along with their families and friends?

Anyone can say they're a whistle-blower, if they offer proof than they will have more support. However, that portion always comes up short. I



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

For anyone new reading this post, here is a link to an interview of whistleblower AC Griffith:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


During the interview, Griffith mentions that one of the key people who designed the barium salt aerosol was set up by people in the Reagan administration and is now sitting in a federal penitentiary, and they still go to him to ask him questions.

That reminds me of the testimony of another whistleblower, interviewed by Project Camelot, the wife of Captain Mark Richards. Same scenario. Richards was framed and is sitting in a federal penitentiary and (if memory serves ) they still go to him to ask him questions.

Here is the link for that report: "Space Command: Jo Ann Richards re. Mark Richards."


originally posted by: ConnectDots
Regarding the technology for the alleged Project Cloverleaf, I think everyone needs to watch the archives of the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure.

The hearing provided a platform for those who have experienced first hand the reality of the UFO phenomenon, and who have subsequently been told by the military, "You didn't see this."

The secrecy surrounding UFOs ties in directly with the secrecy surrounding real physics.

In order to keep the reality of UFOs secret, the physics that explains how they work has to be kept secret.

Real physics is not taught in universities.


If you haven't researched the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure yet, you need to.

Here is their YouTube channel: Citizen Hearing on Disclosure.

Similarly, there is the testimony of Stew Webb and Gene Tatum about Tatum's experience. He refused to "neutralize" Ross Perot during the 1992 presidential election, so he was set up and went to a federal penitentiary.

Listen to that at 1:37:46




posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

So you just ignore all the people who have told you that some "whistleblower's" words aloje are meaningless without supporting evidence, and then go on to use sources from Project Camelot? Really?

If Project Camelot says something is true, you can pretty much be assured that there's not a lick of truth to it.

Now, do you have any actual evidence that supports the existence of chemtrails, or are you just going to keep posting meaningless (and fraudulent) drivel?



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
If Project Camelot says something is true, you can pretty much be assured that there's not a lick of truth to it.


Yes, I've noticed that that seems to be the "official story" on ATS, but it's way off base.

So, I would suggest you explore for yourself, rather than go along to get along.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
So, I would suggest you explore for yourself, rather than go along to get along.

I've spent far more hours than I'd care to admit looking at stuff from Project Camelot, and I've never found a single thing that holds up. They're nothing but snake oil salesmen.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

Yes, us and them is a problem.

Is a debate an attempt to overcome that problem and move forward? In my opinion, that's largely the benefit of debate.



originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
What to make of the claims that those trails weren't around before the 90s? Does he think before he speaks?



originally posted by: ConnectDots
Bearing in mind the topic of us vs. them as a mindset, and how it affects public affairs, what was your rationale there?


DenyObfuscation,

Do you know what I mean by that question?





posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Oh, the "snake oil salesman" meme.

I've seen that many times on ATS.

I wonder how many memes we're going to go through before we move on?



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Oh, the "snake oil salesman" meme.

I've seen that many times on ATS.

I wonder how many memes we're going to go through before we move on?

It's an expression, and in this case, a fitting one. What term would you prefer I use? Liars? Frauds? Charlatains? Con artists?

Rather than changing the subject to my choice of words, why not do something constructive and show some evidence that I'm wrong?
edit on 7/18/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:32 AM
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.



Ok so if you had four flights travelling East-West and four more travelling North South, leaving trails that persisted, what would it look like?

What is the personal experience that you speak of?



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance


It's an expression, and in this case, a fitting one. What term would you prefer I use? Liars? Frauds? Charlatains? Con artists?

Thanks. Maybe we can cross off those memes in one fell swoop and save time.


If your mind is closed on Project Camelot, you could just concentrate, then, on AC Griffith and Gene Tatum, and come back to Project Camelot later, should you change your mind.

And don't forget the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure.

The evidence lies in listening to the testimony of people who have experienced things firsthand and subsequently have the courage to speak out about it.

Think about it.

If we have a government that is lying to us, how else are we going to find the truth?

Or, is it that you think the government doesn't lie?



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
The evidence lies in listening to the testimony of people who have experienced things firsthand and subsequently have the courage to speak out about it.

That isn't evidence, no matter how much you may want it to be.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: waynos

waynos,

Let's move on.

If you take the issue of what air traffic looks like today vs. the issue of the allegation of people getting killed over black projects, the blackest being the program that is the subject of this thread, as AC Griffith testified to, which is more important?



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Well, it's not evidence if you expect charts and diagrams and peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Is that what you're looking for?



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Well, it's not evidence if you expect charts and diagrams and peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Is that what you're looking for?

Nope. Any sort of verifiable evidence of the existence of chemtrails will do.



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

The point you are missing here is that we are not as easily swayed by made up fantasies as you seem to be. You dismiss the contrail vs chemtrail debate as if it is irrelevant, but it is quite clearly more of an inconvenience.

Chemtrail theory itself was begun purely by claims that any trail in the sky that lasted more than a minute or two must be a chemtrail, everything followed from there. All the project Camelot claims, globalskywatch et al, ALL sprang up from that one claim and weaved an elaborate web to hide the one true basic fact that chemtrails are a lie. They are a house of cards built on quicksand (that's called a mixed metaphor)

So you see, the debate is not irrelevant at all, it is absolutely central. Apart from the contrail question you keep ignoring, there is another one I asked many pages back that I will paraphrase here.

Why do you reject the facts we talk about when you can simply verify them for yourself? Then why do you simply accept the claims of these websites and supposed whistleblowers when nothing they say can be verified at all?

Don't you think that's a little dishonest?


edit on 18-7-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

waynos,

Let's move on.

If you take the issue of what air traffic looks like today vs. the issue of the allegation of people getting killed over black projects, the blackest being the program that is the subject of this thread, as AC Griffith testified to, which is more important?


No, let's not. Reality takes precedence over fantasy. The allegations in respect of chemtrails are rubbish. People don't get killed over something that doesn't exist. Why are Dane Wigington, Michael Murphy, Alex Jones, Kirsten Meghan et Al all walking about perfectly OK?



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Verifiable.

Okay, so the testimony of whistleblowers is not verifiable? Is that what you're saying?

I guess so.

Hmmm.

I would suggest you do this. Watch the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure videos. Those are real people you can perhaps relate to and there are historical events on public record that you can perhaps relate to.

Do you know what I mean?

If you can see that the government has definitely been lying in that department, maybe that could get you started.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join