Operation Indigo Skyfold

a reply to: ConnectDots

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or are you just really that dense? It's been said at least a dozen times in this thread, but here it is again:

Witness testimony is not evidence.

So, again, so you have any evidence of the existence of chemtrails?

a reply to: waynos

No.

First of all, the technique of ridicule has been used on this thread as a knee-jerk reaction - standard procedure - when anything concerning whistleblowers has been brought up. The video in the OP didn't have a prayer of being considered by the members here who frequent Metabunk on a daily basis, it seems.

Second, there is the us and them mindset that has been evident. And it has come from the Metabunk crowd.

Third, Wigington has been vilified as a "liar." By definition, a liar is someone who intentionally tells a falsehood. One can not be a liar if one is telling the truth as one knows it. The fact that that has not been recognized on this thread speaks volumes.

Fourth, as soon as I introduced my notes on the Tavistock Institute, it was ridiculed. There is no subject matter more important than it is. It is time to put a stop to the nonsense and start discussing subject matter, without snide remarks.

a reply to: waynos

Because apparently they don't assassinate everyone.

Is that the whole of your rationale for refusing to listen to whistleblowers?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
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.

The citizens hearing on disclosure is about UFO's though, right? We know governments lie about things, and UFO's could very well be one of those subjects (actually we're pretty certain they do and did). But that doesn't mean that chemtrails suddenly are true.. or unicorns, or Nessie, or anything else. Of course it would be convenient if such was the case, but I think it's not hard to see that the Citizens hearing only provides testimony and evidence regarding UFO's.

You're still going to have to provide evidence for chemtrails if you want the subject to gain any kind of credibility. Haven't you noticed that nothing sticks? It's just not there.. I mean you have to refer to project camelot, and the baseless imaginations of a talespinner like Griff. Sure he sounds incredibly serious and he's a fascinating listen.. but nothing can be verified.

And at the basis of it all lies the big lie that contrails can't persist. That's what got the whole thing started. Make sure you get to the bottom of that.. can a contrail persist? What if it can.. what remains of the chemtrail 'theory'?

Here I've made this video some time ago which covers some of the basics:

originally posted by: ConnectDots
It is time to put a stop to the nonsense and start discussing subject matter, without snide remarks.

Funny, because you seem to be the one who keeps changing the subject... So, since the subject matter is the existence of chemtrails, do you have any supporting evidence yet?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
Witness testimony is not evidence.

Are you saying that people cannot be convicted and executed based on witness testimony?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Changing the subject is what is required when people are obsessed with a debate that is irrelevant.

The relevant question is: Are we being sprayed?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
Witness testimony is not evidence.

Are you saying that people cannot be convicted and executed based on witness testimony?

I'm sorry, are we in a courtroom, or are you just changing the subject again right after telling others to stick to the subject at hand?

And you do understand the difference between legal/criminal evidence and scientific evidence, right? Actually, never mind. Clearly you don't.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
The relevant question is: Are we being sprayed?

No, we are not. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, in which case you need to just present it already.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Changing the subject is what is required when people are obsessed with a debate that is irrelevant.

The relevant question is: Are we being sprayed?

Do you (or anyone else) have evidence that shows us that we are being sprayed? If so, what is it? What is being sprayed? What is the supposed effect? Who is spraying it? How is it being sprayed?

Comeon man.. this is basic stuff.. Bring evidence for chemtrails, and we're done. Is that so hard? And no, evidence for UFO's is NOT evidence for chemtrails any more than it is evidence for invisible purple cats.

originally posted by: payt69
And no, evidence for UFO's is NOT evidence for chemtrails any more than it is evidence for invisible purple cats.

Whoa, whoa, whoa....Invisible purple cats? So I wasn't just imagining this?:

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: payt69
And no, evidence for UFO's is NOT evidence for chemtrails any more than it is evidence for invisible purple cats.

Whoa, whoa, whoa....Invisible purple cats? So I wasn't just imagining this?:

OK you got me there.. umm.. I may need to change my meme here

How about green antigravity elephants?

originally posted by: payt69

The citizens hearing on disclosure is about UFO's though, right? We know governments lie about thing, and UFO's could very well be one of those subjects. But that doesn't mean that chemtrails suddenly are true.. or unicorns, or Nessie, or anything else.

If you could begin to eliminate sarcasm, such as I underlined in your quote above, it would facilitate civil debate.

Here is the reason the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure is important and very relevant.

Whistleblowers are ridiculed and brushed off by people who believe they have science and academia on their side. However, that science and academia is brought to you compliments of the powers that be - the shadow government - who are professionals at manipulation and deception to further their agenda, not the agenda of we the people.

Project Camelot is vilified and ridiculed by the same people.

So, in order to break out of that mindset, people need to start somewhere.

The Citizen Hearing on Disclosure should be something that people can open their minds to.

Once the mind is opened, miracles can happen.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Blah, blah, blah...How many times are you going to ignore the requests for evidence (and the entire premise of the thread) and go off on unrelated tangents?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

No.

First of all, the technique of ridicule has been used on this thread as a knee-jerk reaction - standard procedure - when anything concerning whistleblowers has been brought up. The video in the OP didn't have a prayer of being considered by the members here who frequent Metabunk on a daily basis, it seems.

Misdirection from you. This has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Second, there is the us and them mindset that has been evident. And it has come from the Metabunk crowd.

Again, what has this go to do with me? I am not, and have never been, a member of metabunk. Just because you get your "knowledge" from particular websites you seem to think everyone does. The world is bigger than that. I suggest YOU are the one with the narrow view.

Third, Wigington has been vilified as a "liar." By definition, a liar is someone who intentionally tells a falsehood. One can not be a liar if one is telling the truth as one knows it. The fact that that has not been recognized on this thread speaks volumes.

Of course it has been recognised. It has also been shown that Wigington has continued to push the same misconceptions after they were shown to be false, at which point they became lies. I asked you specifically about the Thai 747 incident which emerged this week (another thing you ignored). That is another lie, if it is not a lie, then he is simply stupid. Either way, that's not someone I want to take any notice of.

Fourth, as soon as I introduced my notes on the Tavistock Institute, it was ridiculed. There is no subject matter more important than it is. It is time to put a stop to the nonsense and start discussing subject matter, without snide remarks.

In your opinion, not mine. If the reality of chemtrails is entirely fabricated, then nothing said about it matters anyway. The Tavistock Institute has no relevance at all to anything I am talking about (or have ever talked about re chemtrails). This is another misdirection you are trying to shoehorn in.

originally posted by: payt69

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: payt69
And no, evidence for UFO's is NOT evidence for chemtrails any more than it is evidence for invisible purple cats.

Whoa, whoa, whoa....Invisible purple cats? So I wasn't just imagining this?:

OK you got me there.. umm.. I may need to change my meme here

How about green antigravity elephants?

Does this count?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

Because apparently they don't assassinate everyone.

Is that the whole of your rationale for refusing to listen to whistleblowers?

Have they assassinated anyone over chemtrails? All we have is your opinion and that you believe random claims from attention seekers. At least, you have failed to show any reason to think otherwise.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Are you saying that it's okay to execute someone based on witness testimony, but not to discover the answer to the question of the existence of chemtrails?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

No.

First of all, the technique of ridicule has been used on this thread as a knee-jerk reaction - standard procedure - when anything concerning whistleblowers has been brought up. The video in the OP didn't have a prayer of being considered by the members here who frequent Metabunk on a daily basis, it seems.

I think you've been treated pretty fairly, especially compared to how skeptics are being treated in a chemtrail environment.

Second, there is the us and them mindset that has been evident. And it has come from the Metabunk crowd.

Has it? It takes 2 to tango. But all of that is irrelevant.. just bring evidence, and you'll see that things will become a lot easier for you.

Third, Wigington has been vilified as a "liar." By definition, a liar is someone who intentionally tells a falsehood. One can not be a liar if one is telling the truth as one knows it. The fact that that has not been recognized on this thread speaks volumes.

Have you been following the latest developments regarding the Thai Airways 747 fuel dump? There was this video allegedly showing a boeing 747 spraying 'chemtrails' from it's wingtips. As it turned out is was a Thai Airways dumping fuel before making an emergency landing in Munich.

Of course the video appeared on Geoengineeringwatch and was endorsed by Dane as a chemtrail video, despite the fact that this video has been fully explained. Both me and Gaul tried posting comments explaining the situation, but neither got through the moderation process, and our explanantions weren't posted on the geowatch page.

Dane Wigington is a liar. He omits the truth, and doesn't allow critical voices. Intentionally.

Have a look over here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is time to put a stop to the nonsense and start discussing subject matter, without snide remarks.

Are we still discussing chemtrails? Discussing them is all fine and dandy, but you'd do us all a much bigger favour if you showed some evidence instead.

a reply to: waynos

You are speaking from your point of view, and trying to claim authority, still calling Wigington a liar.

Perhaps you could consider an opposing view?

Putting your demand for evidence on your terms for chemtrails aside, maybe you could watch the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure, just to test your belief?