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.

 

Proof that Geoengineeringwatch had been lying all along.

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I've stumbled upon where I probably first saw the term.

It is in the Description of the video "Secret Chemtrail Pilot Speaks, on Dec 8, 2014," the video in the OP of "Operation Indigo Skyfold."

Here is the specific part:


. . . INSTEAD, he says the opposite: "a very new "extremely toxic" chemtrail mix, is going to be sprayed. Using new technology, that makes these special chemtrails, completely invisible." . . .

www.youtube.com...


The transcript for the video is in the Comments section. The first paragraph:


TEXT OF PILOT MESSAGE: December 8, 2014 My cousin who was fired by our dictator, just before making "rank withheld", sent me information given to him by a friend, who is still an Air Force pilot. This pilot is saying that he flies CHEMTRAIL flights!

www.youtube.com...


I will continue to investigate what's going on with GeoEngineering Watch, but in my opinion, if you have considered my posts about the shadow government, all of them, the stage is set to open your minds to the possibility that it's the whistleblower testimony that we should be discussing as this point, not the alleged sins of Dane Wigington.




Oh my god...why are you STILL saying "alleged". he has lied. We have proved it...very very odd behaviour. And, im so sorry to say, very suspicious.




posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: smurfy

So what's in a working contrail then, exactly?..you tell me,


A whole # load of water ice, and a tiny, tiny little bit of particulates for the ice to form around. A bit less than 1%.
Exactly. You have been told. Now, if you want to discuss the invisible exhaust of the engine, I am sure there are all sorts of nasty things there. C02, Carbon, Dihidrogen Monoxide! Good Lord, a whole lot of Dihidrogen monoxide!


More rubbish from you and you have told me feck nothing that I didn't know already...I said what's in a contrail, not what's in an engine, what goes into an engine, and you know that I already know about the stuff that goes in, now, I'll try once more, answer me again, What's in a contrail?


Seriously, a contrail is the white puffy thing you SEE when a plane flies in air that is conducive for contrail formation.
www.wrh.noaa.gov...

As the link states, it's exactly what I said. Now, if you would like to present some alternative information, please do so. Be sure to provide proper sources and I am certain everyone will look into your post. Thanks buddy.


No, I said what's IN a contrail, the whole premise of my first post and the rest, the simple answer is...you don't know, and neither will you know any possible effects by default. One small caveat, I'm glad you have latched on to David Keith..it took a while, he's one of a very few people who have actually done out of the lab what they said they would do that we know of...only experimentally of course.


I've been following Keith for years. In fact, his research is the main reason I continue to try to educate people on contrails, so they quit muddying the waters, and perhaps the discussion might become intelligent. Then people might learn that what he proposes would be well above the area contrails form, and like the ash from a volcano, invisible from the ground.

But what experiments has he done out of the lab? the only thing I heard of was Project Spice,and that was canceled. To my knowledge, he has not taken his ideas out of the lab yet. But we might never know as long as there is a concentrated effort to protect the poor people who just want to make everyone else fear clouds.

And with your worries about what's in a contrail, until you have something more than "it could be", I'll stick to what all the real scientists have discovered over the years with in flight testing, and mid air samples. If you want to believe it's unicorn piss, that's on you.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Here's a shot of the comment I put up 10 days ago - you won't find it here now - it never made it past "moderation"




posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

and people wonder why i have nothing but utter contempt for " chemtrail " proponents - they know what they are claiming is false - but delete the evidence against thier claims and crank out more bollox



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

So what's the reason for that then I. Wonder? Is it because the lie that maintains the cash flow outweighs the truth of what was shown by about a million per cent?

Or is one of our members going to try and justify that behaviour in which a completely factual, totally non-offensive response is simply removed?

Is Wigington someone you can rely on to tell you the truth? Or his his agenda so one sided, so utterly dependant of the absolute following of his own adherents, that his testimony is worthless to anyone looking for a grain of objectivity?

I know what I think.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I don't know his motivation - it is easy to suspect nefarious motives of course.....and personally I believe one or more of hem to be the case.......or maybe he actually believes his own calptrap, and sincerely thinks everyone who doesn't is deluded.....stranger things have happened!



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Most people who believe in their own delusional fantasies will defend them when someone presents opposing information, not go out of their way to silence the opposition. I'd say he knows damn good and well that he's spreading lies, but he relies on others being ignorant to the facts to perpetuate those lies and to keep the money rolling in.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
And here's some moer - if you think Dane Wiggington is reliable or trustworthy, then this 5 1/2 minutes of your time will save you a lot of mistakes on that front in the future!!




posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

That is a you tube video, and the information presented did seem very sincere. I think this is what is considered "research" by some standards. I like it.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
And here's some moer - if you think Dane Wiggington is reliable or trustworthy, then this 5 1/2 minutes of your time will save you a lot of mistakes on that front in the future!!



I only got 35 seconds in and already:

"but but ...cirrus clouds??"



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Great video Gaul. The humidity raphs changing from day to day should be one of the stills you guys post when combating chemtrail ignorance



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

If only the chemtrailers would look at this stuff. I think the mentality is a lot like their sites. Disregard any opposing viewpoints at all costs.

I think a one on one polite conversation with a chemtrail believer where both sides had to look at and evaluate the evidence would yield positive results. Perhaps a chance to actively deny ignorance.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: 3danimator2014

If only the chemtrailers would look at this stuff. I think the mentality is a lot like their sites. Disregard any opposing viewpoints at all costs.

I think a one on one polite conversation with a chemtrail believer where both sides had to look at and evaluate the evidence would yield positive results. Perhaps a chance to actively deny ignorance.


Possibly. Although i have seen little to suggest that that would help much tbh. There have only been a handful of chemmies that have been anything other than closed shut to info.

Either way, it sounds exhausting.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

That is a you tube video, and the information presented did seem very sincere. I think this is what is considered "research" by some standards. I like it.


Yep - I'm upping my research efforts!



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
And another one......

wiggington quotes JFK and claims:



The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.

John F. Kennedy

JFK was assassinated shortly after he made the speech from which this quote was taken.


the speech was made on April 27, 1961.

Kennedy was assassinated November 22, 1963 - over 2 1/2 years later.

Not "shortly after" at all.

someone has pants on fire........



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
And another one......

wiggington quotes JFK and claims:



The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.

John F. Kennedy

JFK was assassinated shortly after he made the speech from which this quote was taken.


the speech was made on April 27, 1961.

Kennedy was assassinated November 22, 1963 - over 2 1/2 years later.

Not "shortly after" at all.

someone has pants on fire........


Even it was "shortly after"....so?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

And that speech was called "The President and the Press" and in it, He asked for more secrecy from the press after leaks were published that hampered the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy was a member of the Knights of Columbus, a secret society itself. But other than that, totally relevant.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

???

Your question makes no sense.

Wiggington lied about i being "shortly after" - that is the conclusion - which is the topic of this thread - geowatch (Wigginton) lying.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I get it. He's saying that even if it had happened shortly after, it doesn't mean there's a connection, which the quote implies there is. I agree.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos
Ah- thanks - so we are in violent agreement??


Anyway - here's another great video pointing out several cases of Wiggington faking stuff on geoengineering watch - so as you can see I've done some research!!


enjoy!





edit on 3-8-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join