Operation Indigo Skyfold

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
BFD.

Excuse me if I can't take you seriously.

Fine, it's removed. What's your next excuse for avoiding the subject of the post?

ETA: If you were that offended by that then it's a really good thing you never saw all that I removed before posting in the first place!


It's kind of sad to see someone dismiss an entire post like that over an acronym, yet are content to believe and support those who lie to them and play their supporters for fools.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ConnectDots
More spam.
And Griffith was a fraud.

I have asked Griffith if he was indeed an Air Force officer, but he has refused to respond. This leads me to conclude that he is not able to document his service without revealing that he was only an enlisted man, and never an officer as he claimed to "The Spotlight". He maintains a webspace at the Clark Air Force Base website www.clarkab.org... where he displays photos and reminiscences of his duty there as an enlisted man between 1959-60. He served with the 6925th Mobile Radio Squadron, which operated radios which monitored transmitters in China and took bearings on their locations. While this work could be considered "intelligence gathering", it does not amount to being an "NSA official", as Griffith claimed to "The Spotlight".

This is a short Griffith bio, according to information apparently picked up from the Veritas Show with Mel Fabregas:

A.C. Griffith was associated with the National Security Agency. He carried a top secret, cryptographic clearance. In more recent times he was associated with Central Intelligence Agency operations . He was married to a lady lawyer - judge and his father-in-law was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

www.zoominfo.com...

NSA used to be called "No Such Agency," didn't it?

But I have searched and I can't find exactly what a top secret cryptographic clearance entails, or how it can be verified by the public.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Much as I hate to contradict you - the bit quoted is not false:

That's never a problem. If I post incorrect info I want to know, but your emphasis here is on a different syllable so to speak. I'll try this again and tell me what you think now.

Since the outer ring of bypass air which is not combusted is filled with particulates dense enough to see with the naked eye, we have to ask ourselves:

How can uncombusted air passing though a fan form massive plumes of condensation?

Simply put, it cannot.

The only reasonable explanation is that chemical aerosols are being injected into the bypass air stream within the engine,

Are they correct?

Of course not - they are completely ignoring the massive amount of air that does "get burned" - but that last sentence - the conclusion -wasn't in the original quote

The premise is completely correct - the air going through the bypass cannot form a contrail.

The conclusion that therefore a contrail cannot form is not correct, because it ignores the part of the air that does make one.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

I say Force Yourself to watch the whole video from start to finish.

By the way, the part about David Keith and spraying sulphuric acid made me think of using chemo to treat cancer.

a reply to: ConnectDots

It's alright you asking people to watch videos, but for what purpose?

You posted a one hour long video earlier in the thread that you said you believed and felt was genuine, but when it comes to discussing what it says, you ducked out straight away when the chemtrail interior shots came up, only two minutes in. My intention was to watch it while discussing the points it raised in turn, so I've only seen the first two minutes, while you keep throwing more mud at the wall.

originally posted by: ConnectDots


I say Force Yourself to watch the whole video from start to finish.

I've seen it before t again...WHAT IS YOUR POINT??

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Bedlam's response to my inquiry: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bedlam's subsequent post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

You linked to Metabunk. I guess that means the context in which you viewed it.

If you really have watched the whole video, it may not do you any good to watch it.

I meant the suggestion to be for people who are new to it.

That video is compelling from start to finish and I think you're cheating yourself if you don't take the time to watch the whole thing.

There are two red flags in that video that should give people a cause to think:

1. What she said about the manufacturers not being listed.
   
2. What she said about her superior suggesting that maybe she needed a mental evaluation instead of treating her in a professional manner.
   

a reply to: ConnectDots

The video is only compelling if you take her words at face value.

As soon as you bother to check her claims you find they are not compelling at all - except possibly in the field of health and safety, which is what she was originally a "whistleblower" about....but then this video isn't avbout that.

So, YET AGAIN....which of her claims in regard to the topic aer of interest to you?

Because whether her superior had her evaluated or not doesn't make any difference to chemtrails or anything else.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Her point is that geoengineering is endangering everyone's health and safety. She wasn't just looking out for the military she was looking out for humanity. She was concerned about what she found in her community.

And the two things I listed are indicators of a black project going on. Maybe "black" is the wrong word, but do you know what I'm trying to say?

Geoengineering is chemtrails. What about the idea of spraying sulphuric acid. What would that produce?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Back up a step - she hasn't actually established that here is geoengineering going on at all - no-one has - it is all scaremongering and assertion, and everyone is just accepting everyone else's statements that it is.

So - what evidence does she give that geoengineering IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING?

a reply to: waynos

That video is on my list of things to go back to and work on some more.

I did later post screen shots from it, did I not? That post was very time-consuming for me as I recall.

Here's the link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

What kind of evidence from her, taking into consideration her skills and knowledge, would satisfy you?

Or, are you saying she's not even qualified to speak on the topic?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

That video is on my list of things to go back to and work on some more.

I did later post screen shots from it, did I not? That post was very time-consuming for me as I recall.

Here's the link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, but that was ages ago, you've posted many many more times since then without giving your verdict, unless that post was an acceptance that the images were misrepresented and I failed to pick up on it?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

What kind of evidence from her, taking into consideration her skills and knowledge, would satisfy you?

Or, are you saying she's not even qualified to speak on the topic?

The kind of evidence that would "satisfy me" is het kind that is verifiable from several independent sources.

Her qualifications are not particularly strong - she held a mediocre non-commissioned rank in the airforce and was responsible for some aspects of materials handling.

so she's certainly qualified to talk about materials handling - which is what she started with. But even within that I expect her allegations to be backed up with information on the standards breached, the measurements that show those breaches and that sort of stuff - and she sort of does that.....for the problems with materials and occupational safety she started as a whistleblower for.

On chemtrails not so much....actually not at all - all she does is repeat the same mantra as everyone else, and tries to show that some materials she has seen correspond to "what is in chemtrails".....while not showing how they got there, or any other supporting evidence, and ignoring that materials such aluminium oxide and barium, etc have multiple "legitimate" industrial uses that she has ignored.

Hope that helps.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

The following was on the History Channel?







Here is what I heard him saying: "The chemtrails are being used in conjunction with HAARP. I spray metal oxides into the air above enemy skies, then directing ELF waves from HAARP to heat those metal oxides. The temperature of the sky is raised to more than 100° F, preventing the accumulation of water vapor that would otherwise form clouds and produce rainfall."

a reply to: ConnectDots

Yep - all that was said.

And nothing at all to back it up.

This particular show was debunked 6 years ago

a reply to: ConnectDots

Here is what I heard him saying: "The chemtrails are being used in conjunction with HAARP. I spray metal oxides into the air above enemy skies, then directing ELF waves from HAARP to heat those metal oxides. The temperature of the sky is raised to more than 100° F, preventing the accumulation of water vapor that would otherwise form clouds and produce rainfall."

1) HAARP could not heat metal oxides in the air. It could only affect charged particles, ions. Like, in the ionosphere.

2) HAARP could not transmit ELF.

3) The warmer air is, the more water vapor it can carry.

Three strikes in one paragraph.

Oh, wait. 4) ELF can't heat anything.

originally posted by: KawRider9
Yup, TPTB are spraying all of us( including all of their families and friends) in an attempt to control us like Sheep.

I wont be your average Sheep though, Moo!

cattle was a world that once represented all herding animals.

So Roar like a Lion or tiger they are more independent that herding animals.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
This particular show was debunked 6 years ago

When I hear that word "debunked" I get alarm bells big time.

The connotation of the word suggests to me destroy the enemy, as in us and them.

It does not suggest to me an earnest search for the truth.

My two cents.