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.
I have read a name or two but can't recall at the moment.
originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
I did do research.
It was insufficient to answer my question.
originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
I did do research.
It was insufficient to answer my question.
originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
I did do research.
It was insufficient to answer my question.
originally posted by: network dude
So far, the only whistleblowers have been proven to be fakes.
originally posted by: ConnectDots
Back to the video in the OP.
Judging from the remarks so far, I suppose this is considered by most to be a fake photo, or in some other way deceptive by Wigington?
And this is a picture of contrails from lots of air traffic in today's busy world, or, a fake Wigington photo?
And what about the TEXT OF PILOT MESSAGE: December 8, 2014?
Is it phony?
originally posted by: network dude
So far, the only whistleblowers have been proven to be fakes.
Does that include the whistleblower for this thread?
originally posted by: ConnectDots
Does that include the whistleblower for this thread?
originally posted by: network dude
You probably can't see it through those rose colored glasses.
So the deception is how it's represented.
Not fake. Looks like contrails. can you verify what chemicals are in those trails by sight alone, or were they tested and Dan forgot to mention that? Or, can you explain why they are chemtrials and not contrails?
A friend of a friend told me....... I think you can muster up some of the common sense you champion and come up with an idea what the rest of the people think.
It appears so. A whistleblower would be a pilot who had pictures of the spray operation, or some paperwork from the spray operation.
I think you should post some more videos that are at least an hour long and get huffy when nobody watches them.
originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy
Because the testimony in question on this thread is the testimony of a whistleblower, is it not?
originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy
I don't know what you mean.
Don't tell me to google it.
If you're serious and not sarcastic (remember I've shared my problem with sarcasm already), you might pay me the courtesy of telling me what you mean.
originally posted by: waynos
You asked about the photo, not the caption.
I have two thoughts about it for you.
A the copyright holder complained resulting in its removal
B The claim is rubbish.
Can you say why you accept the caption as true?
originally posted by: ConnectDots
The message sounds as if Facebook is telling the user that the photo is a breach of national security.