Operation Indigo Skyfold

originally posted by: ConnectDots

The caption reads, "Please do not post this photo apparently showing the inside of an aircraft used to create chemtrails on Facebook. Your account may be frozen or even removed."

It doesn't say copyright violation. It seems that if copyright violation were the reason, it would say so.

Not necessarily, if the caption was added because somebody did have their account frozen or removed for previously posting the photo, that could have been the result of copyright infringement but they CLAIM it was for more sensationalist reasons. We KNOW what the photo shows, so the caption is nonsense.

The message sounds as if Facebook is telling the user that the photo is a breach of national security. Perhaps chemtrails are considered a necessary evil?

No, it sounds like whoever wrote it wants you to think it's something scary. Why is your skepticism all one sided?

It may not be true.

It could be part of a psychological operation to keep the public busy throwing mud at each other, like on this thread.

You're almost right. It's part of a psychological operation to bamboozle the less well informed/more susceptible internet readers.

Why have you decided it's not a ballast test set up then?

Dp

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Got it.

I can see why you would take offense at that.

It is name-calling.

I feel the same way about Wigington being called a "liar."

Well...Either you are Wigington (or another of the usual suspects) or you are severly lacking in common sense. He IS a liar. He knows it, we know it..its just the people hes duped who dont.

Ive made up my mind about who you are,

originally posted by: waynos
Not necessarily, if the caption was added because somebody did have their account frozen or removed for previously posting the photo, that could have been the result of copyright infringement but they CLAIM it was for more sensationalist reasons.

You're saying that Facebook may have covered up the real reason and substituted a sensationalist reason to stir things up?

I suppose that's possible. They are in the business of stirring things up.

You're almost right. It's part of a psychological operation to bamboozle the less well informed/more susceptible internet readers.

No, you are twisting the term "psychological operation" and simply repeating yourself.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

More important is:

1. What Facebook thought it was.
   
2. If it's part of a shadow government psychological operation, what their task or particular goal was in this case.

If it was removed for copyright, it doesn't matter what the subject of the photo was. Copyright doesn't prove its a chemtrail plane (How DID you concoct that one ?!?!?) it means the photographer owns the image and it was used without permission.

Besides, given that the image DOES actually appear on Facebook, the claim was a lie in the first place.

Quelle surprise!

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: network dude
I realize you won't discuss this anymore since you will have been proven wrong again, So I will give you something to run off on a tangent about.

You are incorrigible, aren't you?

I know you're not in violation of the terms and conditions.

However, you are in violation of my concept of common courtesy.

So keep that in mind, in case you need an explanation later if I stop responding to you, altogether.

Do you think it's morally OK to lie, if you really believe your cause is just?

That is a loaded question, isn't it?

That's like have you stopped beating your wife?

Listen to yourself.

I really wish you could look back at this thread, from your first post here and see how you have dealt with the tough questions. From an outside perspective, you have ignored any and all attempts to get you to reason with logic.

I am going to give this one more shot. Consider it an attempt to clear your name.

Do you believe that it's possible for contrails to persist, given the correct conditions?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: waynos
Not necessarily, if the caption was added because somebody did have their account frozen or removed for previously posting the photo, that could have been the result of copyright infringement but they CLAIM it was for more sensationalist reasons.

You're saying that Facebook may have covered up the real reason and substituted a sensationalist reason to stir things up?

I suppose that's possible. They are in the business of stirring things up.

What? No. I'm not saying that AT ALL. Did Facebook write the caption on the image that you posted? Of course they didn't. It was clearly put there by whoever made the video. Please don't be deliberately obtuse when I'm trying to have a discussion with you.*snip*Because if that wasn't deliberate, you have serious comprehension issues.

You're almost right. It's part of a psychological operation to bamboozle the less well informed/more susceptible internet readers.

No, you are twisting the term "psychological operation" and simply repeating yourself.

So, I'm twisting the term, but you didn't when using it in the same context. I think you are losing the plot.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
No, you are twisting the term "psychological operation" and simply repeating yourself.

It's time to focus on what constitutes a psychological operation, in the sense that I have been using the term.

This is a short video on the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

From the Description:

Uploaded on Apr 25, 2009

Established in 1921 by the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), Tavistock has grown into one of the world's biggest and most influential think tanks, working through governments, NGOs, the media, transnational corporations and major universities to manipulate the population of the world into accepting a one world collectivist state.

www.youtube.com...

ATTENTION!!!!

Discussing other members is not the topic.....and Community Announcement re: Decorum

*** ALL MEMBERS *** Ending Rudeness, Hate, Bigotry: Getting Back to Basics

Soooo....Stay on Topic!!!



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

Re. the need to wake up, start at 4:06:

originally posted by: ConnectDots

Why do you think this Griffith guy is credible? Sure, it's a good story, but it's not being backed up with anything. And what have the pictures of contrails have to do with what he's talking about?

It seems even his own son Charles is unconvinced by his fathers' work. Here's something he wrote on a metabunk:

I will be happy to answer anything that I know about or have documentatiuon to explain. My father never actually changed his name. He just dropped the "s" and started going by A.C. I never said my father was actually wrong about his beliefs. I just said he made claims about his life that were not true. His house was full of boxes with photocopied pages of documents. I've looked through most of them and the evidence (to support his claims) is circumstantial at best.

www.metabunk.org...

I know exactly my what psychological means, thank you. It means 'of the mind'. Like chemtrails are.

if you review the thread, as suggested, you'll see that everything supporting chemtrails a is either an unsupported claim, a misuse of photographs, or a misunderstanding of weather and aviation.

Now, how many opposing points have you shown to be incorrect or false without invoking the "imagine if..." clause?

originally posted by: payt69
Why do you think this Griffith guy is credible?

Because I listen with my mind and my heart.

And overall, I already knew what he testified to.

I read a lot.

9/11 truth changed my worldview.

Respectfully, my feeling is that people are almost brainwashed by Metabunk.

I know from experience that all people who speak out about the goings on of the shadow government will be smeared. Some will be killed.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: payt69
Why do you think this Griffith guy is credible?

Because I listen with my mind and my heart.

And overall, I already knew what he testified to.

I read a lot.

9/11 truth changed my worldview.

Well that's all very good and admirable. But the fact remains that all we have from the guy is talk. Nothing to back him up. Correct me if i'm wrong. I read a lot too, and try to keep an open mind. I was once a pretty avid 9/11 'truther' too, about 10 years ago. I guess it was the 'no plane' bit that kinda caused some cracks in the theory for me though. But be that as it may, 9/11 has been used by the government to manipulate us. I guess it did come in rather handy.

Respectfully, my feeling is that people are almost brainwashed by Metabunk.

That's funny, because I feel almost exactly the same about geoengineeringwatch.

There IS a difference between the sites though. A very important one. You can register as a chemtrail believer on metabunk, and engage in a debate with the people that populate the forums there. You don't have to agree with anything they say, and as long as you express yourself in a polite way, they will engage in a diologue with you.

Mick West actually invites anyone to point out errors in the contents of his sites, and if you do so successfullym he'll correct it. I'm not aware of such a policy on geoengineeringwatch.

Now try and go to geoengineeringwatch' facebook page and try and post something critical of the chemtrail theory or Dane Wigington, or post some contrail science and you'll soon be called a government paid shill/agent and your comment will most likely be deleted in no time.

On the other hand you ARE allowed to post all sorts of craziness as long as it supports the chemtrail theory and/or makes the government look bad.

I know from experience that all people who speak out about the goings on of the shadow government will be smeared. Some will be killed.

Well it seems the loudest voices are still alive and well.

And it's actually the chemtrail believers who are openly advocating violence against people whom they suspect are involved in 'chemtrails' (Pilots, meteorologists, skeptics, basically anyone who doesn't agree with them)

www.metabunk.org...

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: network dude
I realize you won't discuss this anymore since you will have been proven wrong again, So I will give you something to run off on a tangent about.

You are incorrigible, aren't you?

I know you're not in violation of the terms and conditions.

However, you are in violation of my concept of common courtesy.

So keep that in mind, in case you need an explanation later if I stop responding to you, altogether.

Do you think it's morally OK to lie, if you really believe your cause is just?

That is a loaded question, isn't it?

That's like have you stopped beating your wife?

Listen to yourself.

I really wish you could look back at this thread, from your first post here and see how you have dealt with the tough questions. From an outside perspective, you have ignored any and all attempts to get you to reason with logic.

I am going to give this one more shot. Consider it an attempt to clear your name.

Do you believe that it's possible for contrails to persist, given the correct conditions?

. Is there any chance at all connect the dots could answer this one little question?

originally posted by: payt69
But the fact remains that all we have from the guy is talk. Nothing to back him up.

Think about it.

He testified to the extreme secrecy of what's going on.

He said people are getting killed over this, a couple of times, as I recall.

What do you expect?

I was once a pretty avid 9/11 'truther' too, about 10 years ago. I guess it was the 'no plane' bit that kinda caused some cracks in the theory for me though.

I can fully understand that.

Another thing that is so unfortunate is the in-fighting that goes on, which has nothing to do with the shadow government, but is clashing egos throwing mud at each other.

Plus, the issues are so complex. And everyone is under pressure.

But be that as it may, 9/11 has been used by the government to manipulate us. I guess it did come in rather handy.

I feel that we the people should not argue about how they did it; instead, we need to recognize what the purpose of the terror was, and join together to outsmart the powers that be.

That's funny, because I feel almost exactly the same about geoengineeringwatch.

I know.

There IS a difference between the sites though. A very important one. You can register as a chemtrail believer on metabunk, and engage in a debate with the people that populate the forums there. You don't have to agree with anything they say, and as long as you express yourself in a polite way, they will engage in a diologue with you.

Mick West actually invites anyone to point out errors in the contents of his sites, and if you do so successfullym he'll correct it. I'm not aware of such a policy on geoengineeringwatch.

Well, if that's true, that is the way it should be. But remember that he is defending the status quo, which is much easier to do, because he's got the establishment backing him up. I suspect no one from the shadow government is pressuring him.

Well it seems the loudest voices are still alive and well.

Are you talking about Alex Jones?

And it's actually the chemtrail believers who are openly advocating violence against people whom they suspect are involved in 'chemtrails' (Pilots, meteorologists, skeptics, basically anyone who doesn't agree with them)

www.metabunk.org...

Don't you know there are paid agents on Facebook?

a reply to: network dude

Yes, I've learned about persistent contrails on this thread.

I don't know whether persistent contrails and chemtrails look exactly the same, or what, and I don't think it makes any difference if we know that spraying is going on.

I urge you to focusing on the academic contrail - chemtrail debate and start listening to the few whistleblowers we have because they're trying to tell you something, at great danger to themselves.

And I think that the video I posted about Tavistock is important because you're living in a system where there are professionals messing with your mind.

a reply to: ConnectDots

He testified to the extreme secrecy of what's going on.

How does one testify about something that doesn't exist?

And what secrecy would that be?

He said people are getting killed over this, a couple of times, as I recall.

Well how about you recall anything that you can that backs the claim?

Think about it.

He testified to the extreme secrecy of what's going on.

He said people are getting killed over this, a couple of times, as I recall.

What do you expect?

Apparently it's so secret that we can't seem to measure any kind of effect from the supposed 'chemtrails'. They simply don't show up in any kind of tangible way. So they might as well not exist.

On the other hand, people point at known phenomenae such as contrails, and claim that that is proof of something, like we're being killed, dumbed down, made sick, geoengineering, weather manipulation, something to do with HAARP, something to do with UFO's. People kinda project all their pet theories on it, but never seem to come to a consensus. That's because chemtrails are figments of imaginations, defended by ego's, instead of a tangible phenomenon explained by science.

Given that that is the case, the resulting diversity and in-fighting (between Murphy and Wigington and Max Bliss, for instance) is exactly what I'd expect.

I know Griffith said all sorts of stuff, but that doesn't mean it's true. His own son Charles has a hard time believing all the stuff he claimed. We don't need more anecdotes, but credible evidence.

I can fully understand that.

Another thing that is so unfortunate is the in-fighting that goes on, which has nothing to do with the shadow government, but is clashing egos throwing mud at each other.

Plus, the issues are so complex. And everyone is under pressure.

Well I gues that's true. But I see the same thing in the chemtrails movement. They'd do themselves a big favour if they approached things a bit more methodically, and actually tried to conduct some science, if only to level up a bit credibilitywise. I don't see it happening though. There's Murphy who apparently is going to take a plane up there and 'sample a chemtrail'. Can't wait to see that happen.

And then there was Matthias Hancke, who tried to do the same thing. You have to buy his dvd to find out about the results. Right.. lol.. kinda shows where the priorities lie for some of these chemtrail pushers.

I feel that we the people should not argue about how they did it; instead, we need to recognize what the purpose of the terror was, and join together to outsmart the powers that be.

That's a beautiful thought. But then again, maybe TPTB are just you and me too. As long as peole have ego's that htey feel need defending, there will be 'us' vs 'them'. It doesn't matter what the differences are, people always find something to identify with that makes them feel like they're different from other people.

Well, if that's true, that is the way it should be. But remember that he is defending the status quo, which is much easier to do, because he's got the establishment backing him up. I suspect no one from the shadow government is pressuring him.

I'm not sure Mick and the other peeps on metabunk are defending anything. IT's not like chemtrail theory (if there's such a thing) is threatening our current understanding of aviation, meteorology or any of the other relevant disciplines. It's more like chemtrail theory is ignorant of them, and it can only thrive as long as that is the case. That seems to be the main thing metabunk is trying to point out.

Are you talking about Alex Jones?

Not just him, but all the other talking heads pushing chemtrails as well. Michael Murphy, Jeff Rense, Wigington, Russ Tanner, Madison Moon Star.. you know, the usual suspects.

Don't you know there are paid agents on Facebook?

There are?

I do know there are some very passionate chemtrail believers, and I wouldn't be surprised if they advocated violence to 'resolve' the situation.

a reply to: ConnectDots

I urge you to focusing on the academic contrail - chemtrail debate and start listening to the few whistleblowers we have because they're trying to tell you something, at great danger to themselves.

Why they say the same thing now that they did 10 years ago, so nothing is really new.

And those so called whistleblowers aren't fearing for their lives because of chemtrails...you don't believe it do you?