Operation Indigo Skyfold

ConnectDots, It seems to me that the basic issue at play here is that your approach to all this is the wrong way around, kindof upside down.

It reminds me of fundamentalism as we see it in religious circles. For instance, take Christian fundies. They have the bible and see that as the absolute truth and final word to everything. So in their approach to understanding the world, they start with the conclusion. The conclusion has to be whatever it is they think the bible says on any subject.

And to make this work, they have to have their own branch of science called creationism, which only accepts data that corresponds the foregone conclusion. Anything that contradicts it, is discarded, questioned or ignored.

It seems to be the same situation with you. You've already drawn the conclusion that there's an evil shadow government trying to do evil stuff to us, and one of the ways they do it is chemtrails. There's no debate regarding that point for you. It's kindof like your bible, the thing you believe very fervently.

Going over this thread it's evident you're not even interested in the question of verification of chemtrails. They're a given to you. So you're starting with this conclusion, and are only willing to accept data that verifies your preconceived ideas.

And since the current way we apply science doesn't fit you (in the same way it doesn't fit fundie Christians), you're suggesting we use a different kind of science.

A guy like Griff verifies all the things you believe in, and that's why you take his word as gospel. You can't see why we'd regard Wigington as a liar, since after all he works for the greater good. His lies are like 'acceptable truths' to you (that's a scientology term, look it up if you have to).

I've alsways suspected that the chemtrail movement has some very culty elements to it. As this thread progresses, that's becoming more and more obvious.

Anyway, just to remind you: science doesn't start with the conclusion. It starts with an observation of a phenomenon. Then a hypothesis is developed to explain that observation. Then the hypothesis is tested (in whatever way possible/through a lab/reproduction/peer review), and if it holds up and has sufficient explanatory power, it becomes a theory that explains the phenomenon. Until a better theory is found, that explains it in more detail/better.

The problem with chemtrails is that the observed phenomenon (contrails) already has a theory that explains it sufficiently. The problem with the 'chemtrails theory' is that it's not even a hypothesis yet. In fact it's just a misidentification of a known phenomenon.

a reply to: payt69
Very well said.

a reply to: payt69

And you are simply not listening.

The topic raised in the OP is the allegation that we are being sprayed.

Please get back to the topic of the OP.

We don't have to focus on the science of contrails.

What we do need to focus on is whether or not we are being sprayed.

I urge you to direct your future posts to the subject raised in the OP.

a reply to: ConnectDots

We aren't bing sprayed.

There you go, it's been 52 pages but we finally got there!

We don't have to focus on the science of contrails.

What we do need to focus on is whether or not we are being sprayed

So are we being sprayed?

Can we make any statement regarding that question without looking at evidence?

And what if persistence of contrails is being brought to the table as evidence for us being sprayed?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
And you are simply not listening.

The topic raised in the OP is the allegation that we are being sprayed.

Please get back to the topic of the OP.

Pot, meet kettle.

What we do need to focus on is whether or not we are being sprayed.

So you're going to stay on topic now? Finally...Now that that's out of the way, no, we are not being "sprayed", unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Déjà vu...

Here, let's have a look at a recent example of what's presented as evidence for chemtrails (or aerosol spraying) by Dane Wigington:

www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

What do you think?

How do you feel about Dane Wigington actively deleting comments that suggest it's a fuel dump? Is that what you guys stand for?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Chadwickus

No harm in a little humor.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Fourth, as soon as I introduced my notes on the Tavistock Institute, it was ridiculed.

How so, specifically?

ETA: I told you before my post was absolutely serious. You commented again about TI being no joking matter. I specifically said there was no joke.

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?

Even more relevant is, if we are being sprayed is it even possible that what are claimed to be ''chemtrails'' could be a chemical spray?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ConnectDots
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.

Crypto as used in the stuff you cited is a type of SCI clearance, which is in addition to your TS clearance, and requires a SSBI, if I recall, to get. I think there's also a requirement for regular poly, but I might be wrong. We handle some canned crypto stuff but nothing that climbs to the SCI level.

You would verify it as you do any of them, by looking the guy up in Scattered Castles, which requires access to JWICS. To do so out of curiosity would be a felony. Alas.

Is a top secret cryptographic clearance above the President of the United States?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ConnectDots
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.

Crypto as used in the stuff you cited is a type of SCI clearance, which is in addition to your TS clearance, and requires a SSBI, if I recall, to get. I think there's also a requirement for regular poly, but I might be wrong. We handle some canned crypto stuff but nothing that climbs to the SCI level.

You would verify it as you do any of them, by looking the guy up in Scattered Castles, which requires access to JWICS. To do so out of curiosity would be a felony. Alas.

Is a top secret cryptographic clearance above the President of the United States?

No.

Connect Dots

You have already written in thread about the terrible aspect of psychological operations, designed to manipulate the way people think.

What do you suppose the purpose of these is?





Do you think they are intended for a psychological purpose?

You also pointed out how ridicule is not a valid debating point and frequently complained when you perceived ridicule was being directed at you. So what to make of these?





I have others too, all taken from the OP video that you place so much faith in. Are you sure you REALLY know who's side you are on?

To my eyes, that stinks very strongly of "BE AFRAID" and "MOCK THE UNBELIEVERS"

If Psy Ops and ridicule are unworthy tactics, how about hypocrisy? where do you stand on that one?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I have read a name or two but can't recall at the moment.

William Thomas would be who your probably thinking of.

Sorry for the late reply. I just now found it. The name I was trying to recall was Larry Wayne Harris.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

It wasn't your post.

It was this one:

originally posted by: payt69

Here are some notes I made from the beginning of the video:

1. Frederick Gates, of the Rockefeller established General Education Board, in The World's Work, August 1912, is quoted as saying, "In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands."
   
   
2. The Tavistock Institute was associated with The British Psychological Society.
   
   
3. The Royal Institute for International Affairs created the Tavistock Institute at Oxford in 1921, with later funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.
   
   
4. Is the nerve center for the global manipulation of human consciousness.
   
   
5. Co-founders were John Rawlings Rees and others.
   
   
6. Became the core of Britain's Psychological Warfare Bureau, studying the effects of shell shock on British soldiers.
   
   
7. Played a crucial role in creating the OSS, which was the precursor of the CIA. Dr. Kurt Lewin, Allen Dulles, the German Nazis and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff were involved.
   
   
8. Project Paperclip Nazi Scientists were associated with it.
   
   
9. Tim Rifat, author of Microwave Mind Control quote: "Research into the use of microwave weapons and their use for mind control began in the 1950s at Tavistock. The UK institute was researching into ways of mind controlling the British population without them knowing."
   
   

10. Halflife 3 confirmed

11. Chemtrails are real.


All kidding aside..

a reply to: waynos

I can see your point of view because you seem to feel strongly that what is in the sky is normal.

Yes, ridicule is used when people are trying to overcome a situation where they feel that the government is not telling the truth, and harm is being done to the people in the process. It's hard to go up against the establishment.

But those are not a psychological operation, unless I'm wrong that we're being sprayed, and the shadow government is engineering a conflict in order to keep us busy fighting each other, as a distraction, while they implement things such as Agenda 21.

I don't think that's the case, however. They're implementing Agenda 21, but I don't think the chemtrail debate is to distract us from that.

In the following video, AC Griffith says that the white trails are not coming out of engines; they're coming out of aerosol units.

He says commercial airliners have been outfitted with aerosol units that are controlled through computer systems and satellites to dispense a barium salt mixture.

a reply to: ConnectDots

He's lying. And you just keep lapping it up.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Aircraft have a fixed maximum takeoff weight. It doesn't change. Adding anything to the aircraft means less weight can be carried. Less weight carried on a commercial aircraft means less revenue. Less revenue means less profit. Airlines as it is, barely make profit on some flights. This would push them over the edge into the red on those flights.

There are places already where it gets so hot, that the airline has to choose between carrying fuel, or passengers and cargo. They can't carry both in large amounts. So on days when they need extra fuel, they have to cut down on freight and passengers that can be carried.

There's no way in hell they would agree to adding aerosol units. Not to mention that there hasn't been a single picture of one of these supposed units or any evidence of them anywhere but in his own mind.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
In the following video, AC Griffith says that the white trails are not coming out of engines; they're coming out of aerosol units.

He says commercial airliners have been outfitted with aerosol units that are controlled through computer systems and satellites to dispense a barium salt mixture.

That should be all the evidence anyone needs to dismiss him. What is it you don't get about that?