Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Jay Reynolds, Sep 19, 2013.
What I was really trying to highlight was that they (he) can "see" invisible ones!!
I wanted to clarify that Dane, my brother who I see commented that my Mom and I have disowned him, misrepresents things on a very regular basis. Actually, my Mom just had a visit with Dane and his two children in Redding last week. My Mom still tries to maintain contact with Dane so she can have at least some contact with her grandchildren. I had a long life of interaction with my brother, and when he initially moved away from here where I live over 20 years ago, I used to call him most times a couple times a week to maintain keep up with our relationship, and I did this all the way up until January of 2012. Then on my last visit with my brother on his property, he came up with this bizarre accounting of my time spent with him. It was so crazy/unreal that in one of my last emails I wrote that " I was concerned about his mental state ", this being because of his changing attitude, ideas and beliefs in so many unreal things as seen on his website, and also in other aspects of his life. Dane is incapable of facing the truth of just how wrong he is on so many things. Of course as all of you know very well, he is fighting against, geoengineering, harp, etc, etc, things that do not exist. He was asked recently in one of his interviews, how long will you stay in this battle, and he said until I breath my last breath or the spraying is stopped. He cannot be reached or woken up by all of the sensible and very logical information that you all provide here. It is Dane who seeks no contact with those who do not ardently share his beliefs. You all are quite familiar with how he does not allow any contrary viewpoints to be put at his site and his Facebook. And yet, you all allow contrary viewpoints here, as long as sensible guidelines of discussion are followed. This to me speaks volumes about just who is really in denial. Another thing to, Dane will do character assassinations on anyone, family, friends and others when he decides you are no longer part of his world and beliefs. You saw this with Michael Murphy, once as stated by him to me as one of his best friends. Also more recently you saw how he did the same with Guy Mcpherson because Guy would not go along with Dane turning his Northern Cal talk into a meeting about Chemtrails. So I think you all can understand better now, how could I have any kind of meaningful relationship with someone who does these things.
Out of curiosity - and if this is too personal, please disregard - do you know if Dane experienced some sort of personal tragedy around the time he went about building his new house? The one where he noticed the solar panels producing less power than he expected, and seemed to kick off the whole 'chemtrail' activism on his part? I have this theory that many who fall over to the Conspiracy Theory side do so in times where they're particularly vulnerable because of something like a major loss or a betrayal of trust. In trying to make sense of the world that may have just changed, it seems many become more open to these 'alternative' explanations of what was once their reality. In one of his posts on the GeorngineeringWatch site, he alluded once to being betrayed, or something of the sort. I always assumed it was related to the new house, or to the time around it. Sorry if this is also a little off-topic.
I don't want to oversimplify here, but isn't the real source of the all these types of "chemtrails" actually Russ Tanner.
His list of ailments is continuous over time. It seems that he needs a simple explanation for them, aside from possible hypochondria
Dane moved to Redding in 2000, from Kingman AZ where he lived for about 5 years. I had told Dane for many years about the Redding area and that I liked it from back in the 80's when I worked near there. In Kingman Dane was noticing pinions on his land dying because of the dry conditions. Dane moved to Redding because of this concern of his about having access to water, and wishing to live in a wetter area. Back then chemtrails/geoengineering was not even on his radar. When he built his large off grid home in Redding, he noticed the decreased solar output of his system on cloudy days, and when he went on the internet to learn more about this, that is when he came across the info about chemtrails. There was no personal tragedy during that time, at least none that I know of, and I was in regular/close contact with him during that period. Dane throughout his life has been obsessive about certain things. His obsession with chemtrails is an example of this. As far as betrayal, Dane feels I know betrayed by various people in his life. He will see my comments here, and will of course feel in his misguided way of thinking, betrayed by this. Dane speaks as if " truth " is held in the highest regard by him. And yet, he does not wish certain truths being expressed as related to himself. For example, the truth about his past experience, like, he is not an alternative energy expert, as he is cited at times.
Van, speaking just for myself, I'd like to say that I really appreciate you sharing.
Dane frustrates the hell out of me, because of his steady contribution of
(fantasy-based) fear to certain "believers."
And--from what I've observed--I too have little reason to believe that he wishes
to ever leave the scary place in which he's entrenched/isolated himself.
That said, I sincerely wish Dane well on a personal level...
and hope that one day you two can have enough common ground to reconnect.
i'm not sure "misguided" in this context is fair. You did just tell his Archenemy (s) he lied about his mom. I think that fairly qualifies as betrayal. (not that i blame you, dissing on mom is totally bad form!)
It's unfortunate that there may be internal family issues when a family member becomes distanced because of internet-spread beliefs.
I think we've all witnessed this sort of situation. This is nothing new.
The way it is dealt with (or not dealt with) is also a common scenario.
In this way, Dane's situation is not unique.
Perhaps this personal disconnect is not worth focusing on (though informative), as it is not unusual......and not unexpected.
What is unique, is that we are left with his influence and trail of believers and followers, who may ultimately empathize by his distancing of/from family members.......and grasp - on to his "plight" as further confirmation of "their" plight.
Not at all. That was my exact point. It was TANNER who has come up with things like the High Bypass Turbofan thing and the idea that even short or invisible trails are still "chemtrails". Dane has adopted those ideas and repeats them as indisputable facts. And yes, Russ seems obsessed with his own personal aches and pains, etc.
Dane would use this word " betrayal " to imply that someone has done a " wrong " thing to him in terms of bringing the light of truth to info he has cited that is false. I think that is misguided in that he is merely trying to do this to deflect peoples attention from the various issues of his erroneous information.
Jdubyah, When Dane saw the movie Avatar, at the time he expressed to me that it was the most moving and important film he had ever watched. He identified very much with the Jake character who through the course of the movie takes up the side of the native Navi against the human invaders plunder and destruction. Dane clearly I could tell in his expressions desired that type of real life role for himself. Now, Dane has created these various beliefs within his mind of a world being decimated in all sorts of ways by the evil repercussions of worldwide chemtrail operations. He considers it the most dire threat facing humanity above all others, and often says in his writings, if it cannot be stopped then nothing else matters. He is now Jake, fighting relentlessly the good fight to save humanity. Unfortunately all he is really doing is bringing fear into the lives of many people about things that don't exist. Its a sad thing that he is wasting his life and energy on this.
Dane Wigington has just repeated the Deep Shield hoax that has long been debunked:
"Why are they spraying? Answers from an insider"
All this while being aware that it's not credible:
I see that in today's article by Dane Wigington he also refers to an article he published last year from an alleged "insider".
Reading last year's article, it is clear that the "insider" is a man named Jim Phelps of Knoxville, TN.
See for yourself if Jim Phelps' [...] website informs you of who he really is:
According to Phelps, he was the originator of chemtrails AND HAARP, and deploys the power of Moses himself, being directly related to King David of Israel........
Really it looks to me like Dane is short on new fear-porn and is recycling ten year old stuff out of desperation.
Dane is now saying Chuck Norris is on board with the geoengineering. I am having trouble corroberating this, not that Chuck Norris is a reputable scientist or any kind of authority on geoengineering, but it just gives Dane one more advocate if you will, for his cause.
No click policy Dierdre...
i would have gone with
but i decided to go with "THe Bigger Picture"
To Dane Wigington's credit, because of him I'm learning things I've never known about. Today's article is titled "The Engineered Winter Deception, Chemical Ice Nucleation" Has the following remarks & photo:
But, a little searching the 'net brings up journal articles as early as 1970 referencing "ice pancakes". Evidently they form on top of very cold turbulent waters - it's essentially frozen sea foam.
His whole "chemical ice nucleation" idea is nonsense. He suggests that hail is larger if ice nucleating materials are sprayed. In fact, the contrary is true; that's why cloud seeding is used for hail prevention: if there are more ice nuclei in the air, ice crystals will be more numerous and therefore grow smaller. He even cites freezing rain as evidence for the spraying of ice nucleating aerosols; in fact freezing rain rather proves the contrary: the reason why the rain didn't freeze in the air is that no ice nuclei were present. Also, he implies that snow or hail falling above 0 °C (32 F) should be evidence for ice nucleating materials, which is also nonsense, you cannot freeze water above 0 °C regardless of whatever ice nucleating material you add to it. The entire article is based on fundamental misunderstandings of ice nucleation processes.
He also keeps talking about "endothermic" ice nucleation causing unnatural cooling, when in fact ice formation is an exothermic process.
Terminology like "nucleation" seems to lend an element of legitimacy when a layperson (like me) hears it. It is like attaching the prefix "nano" to something; like nano-thermite or nano-particulates. It sounds like science even when it is being misapplied.
Is there a source available that makes ice nucleation somewhat understandable for an amateur like me?
Pancake Ice: 1933
This is a short summary of the basic concepts:
From here: https://www.imk-aaf.kit.edu/417.php
Another inaccuracy from the ice nucleation article. It has the following picture with the caption:
But the photo was actually taken in Nov. 2007.
Dane Wigington is trotting out a new video supposedly by Willem Felderhof, he says it is a "Time Lapse Video", but it is a Vimeo video of a bunch of still shots of contrails mostly. This can all be found here:
Here is the video:
After the video there are so far 71 responses from chemmies from all over the planet.
And there is a quote from Felderhof prior to the video, not sure if it is recent, or just pulled from Dane's archives:
I had the same video forwarded to me by a friend who regularly follows Wigington.
I sent her back this link:
Can anyone tell me what type of clouds these are? I am not an expert in this area by any stretch of the imagination.
Here is a good source for the many different cloud types along with pictures.
Its because Chuck Norris' tears can cure cancer.. unfortunately he's never cried.
They look like cirrostratus undulatus perhaps?
on second thought...maybe Altocumulus undulatus:
The original photo is from the Facebook page of the USA TODAY magazine:
It was photographed in March 2013 in Lithia, Florida. The text states that these are cloud streets. Wikipedia calls them horizontal convective rolls. The cloud people call them cumulus radiatus.
Back in 1905 they were called Alto-stratus Undatus, or Alto Waves
In my 27 years as a Flight Service Specialist which includes weather observing and briefing pilots, I have never seen altocumulus quite like this, such uniform spacing between rolls. I'm thinking there may be a topographic component to their formation, or strong wind at the clouds altitude. One thing I can say for sure, is that they were in NO way made by aircraft.
Thank you for the references. I did forward that picture from Cloud Studies to my CT friend. It is turning out to be very useful, especially with respect to how it impacts the CT timeline.
Unless we start hearing about how the Wright Brothers were mixed up in geoengineering.
It is also good to have modern terminology as well.
That photo was taken before 1905, so quite probably predates even the Wright brothers first flight in 1903.
This is from before 1894 (Cloudland, W. Clement Ley)
Those are definitely not cloud streets - the Wikipedia correctly describes those; they form at the cumulus level.
They are not any kind of radiatus - they do not appear to radiate form a point.
They are, as Mick suggested, altocumulus undulatus. The undulating or wave motion is initiated usually by some orographic land form (a line of mountains/hills) somewhere upstream. Atmospheric stability and buoyancy do the rest.
I tend to agree, but how can you tell the altitude from the photo?
Radiatus refers to parallel rows. The difference between radiatus and undulatus is the wind direction. In the case of radiatus, the rows are aligned with the wind direction. In undulatus, the rows are perpendicular to the wind direction.
The usual explanation I have seen for altocumulus undulatus is that it's caused by wind shear.
Here's a very similar photo and meteorologist Paul Douglas calls them cloud streets:
From here: http://www.startribune.com/mother-s...esday-strong-t-storms-by-late-week/151113545/
Both in this and in the photo we have discussed, I noticed the cylindrical roll-like shapes. Does altocumulus undulatus have such forms? In Mick's photos, they are not cylindrical but look flatter and irregularly shaped.
Yes, undulatus is also caused by wind shear. You are correct, and in that Florida case, that would be the most likely initiating mechanism.
Separate names with a comma.