1. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Wait for the whole discussion before commenting....me being bossy..."lol"
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Dane keeps saying things like, I encourage people to look it up knowing full well the people that believe him will just go look at his website or anything else that confirms their bias. I seriously suspect some of these promoters know full well they are touting lies so they can make a profit.
  3. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    This is why I enquire why they never present anything in the form of a paper. In that form anyone would be able to pick it up and through references understand how they reach their conclusions. Instead we have to guess.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    It is immediately apparent they have no facility whatsoever with their espoused topic, whatever it is. Nor have they with someone entering their discussion. Scientists normally, if they are about to enter a debate, compare terms and information material, to be sure that everyone is "on the same page", talking in the same units and terms. Otherwise there may well be confusion. There seems to be no eagerness here to do this.
    They are so clueless that Mick's video suggestion surprises them. It is a very obvious suggestion, for any scientist or engineer, requiring no "deep thought". That simple maths left them apparently wishing to change the subject. They are on a semantic trail, of the sort blind people would be on were they to discuss color.
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't think Dane is making any money, I think it's as he says - he's spending his own money on this.

    BUt on the first point - yes, "look it up" has a bit of a different meaning when the claim is bunk. Dane seemed to be suggesting that the oxygen levels in the atmosphere had dropped so much that they were no-longer blocking UVB. I knew that was a wild claim, as any significant change on oxygen would be massive news. If you look it up though the first result I found was:
    Which makes it seem like Dane might actually have a point. However if you look deeper, at the actual (hard to read) research behind this, you find that the atmospheric O2 is basically unchanged for the last few thousand years. And the recent decline is something like from 20.95% to 20.94% (or even smaller). Comparisons with prehistoric times are meaningless. One might as well compare the temperatures now to the last ice age and say global warming is a much bigger problem than we thought. Plus if you go back a bit further to the precambrian, the levels of O2 were around 10%.

    the largest decrease is -9.5ppm/year, or 0.00095% decline per year.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    What would be the equivalent altitude for the levels he is claiming oxygen to be at?
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Dane didn't make any specific numerical claims. just "global oxygen percentages are dropping dramatically ... The atmospheric oxygen content is in fact plummeting rapidly, and some consider it to be the greatest threat we face", which would seem to imply a bit more than .001% a year.
  8. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    In the International Standard Atmosphere, the surface pressure is 1013.25 hPa.
    If the oxygen were to decrease by 1%, the equivalent partial pressure of oxygen in the current atmosphere will be found at the altitude where the total pressure is 1% lower; at 1003.12 hPa. In the International Standard Atmosphere, this is at an altitude of 85 metres (276 feet).

    This relationship is more or less linear, so a x% lowering of oxygen concentration is equivalent to the oxygen partial pressure at x times 85 metres in the current atmosphere.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Claim summary:
    Dane is claiming that extraordinarily high levels of UV radiation are destroying the earth due to ozone depletion caused by geoengineering.
    He rejects contradictory readings of UV at monitoring facilities, yet quickly accepts readings taken by an publicly anonymous person using an unknown device and methodology. He offers no evidence for ozone loss and probably never will attempt such an endeavor. His UV readings published so far are from an unspecified location. From the description, it might be from Francis Mangels' back yard in Mt. Shasta, CA.

    Here is a basic primer on UV and zone:

    For Dane's ozone/UV conspiracy theory to be valid, one would have to maintain control of all points which monitor both ozone and UV. For unless the earth's ordinarily protective ozone/oxygen interactions are substantially affected, UV simply cannot occur at ground level as he claims.

    These separate sources of monitoring are ground based, ozonesonde and aircraft based and satellite based. These monitors are not all US based, they are worldwide. They are not alll governmental, some are university-led and even privately led endeavors. To cover up the gross anomalies that Wigington proposes would require collusion or co-opting of monitoring programs in many different countries worldwide at which people participate because they are dedicated to the environment, are dedicated career professionals and are in fact stakeholders in obtaining accurate measurements. Often these people are in competition to publish new and interesting datasets. They actively seek out exactly what Dane is saying is happening, yet are not replicating his results.

    For his claim to work, one must also ignore contradictory evidence. Just like the large goldfish peacefully swimming in his supposedly "poisonous" pond, the perfectly green manzanita shrubs are visible in the background as he practically weeps over an isolated small one which has dried up. Perhaps that particular manzanita is growing over a large rock outcropping while the others are not. Who knows? Dane didn't make an effort to find out why some are growing well but one a few feet away is not. He shows an oak with damaged bark, claiming that the bark has been stripped due to UV levels at over 1000% of normal. Yet he ignores 100's of children who have been swimming at Redding's public swimming pool all summer:


    What has to be ignored is that if such skin blistering UV able to blast bark off of oak trees actually existed, one hour's sun exposure would equal 10 hours sun, 2 hours would equal 20 hours exposure and so on. Where are the children reporting into the hospitals after 1-2 hours at Redding's swimming pool?

    Dane might be able to ignore these sorts of contradictions and he might be able to sell some people on it, but if looked at logically and openly, it actually is nothing short of preposterous.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Glenn Beck does the same thing "but dont believe ME do your own research." Knowing no one will.
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Does he have any photos of this:
    It's yet another thing he should be able to clearly document.
  12. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Yeah, although like I said, I can find you trees which show dieback in any landscape. Dead branches do shed their bark eventually, it doesn't have to be "literally cooked off".
  13. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    I seriously doubt anyone who believes him is going to double check him if they're hearing what they want to hear. Figure well he wants us to check so we'll probably find out the same thing he did.
  14. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    It shows how little you know about his viewers .
  15. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I have some general comments to make.

    I think that when the transcript is completed we should extract each and every one of Dane's claims and deal with them individually and thoroughly until there is no doubt they are debunked. Maybe a sub-forum on the Contrails and chemtrails page?

    Here would be my suggestion for a title: Debunked: The Debate Dane Wigington Doesn't Want You To Hear

    I choose this because there were three parties to the debate, and rather than focus on John Massaria's refusal to publish the debate as per his agreement, the spotlight needs to be on the party to that agreement who is most culpable for the failure to publish and who has thus far refused to address the issue at all. Generally, the more 'hidden' something appears to be the more attractive it is. This also shows Wigington's hypcrisy since he continually speaks about something being covered up yet is by silence actively participating in covering up what the debate revealed.

    Still, I do have some things to say about the conduct before, after and within the debate itself. The 'set-up' for this debate seems designed to give Massaria control. He thought that if the debate went wrong for Wigington he would be able to control that. Likely that is the only way that Wigington would have ever taken the chance. He never has before, why would he ever put himself on an equal footing with any of his opponents if he did not believe he could manage the outcome to his favor?

    Why did Dane appear superficially polite yet one week later publish a scurrilous attack on Mick and others at his website? What changed in one week or in one hour to transform Dane from polite and even complimentary debater to openly disparaging Mick West, the "Gentle Giant"?

    There is a very good reason why John Massaria is 'crying crocodile tears' about the audio file being irretrievably lost when you recognize that this was actually a professionally hosted conference call through a free service that RECORDS the call. The recording is available for six months.

    There is no possibility that Massaria has irretrievably lost the recorded audio file. It remains under his control within the archive for the next six months.

    Now, consider the agreement that the three parties engaged in prior to the debate. Consider it a verbal contract:

    The main elements of a contract are a clear and mutual agreement for an exchange of value. I am not party to any negotiations prior to the debate,
    but based on reading the transcript, Massaria did not participate in any agreement, only Mick and Dane verbally expressed assent. Without Massaria giving his clear assent to any terms, it doesn't appear that he was even a party to the agreement. All that I see occurring are Mick and Dane giving their assent to let the recording be in public domain without modification. That is one reason why Dane has not expressed any objection to publication, he knows that he is "in full agreement" on audio doing so.

    This is where the exact terms of the contract come into play, and it becomes clear that the original public domain audio is not copyright protected any more than a public conversation on the street is subject to copyright protection.

    Thus, until Massaria artistically creates a "new creative derivative work" from the recording, his planned presentation of audio with images as he has done before, he has nothing to copyright since the recording was already agreed upon by Mick and Dane to be in the public domain. After Massaria creates the derivative, and only after that, has he created something eligible for copyright protection. The original audio recording remains in public domain, since that was the agreement mutually agreed upon by Dane and Mick, which Massaria had no part of other than asking Mick and Dane if they were in mutual agreement with each other.

    Lastly, participants in a conference call are always notified that the call is being recorded. The automated service clearly notifies all of the participants that "This call is being recorded." Once that notification is made, the parties to the call have relinquished their rights to privacy if they decide to verbally participate.

    Thus, Massaria, by his own participation after the clear notification by the conference call service, assented to the recording of his speech and has no expectation of privacy from that point on. The conference call was essentially a public conversation with proper notification given that a recording was being made. That satisfies even the legal requirements for telephone recording even in states that require two-party notification of recording.

    Mick had every right to record the call just as Massaria Dane and the conference call service did. He should not hesitate to publish it, as Massaria has no copyright and all parties were clearly notified of the recording. How can any of them claim otherwise?
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2013
    • Like Like x 5
  16. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Anyone who comes back after having done that research and says that they are wrong is immediately ushered out of approved status and told that they are a "shill". Seen it over and over again with Nancy Lieder's "Planet X" followers. They are told to check for themselves, but it is STRONGLY implied what they should find.
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Still got another ten minutes to go, and the following is just an initial transcript, will have errors.

    • Like Like x 1
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It has been quite an interesting exercise, transcribing this. I recognize a lot of my own failing here. I'm not (yet) that adept at live discussions, having spent rather a lot of time online I'm used to having a bit more time to formulate my thoughts, and to having a backspace key. I could have done a better job at getting facts and science across. And I see sometimes I let my annoyance get in the way of things. I also made several factual mistakes, and there were many things I could have explained far better.

    But it's also been an interesting perspective on the chemtrail belief system. You see Dane repeating the same litany of evidence over and over, and you know that individually each thing does not hold up - but to the believer this "weight" of evidence seems to have some significance. In orde to counter this bunk, we need a very clear, understandable, and verifiable answer to each of the things that Dane raises.
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    So what's Madison Moonstar's place in all this? Wasn't this supposed to be her challenge? Doesn't she want to know how it turned out?
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I sent her the audio, she said:
    Madison has an extraordinary level of suspicion and distrust, more even than Massaria. She is utterly convinced that I am some kind of evil agent.
  21. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Wow. That's gobsmackingly ... just... wow.
    There's absolutely no point in engaging or humouring her on any level.
  22. captfitch

    captfitch Active Member

    I think you did an outstanding job since you didn't know the questions before hand. It takes someone with encyclopedic knowledge of this subject to handle that format.
  23. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    To me her comment "If you had been honest then it would have been published and you know it." is admitting that they chose to NOT publish it.
  24. Sausalito

    Sausalito Active Member

    This may well be true, but bear in mind that Madison is willing to make assertions about things of which she has no knowledge; perhaps this statement follows that pattern. That said, how ironic for her to make accusations of disingenuousness in the same breath, if she is indeed aware of a decision to withhold the debate recording.
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
  25. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    I think you did a pretty good job, Mick.
  26. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    I got the same response when I showed her the article I wrote for News Limited, as opposed the one the journalist actually published. The response was something along the lines of, "wow, you are the king of disinfo!" That remark came after about 4 seconds of reading.

    I agree with others that we give Madison more attention than she is due. She is rather clueless, as is her fan base. I get the feeling that this is an ego trip for her, which is why she clings unquestioningly to her beliefs. She offers nothing of her own and recycles the idiocy of others. She is not an expert in anything but credulity.

    At least people like Wigington have the intellect to form their own theories. You'll never see that with Madison.

    Time to move on with Madison. Nothing to see here.
    • Like Like x 3
  27. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    • Here is the exchange.

      Michael Glynn

      The Great Chemtrail Con

      By Michael Glynn

      Spidery white lines of vapour emitted from high flying aircraft have been seen in the world’s skies since the First World War. One of the byproducts of the combustion process in an aero engine, either jet or piston, is large amounts of water vapour; in the case of a jet, approximately 1.3 litres of water for every one litre of fuel burnt .

      The upper atmosphere is generally very dry but when conditions permit, such as before an approaching cold front which forces moisture high into the atmosphere, the relative humidity becomes so high that the water vapour in the jet exhaust condenses into ice crystals and a con(densation)-trail is formed.

      The altitudes that modern jets fly are always very cold, no matter what the temperature is on the ground. Contrails never evaporate because the temperatures are never even close to being above freezing. If the ice crystals are small then they generally sublimate quickly back to water vapour. Otherwise they may persist and even grow, creating a veil over the entire sky. These are called persistent contrails and this phenomenon is the cause of one of the most prevalent conspiracy theory hoaxes of modern time; Chemtrails.

      Chemtrails theory began some time in the mid 90’s and has developed along the lines that persistent contrails cannot exists and hence are laced with chemicals such as Aluminium, Barium and Strontium. Various theories have evolved, some more loopy than others, as to why these particulars chemicals are used. One of the less loopy cites that organisations around the world are involved in Geo-Engineering, and that chemtrails are being used to mitigate the effects of climate change. As with many conspiracy theories, a thin veneer of truth has been mixed with large dollops of bunk. Geo-engineering in the high stratosphere, well beyond the reach of airliners, has been postulated by various organisations. A US patent, now expired, that discusses the technique is widely cited as proof of an ongoing covert campaign.

      Despite denials of any program, covert or otherwise, chemtrail believers are adamant that the skies are being sprayed against the will of the population. Some believe it is being done by military or intelligence organisations, others believe that major airlines have been co-opted. Some believe the chemtrails are deadly and cause nebulous diseases such as “Morgellons disease.” These beliefs are being reflected in social media sites such as FaceBook and Youtube. Inevitably, some of these beliefs are beginning to cause consternation in pilot ranks.

      In December last year, a small group of chemtrail activists decided to confront an airline crew at Sydney airport. Spurred on by a misguided but prolific Youtube poster who regularly documents the passage of a particular long haul flight over Melbourne, one of the few that flies over there at contrail altitudes; it is unclear what the actual intentions of the group was before they were intercepted by the AFP, but the incident was enough to prompt concern amongst pilots.

      The website, Metabunk.org, started by Mick West, specialises in debunking conspiracy theories. Chemtrails debunking is currently its busiest forum. Mick also created the Contrailscience.com website to explain the complex science of contrails.

      Metabunk began to document threats against pilots and aircraft about a year ago. Threats to shoot down aircraft or harming pilots are becoming more prevalent, overt and alarming. While most can be discounted as empty, there remains the possibility that some unhinged individual or group may act.

      Pilots point out the extreme unlikeliness of a giant worldwide conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of pilots, mechanics, refuellers and flight planners surviving over 15 years without a single verifiable whistleblower coming forward. They also point out that putting large amounts of materials such as aluminium into an aircraft fuel system and then into an engine; the favored delivery theory, is certain to destroy the engine.

      Pilots also question why they would be party to any such scheme that would poison their own families. Pointing out that their aircraft are neither equipped with spraying gear nor have the excess weight margin to carry tonnes of aluminium does not sway activists. This is not surprising however; a defining characteristic of most chemtrail activists can be said to be zero knowledge of aviation or meteorology.

      The hoax however continues to flourish and the potential threat remains. A spokesman for the Australian and International Pilots Association has this to say. “It is ludicrous to suggest that the Chemtrail hoax espoused by some has any basis in fact. Pilots operating airliners are governed by many laws to which they are personally responsible and must adhere. We would invite anyone with doubts to view the voluminous science available that counteracts the hoax and not be swayed by the baseless hysteria of some deluded individuals.”

    • [​IMG]
      Michael Glynn

      this was what i wrote... it was never published. i sent it to peter when he accused me of writing the other one. i didn't

    • [​IMG]
      Madisonstar Moon


      you are the king of disinfo

      do you work for Mick West


      it was a great article for the bad guys

    • [​IMG]
      Michael Glynn

      no. ask him tomorrow.

    • [​IMG]
      Madisonstar Moon

      so you are a nad guy

      bad I mean..
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Strawman

    Strawman Active Member

    What a boring person. I say ignore her.
    • Like Like x 2
  29. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    But that is just silly. It's as if she expected Mick to NOT have a different point of view to bring to the debate- as if the idea was for Mick to just acquiesce and AGREE with John and Dane. What she is saying is similar to what Peekay said- that there never was any intention to have a debate, with differing points of view, which would be released to the public, because no differing points of view are possible. Madison has a seriously warped view of reality, IMO. I think there is no way to understand it without acknowledging the cult-like factors involved. To Madison, Mick HAS to be lying. There IS no debate possible on the subject.
  30. TomC

    TomC Member

    I think you did a great job Mick.

    Anyone listening or reading that who thinks rationally will recognise the many holes and contradictions in Dane's arguments.
    Anyone with any understanding of meteorology will see that Dane does not understand the concepts involved.

    Unfortunately as we have seen, this will not convince anyone who has already bought into the theory.

    Madison's life I suspect revolves around this theory, all her friends are believers and she puts all her time into it. If she were to give it up her life would be pretty different. Change is hard.

    As for why it has not been published, I suspect the uv claims... Most other claims, even when they have been debunked, they are not conclusively 100% disproven. E.g. "you say they are just persistent contrails, but you haven't proved it" etc.
    But the uv. Dane very enthusiastically agrees to doing more tests and documenting them. I suspect in hindsight he has realised his claim is nonsense, but clearly does not want to be forced to publish a test that would prove conclusively and damage his credibility.

    Not until he's been able to think of an excuse not to at least.
  31. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    I agree that you did well, Mick. I think the simple fact that this is a (mostly) civil and substantive discussion which (mostly) focused on the topic is a huge win. I thought you caught them flat-footed on several points, which as you say, is somewhat surprising - these are not new arguments, other than the UV issue (and you sent Wigington your arguments for that beforehand).

    Verbal debates like this are very difficult - it's nearly impossible to avoid missing things and making some mistakes. There isn't much opportunity to demonstrate which arguments are supported by verifiable facts, and which aren't. So unless the listener is willing to check on the claims him or herself, who "wins" often comes down to who sounds better - and Wigington is a good public speaker, accustomed to speaking on this topic. He has some lists of points that he falls back on, impossible to address them all on the spot.

    But that aspect is nullified by making a transcript, so that each point can be examined and discussed. You can point out your own errors in addition to discussing their points. You can invite Dane and John to come and do the same. Seems like a good idea, all around.
  32. Strawman

    Strawman Active Member

    Just 2 things:
    1) On SAG. I think you should have made it clear that the stratosphere is not where most planes fly. You let them get by with claiming that SAG would effectively be where contrails are. Which is not correct.
    2) More of an observation: in these kinds of talk, their aggregations of false and falsifiable evidence will for a lot of people trump a skeptical, questioning perspective. I think there were multiple instances where they were trying to show that they have the answers and have you answer "I don't know". A wrong explanation will trump no explanation in these kinds of talks. The rules of science don't apply.
  33. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    It was painful to read. Dane obviously things the longer he talks and the more times he says the same thing makes his words true. How many times is he going to ask why the trails start and stop? If it were some kind of chemical spray, why would THAT start and stop. When vector control sprays a mist for mosquitos, they just continually spray. When they stop spraying, the mist doesn't just STOP.

    My advice would be try to avoid saying "yes", it sounds as if you're agreeing with what they just said.
  34. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    There is no point in paying any attention to Madison at all.
  35. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    The format is they come with a ridiculous claim and parrot it over and over. Mick is expected to refute it. They are able to recite "thousands of scientists agree about. . . " and "I know what David Keith said" and they it is up to Mick know/explain they are quote mining, taking something out of context/flat out lying.

    Here's another one, about taking the measurements: " there's a 40 year environmental monitoring veteran, he's done 20 years for the government, he's about as qualified as they come in this field," Of course, what's his name? What did he do for the gov't? What makes him qualified? Everything is an argument from authority.

    I think what needs to happen is Metabunk hosts a debate and invites THEM to join in.
  36. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    I think the cloud analogy is a very effective point when talking about humidity variation. This came over very well.

    Generally, if chemtrailers are pointing to their own samples and measurements, it should be stressed again and again how important it is follow the basic rules during the sampling/measurement process and to document it thoroughfully.

    If they make use of scientific methods, they need to follow the same strict process that was employed to obtain the 'official' and published values. Otherwise a comparison is not possible.

    That said, the "dustless forest pond" came over as a pretty wide stretch. Not very plausible.
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Madison came on the scene with her impressive collection of mislabeled suspicious planes (ballast barrels, etc). I don't really think she's really interested in a discussion about any points of science - partly because that's not her thing, and mostly because her mind is made up. She often post audio of herself calling the EPA or FAA, and haranguing whoever answers the phone for half an hour. I think her impact is limited to a very small group. However there's the possibility that with things like here "whistleblower" that she could trigger an avalanche of bunk.

    She also pushes the "the evil shills are stalking us!" meme. So it's entirely counterproductive trying to engage her directly, and wherever possible I'd try to address any serious claim of evidence she makes directly without mentioning her by name.
  38. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Yeah, it seems to expand her feeling of importance to think that you and the "Metabunk goons" are reacting to her every move and maybe even having intense, late-night-smoke-filled meetings where plans are made to counter her latest expose of "TRVTH".
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Something that became clear from this "debate" was that Dane essentially has a very small set of claims of evidence, and the most effective technique for answering him would have been to have an answer for each one. Since pretty much all his claims have been debunked already, I should have been better able to answer things like the soil alkalinity - however it's not something I'd really paid that much attention to, as I'd seen other people here address in much more depth, so i'd not done much research myself.

    Even in my areas of expertise, I did not always have good answers - like with what happens to a cup of hot water thrown into the air at -40C. I know exactly what is going on, but it was not something I'd put into words before, so it seemed like I had no idea.

    Anyway, live and learn. I need to do more things like that to get better at it.
    • Like Like x 1
  40. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    You were in a difficult position to have to try to debunk, in real time, anything thrown at you. Dane's claims are well rehearsed and he has repeated them many times. They have stood the test of time(in HIS world) and been refined to the point where they SOUND quite realistic to the uninformed. It's like someone confidently stating that normal contrails always fade in less than 5 minutes. That claim is quick and easy to make but the countering science is lengthy and somewhat complex. I think part of the issue is the very nature of certain types of "information" media. People don't want to wade through dense science to see why something easily expressed in one sentence might be wrong. I don't see a good solution to the situation where maybe 75% of the general public is content to absorb "information" they can get from simplistic sound-bites.