1. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    Periodically, Mr Murphy sends out bulk emails with his latest pleas for continued action on behalf of the chemtrail... um... 'theory' (hoax). It's like saying "hey, please pay attention to us. Ignore the fact we have no verifiable scientific evidence and just tell all your friends and anyone important you can think of to be scared every time you see a persisting contrail."
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What would be interesting with "calls to action" like this, and with other things like "chemtrail awareness" days, would be exactly how much response is generated.

    I suspect that the number of people who actually write in to TV shows on issues like this is very, very low, probably well under a hundred. Certainly not "100's of thousands" - you don't get that many on a mainstream issue.

    I think that the intense focus that Murphy has on this particular topic has distorted his perspective somewhat.
  3. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    His latest appeal

    speaking of which, here's his latest appeal:

    I think it really speaks to the quality of CBS as a news source that they seem to have spoken to a qualified meteorologist merely as an afterthought.
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well, he's less interesting :) If you watch the video though, he does get a few more words in than the article suggest.


    I might talk to Jeff Chirico of CBS Atlanta later today, maybe put in a good word for science.
  5. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    Here's the latest:

    Here's the offending article: whatintheworldaretheysprayingLB.
    I haven't included the link to buy the items in question, as I don't want to help him generate any revenue, or further 'evangelistic' opportunities.
    ...Of course you could always wear one ironically, and use it to spread the word of reason when anyone asks.
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That is pretty funny. There's nothing in that image to suggest spraying at all - the contrail is probably not even persistent.

    What are they spraying? Water and CO2, just like your car.
  7. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Did anyone watch Murphy's presentation at the Ghent meeting of the Belfort Group?
    There is a point at which is speaking, and Murphy has the most disingenuous look
    on his face. I think he knows exactly what he is doing, and doesn't 'believe' at all.
    It might be hard to believe but some chemtrails promoters are really that evil.
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    For some people, like fear salesman Alex Jones, and the snake oil salesmen, the connection between their theories and their profits is pretty clear. But how is Murphy benefitting from this? I don't really imagine it's going to make him much money.

    Can you actually make a living simply selling the story? Is it posible he actually believes what he's saying?
  9. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    For Murphy, it's just a career move, another story to 'cover'. He's got a mentor, Griffin. He sells the DVDs for $20, he gets flown around and speaks for a fee no doubt. Then there are the t-shirts, etc.

    Here is what I said in 1999, when it was just getting started, was I pretty close?
  10. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    The next installment

    I think you are right- there isn't much money in Murphy's claims for him (tho maybe some backhanders from his associates). It seems to be more about what he sees as his credibility.
    I think that once you have (what you believe to be) a significant number of supporters, and that your 'cause' is publicly associated with your name, you can't go back. Past a certain point beyond reasonable openness and unbiased discussion, you can't retract your ideas as proven false, or at least severely undermined, without losing all the credibility you think you have gained. Of course, the only credibility Murphy has actually garnered is within the 'chemtrail' believing community.

    And here's the next installment of his assertions:

    So he's repeating the same fallacy that many 'believers' do; if you disagree, however unbiasedly, you MUST be 'one of them', in the pocket of 'The Man', unable to think for yourself or assess 'the evidence', and as such ignorable.
  11. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Listen to the interview

    rather revealing to see how he handles a skeptical viewpoint, and show his weaknesses.
    I note that he doesn't link to the interview for his followers to judge for themselves.
    here is a link to a message board thread that in turn links to the interview audio archive, the segment starts in the second hour of show #48:

    Jay Reynolds
  12. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    MJM's fatal weakness is that he can't handle debate at all, he is essentially 'disarmed' because he is 'unarmed'.
    He also fell apart totally when he was asked to identify the planes.

    He had to admit that commercial planes were not involved, but how does he know if he's never identified ANY of the planes using a flight tracker or a telescope?

    I've changed my mind about his motivation, he comes off as a fanatic, a true believer.

    But his rapid descent into incoherency when challenged show he is very unstable.

    It would be child's play to vaporize him in real debate.
  13. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This appears the be the ATS thread that eventually led to that interview. It starts out as a forum for Dr. Lenny Thyme to answer questions about the WITWATS, which he really fails to do.

    I can't find the link to the interview audio in that long thread though, can you post a direct link?
  15. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    The interview is good as long as it lasts. He makes unsubstantiated claims about metallic concentrations and contrail science throughout, and when confronted deflects with the false dichotomy of closed-mind vs government agent.
    The evidence provided by the 'scientist' was unfortunately slow and over-complex, to the point where I couldn't tell if he was trying to show supporting or contradictory evidence. The presenters were certainly straightforward though, defending on points of persistence times and the 'chemtrails bill / space weapons bill" authorship (by ufo enthusiasts,m as you may know) and lack of content foreknowledge by the associated congressman. All MJM could do was change the subject and insinuate that the government had killed the congressman's close relatives, with no proof.

    I just wish it hadn't cut out before the end. If it's a 2-parter, please direct me to the bit I missed.
    If anyone knows of footage where MJM engages in any level of serious debate, I'd love to see him be undermined. (not sure what kind of person that makes me- good I hope)
  16. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

  17. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    A little of topic...

    Well, that sounds like a separate conspiracy altogether, on the motives behind the bill, for which you're free to start another thread.
    (Taken from kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977 over at contrailscience)

    Again, any further audio or video of MJM discussing his 'crime against nature and mankind' with questioning skeptics would be greatly appreciated.
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Conspiracy theorists rarely want to engage skeptics after the first time it happens. Unless they can control the "debate" in a friendly setting, like a conspiracy radio show, or Jesse Ventura's show. MJM made the mistake of thinking that ATS Radio was going to be friendly, as ATS discusses a lot of far more kooky subjects. But it depends on the individual, and ATS contains quite a few skeptics on a number of topics.

    The question would be if A) we could do anything about that, or B) could it somehow be turned to our advantage? Something like the open invitation various people put out there for someone to come and defend their ideas - John Stewart inviting Glenn Beck, or James Randi offering $!,000,000 for proof of the paranormal?

    Is there an actual "chemtrail challenge" that you could face MJM with? Something that could not be easily dodged?
  19. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    I think if there were a 'chemtrail challenge', it would have to be presented at their annual back-patting gathering, known as the 'chemtrail conference'. A more interesting question would be what exactly should serve as a sufficient reward or incentive? Is it as simple as a big pile of cash, or should there be some kind of media recognition and public attention involved? Moreover, if media recognition and public attention are what they crave, they don't need us to offer it; the evidence (if they had it) would speak for itself, and attract that anyway, so that incentive already exists. I suppose we'd be offering a guarantee to take their evidence seriously as a group of international independents, and not 'brush it under the government rug'.

    However, not only would the criteria for discovered evidence have to be scientifically strict, but it would appear to be more strict than any conspiracy theorist would agree could be discovered, by definition.

    This is not the case of course. We wouldn't be asking for stamped and sealed secret documents or filmed admissions from senior officials, but rather physical proof from the contrail science side of it; aviation, meteorology, physics and maths. As ever, we want evidence of the chemicals used, the nozzles on the planes (if that's the theory they're using this week), contrail samples over periods of time, or indeed anything which fits their theories but cannot be ruled out by any current peer-reviewed scientific understanding.

    Of course this evidence doesn't exist so I doubt anyone would go for it, or they'd play Admiral Ackbar, with the predictable claim that we're government shills.
  20. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Here was a challenge I made in 2002

    In 2002, I examined a chemmie claim by creatin a web page and also issued a challenge. Here is a link to an archived version which is missing graphics:


    Here was the reaction:

    In hindsight, perhaps I was not diplomatic enough in my approach.....

    The result was a campaign to threaten a lawsuit against the free server which was hosting the webpage, and subsequent deletion of my account.
  21. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    I'm not sure I understand- does the 'chemtrail' myth hold that a commercial plane cannot 'spray'? Surely if they can, there's no harm in identifying a plane as commercial? I think I am missing something.
  22. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    That's a good question

    The original myth started by saying military jets were the only ones, and that JP-8 fuel specifically was to blame.

    Later iterations held that airlines were involved via "Operation Cloverleaf", etc...

    In my opinin, for the majority of believers, if the planes could be identified as commercial, the hoax falls apart for the following reasons:
    -security concerns
    -impracticality of coordinating "spraying" with ordinary passenger schedules
    -Where/when/how would the spray components be loaded

    Esentially, however, once a believer is able to identify the owner and pilot of the plane, if they really wanted to accuse the owner and pilot, there is no more mystery.

    It is FEAR that sustains the hoax.

    If there is no mystery, there is no fear.......
  23. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member


    Clifford Carnicom, for example, in a recent interview with Alfred L. Webre, says he believes commercial are not involved.

    Carnicom's site has radically changed over the years, he has deleted many things he used to have displayed.
    It is instructive to check out the archived versions from 1999 onwards.
    Many chemmie lies are lies of 'omission' rather than just simple in your face lies.....

    For instance, he deleted "How To Photograph a Chemplane"!

    He was also taking some photos and using photogrammetry to estimate altitude:

    The reason why I bring this up is that Carnicom has a BSci. degree in Surveying and Photogrammetry from California State University.

    Why would a guy who invested 4 years earning a degree in a subject be satisfied with grainy images like he did?

    Why did he turn to looking into a microscope at crazy stuff way out of his field when he should have been getting telescopic shots like these for years, or even better??????

    Why has he now removed all references to the subject from his site????

    BTW, the Carnicom Institute offers a Webinar where you can call in......

    This whole messageboard, called "All Aircraft Are Not Involved" by Socrates, is dedicated to the proposition that ONLY military jets make chemtrails.
    While this is an extreme example, I believe the sentiment is lurking inside most chemmies.
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The Chemtrail theory has evolved over the years, but very quickly became many-headed. If you ever manage to convince someone of the inconsistency of one aspect, then they can quickly shift to another version. Eventually, presuming they are somewhat reasonable, they end up with "well, they must be doing SOMETHING, since they are not to be trusted", or perhaps they escape into semantics: "contrails contain carbon dioxide, a chemical, so chemtrails are real!!!!".

    The many facets of the theory are interesting. I'd though of doing some kind of infographic that illustrates them all, and their relationships, with perhaps some scale indicating degree of kookiness (from slightly increased cloud cover, to sylphs). You could do a scatter plot, time on the horizontal, kookiness on the vertical, popularity by the size of a circle, color for type, and interconnections with arcs.

    Anyone interested in collaborating on such a thing? Here's a shared drawing as a start:


    Anyone can edit it, via the above link.
  25. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    This just in...

    Well, here's his next installment, a 90 second "interview" about "Death Dumps and Affect on Children", whatever that means.
    It is, as expected, loaded with inflammatory language, and extraordinary claims without any extraordinary evidence. In fact, no evidence at all, just the same nonfacts about high levels of Aluminum/'Alumina', Barium, and whatever else would sound the worst.

  26. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I just sent his email to 'Chemtrailkook'

    'Chemtrailkook' sent me an email earlier today, I told him how to identify the planes using telescopic photograpy, and he offered as his best proof WITWATS.
    This is how I responded:
  27. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    In fact, here is yet another challenge for 'Chemtrailkook'.

    In my challenge (b) above, ask Michael Murphy why he didn't discuss in his video these tests made by the local government(2009), long before he made the video which premiered October 2010.

    What was Michael Murphy trying to pull, a COVERUP...............?
  28. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    This is very interesting to me. Why would he remove "How To Photograph a Chemplane" ??

    I suspect because the ability to photograph "suspicious" planes, removes the suspicion most of the time.....and reveals a normal licensed plane.

    --gotta love TheWayBackMachine --
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And while you are there, ask him why he never responded to my questions, which were forwarded to him by G. Edward Griffin:

  30. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    Last week MJM sent out his standard inflammatories begging for public support and the pointless bombardment of your/any/every Senator with Chemtrail inquisitions.

    But this came through today and I thought it was at least interesting.
    Obviously no references given, or methods of measurement, but that's the Chemtrail Science for you...
  31. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    So, they claim ph of rainfall is 7.5, eh?
    One of the hallmarks of the scientific method is repeatability, right?

    If someone wanted to check this out, there is a REAL lab that has been doing this in Hawaii for 30 years:

    The email address for the office in on the right of that web page.
  32. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    tryblinking, could you please fwd the email from Murphy to me, I will write Mauna Loa and ask what they are seeing for PH of rain water.
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The most likely cause of a high ph of rain water is contamination with dirt. Either it's ground water (like, from a puddle), which will have dirt in it, or the collector was contaminated with windblown dirt (things get dusty fast), or it's something approaching "rain dust" (rain with desert dust from Asia).
  34. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."- Bill Shakespeare, Hamlet

    "You know you are closing on the target when you begin receiving return fire"- unknown
  35. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    and now for something completely different:
  36. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    Oh hell's teeth, my bad- I should have made it clear that my last post was the latest installment of the MJM show.
  37. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    which he followed up with this:
  38. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    Interview with MJM & GEG

    OK, wasn't sure where to post this, but "Food Integrity Now" posted this on the KATC comments page for their "Contrails & Chemtrails" column here this morning:

    It's that May 18th interview with GEG and MJM I'm interested in. Hopefully someone can get a recording of it for a perma-link or some such. If you have any questions, which could even make it onto the show, the host welcomes emails.
    Meanwhile that other link to their recent show should be good for some interesting 'evidence' too...
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'd suggest my original questions, but might not be radio friendly:

    Maybe #3, as it's related to food.
  40. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    If you don't mind Mick, can I send Carol those questions, ordered 3, 1, 2, 4?