1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    A small portion of an interview I gave a year ago showed up on the documentary film "Look Up", by George Barnes of Skyder Alert.

    The film suggests that geoengineering is currently taking place via "chemtrails" and that "normal" contrails do not persist. I totally disagree with this.

    And in fact, what I say in the film disagrees with this, as I describe how contrails can spread out to form a layer of cirrus cloud, and I describe the conditions required for this to happen. The problem is that my explanations are slightly technical, and if you don't follow it then you might think I was actually endorsing the "chemtrail" theory, which I am not.

    Unfortunately my section is bookended by commentary that suggests that spreading contrails are deliberate geoengineering, and that normal contrails should not persist.



    Here's what I say in the film (about 15 minutes in)
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The interview took place at the "Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails" conference in Los Angeles, August 2012. The interviewer (with one cameraman) introduced himself as being part of a production company, but I don't remember who they were.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I suggest self-recording any interview in its entirety. They can edit anything they want and make it sound however they like.
    We've already seen how George Barnes has dishonestly included pictures of ballast test tanks in his movie, and probably still has William Thomas' false claim that 8,000 people died in Birmingham, UK after seeing chemtrails. Geroge Barnes(skyder, Look Up) is simply not an honest man in my opinion, but we can debate the reasons why if he dares....

    Dane Wigington appears to be a completely different looking person than he did in 2010.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    This seemed tasteless to me.
     
  4. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    It's really difficult--when one lacks editorial control--to ensure that any interview
    agreed to, will be presented in a fashion that is faithful to what one is actually conveying.

    In this case "Debunker" on the screen helps somewhat, but yes, I definitely see how it
    could be interpreted as you actually advancing their wacky claims.
     
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's always a risk. Going on the Joe Rogan show I was concerned it was going to be another sensationalist entertainment show, and was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be reasonably skeptical.

    But now I try to record any interviews I do. I did an interview for the upcoming "Overcast" and recorded the whole thing.
     
  6. CeruleanBlu

    CeruleanBlu Active Member

    @Mick West
    The way your section was immediately followed by someone who directly addressed what you said and "explained away" your description was extremely dismissive, and one who is apt to believe in the message of the video wouldn't be swayed one iota by what you said. This was intentional undoubtedly. However, the information you gave was factual and concise. I don't see it as an endorsement on your part, I see it as manipulative editing and bias towards the general theme of the whole video.
    Not a true fail, a good effort was put forth.

    On a side note, I had to look up and watch the Joe Rogan show you were on, not a bad job! I tended to avoid the show mainly due to the reputation in some of the other forums I visit, with the only previous listening experience being the Neil deGrasse Tyson one where he spoke about the Apollo landings. I might have to listen to a few more after this.

    Again, good attempt, but did you really expect fair and balanced from Skyder Alert? ;)
     
  7. watched it last night and this can be misleading especially when you sort of tuned-out and not really paying close attention. I prefer those documentary when they announce that this person is basically opposed to this and here is why then they have him saying why...instead they casually just mix you in here with rest of them.

    Also I re-listen to the joe-rogan thing again. Like it but, I wished it was really just you and Joe Rogan. His one on ones with Sam Harris are great(especial the first one) but topics tend to go all over the place.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2013
  8. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    It was fine. You got some facts out, I think, in a fairly clear fashion.
     
  9. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    How does a aircraft carve out a manmade cirrus cloud as in the video ? Your appearance didn't help your debunking in this Video . Seemed pointless to add it ?
     
  10. Clock

    Clock Active Member

    This is the type of stuff I would see in a conspiracy theorist movie. They edit your segment in order to fit their point of view.
     
  11. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    Yes they did I cant even figure out why they put it in there . The whole thing had nothing new . No smoking gun just a repeat of everything that has been said already . It was a big waste of time even for me to watch it .
     
  12. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    I think the producers want to make a balanced presentation. They want to include all sides of the controversy. It's a sort of collection of "testimonies" (as George calls them). They are really to promote the app, and to get people to submit the petition to stop the (supposed) geoengineering operation.

    Get the app, Joe, and harass your Mayor with chemtrail propaganda. ;)
     
  13. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    I wouldnt waste my time with the app .who needs a app when they are everywhere ? Iv already harassed as you say my local officials .
     
  14. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

    If i was recorded by a third party i would always require that i receive a copy of my interview, complete and unedited, before i signed a release.
     
  15. Jaysummer

    Jaysummer New Member

    I think they edited to fit their viewpoint. Without the whole explanation it sounds like it supports their thesis. They do make some good points but you only got 20 seconds. You need an hour video and then give them a 20 second clip.
     
  16. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    Are you talking about Wigington's clip I addressed in my previous post? It's no case of editing. In fact this is what Wigington says without any cutting whatsoever:

    So how can Wigington call this patent "primary" when the patented methodology does not even describe what he is claiming? It even discredits the methodology suggested by Winginton as inferior since it would lead to further trapped infrared radiation. Didn't Wigington bother to read that part?

    Not saying that you necessarily do Jaysummer, but people defending Wigington saying that he is a reliable scientist and knows what he is talking about just makes me sad. I've met many others who defend Wigington with teeth and claws despite many given examples of how Wigington doesn't know what he is doing and for some reason doesn't care about accuracy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  17. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Actually, in his very first article on the subject^, 2007, Wigington claims that he first had tested some "dust" he found on his solar panels. You can search his site but none of those tests are shown. I asked him directly to produce those tests, which likely show ordinary alumino silicate minerals were the source of aluminum in the air/water/snow tests. He refused to show those tests, but claimed they were online. They are not.

    When your car gets dusty, do you immediately suspect someone is spraying you from six miles up?
    Wigington lives on a dirt road, he own a bulldozer and grades his own road. His area sometimes receives no rain for a month or more.

    Most solar power plants are located in areas with high insolation and consequent aridity, the panels get dirty and interesting solutions have been fabricated to overcome the problem of dust.^ That is scant grist for a conspiracy theory yet that seems to be all it took to set Dane off.

    [​IMG]
    He is just following the meme established years before. He cannot seem to kick the habit.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. Jaysummer

    Jaysummer New Member

    So I will be totally honest. I'm not 100% either way. I was referring to your appearance in the film, I think they intentionally cut your clip to make it sound far fetched and support their view. You need more than two sentences to get a point across. I spend a lot of time watching the sky myself and don't rely on a lot of noise. I think some of Dane's comments are far fetched and possibly dangerous. But.. I think no one can say the government has never done one test in the sky either, that would be unrealistic when countries are announcing producing snow storms. I'm kind of tired of the big argument, I think maybe both sides have some right viewpoints. Your info on the "internal" photos did help clear up some issues for me especially the patent information.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    Oh, so you were talking to Mick West.

    I'm not Mick West by the way, so you should address your points to him, not me.
    Thanks for the clarification though.
     
  20. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    I think the majority of posters don't disagree with that statement.

    It's just that past cover-ups and negligences are no proper evidence for anything big going on now.

    In a criminial law suit against a person previous misdeeds can be used for bolstering the point of the prosecution. However, in such a suit it's usually clear that someone or something has actually suffered damage.

    Chemtrail proponents are implying various types of harm, but so far there is just no evidence for a connection with plane trails.
     
  21. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    What causes connections between negative or even positive events and observations in a person's mind ??? . . . is significantly influenced by what we believe and by what we have been told . . . for example, some believe and many suspect the alignment of stars and galaxies to our visual reference on the earth can determine our fate and even our daily activities (part astronomy fact and part astrology legend and pseudo-science) . . . if we can swallow that concept . . . what prevents us from thinking aircraft cruising at 37,000 feet above us cannot somehow be connected to almost anything someone has constructed a scenario to persuade people of . . . :confused: . . . we are by nature a gullible, suspicious and sometimes paranoid species . . . what we don't know as fact we fill with speculation, rumor, and unfortunately propaganda . . .
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Who did you imagine was saying that?
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1