Challenge from Dane Wigington

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Hi all

I have joined so I could alert the members about a challenge being put forth by chemtrail advocate Dane Wigington.
He states that no one will take him up on his challenge for debate. I'm not sure how anyone could reach him in response, but somebody from here should take him up on it. Maybe just invite him here. He asserts that no debunker has a factual leg to stand on and that all you/we have is ad hom attacks. It's on this vid at about 18:30.

Regards, and keep up the good work!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hi all

I have joined so I could alert the members about a challenge being put forth by chemtrail advocate Dane Wigington.
He states that no one will take him up on his challenge for debate. I'm not sure how anyone could reach him in response, but somebody from here should take him up on it. Maybe just invite him here. He asserts that no debunker has a factual leg to stand on and that all you/we have is ad hom attacks. It's on this vid at about 18:30. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkb2NZ5SPgU

Regards, and keep up the good work!

I'd be happy to debate him, although I'm going to be busy for a couple of weeks. I'm sure other here would, Jay especially.

We could just start by noting it's not 70 degrees below zero, it's 40 degrees. (19:30 in the video). And your breath condensation dissipates quickly because it does not freeze, unlike contrails.

I tried to talk to Dane at the conference last year to explain the problems with his tests. He refused to hear me out.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I'd be happy to debate him, although I'm going to be busy for a couple of weeks. I'm sure other here would, Jay especially.

We could just start by noting it's not 70 degrees below zero, it's 40 degrees. (19:30 in the video). And your breath condensation dissipates quickly because it does not freeze, unlike contrails.

I tried to talk to Dane at the conference last year to explain the problems with his tests. He refused to hear me out.


I'm sure he did. He thinks he has all the answers and clearly feels that no one can prove him wrong. He also said that the National Weather Service or similar agency changed the temps necessary for contrail formation from -70 to -40. I look forward to his debating someone from here.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm sure he did. He thinks he has all the answers and clearly feels that no one can prove him wrong. He also said that the National Weather Service or similar agency changed the temps necessary for contrail formation from -70 to -40. I look forward to his debating someone from here.

The -70 thing comes from a mistake William Thomas made 12 years ago.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/12...tion-To-Politely-Discuss-the-Chemtrail-Theory

 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Yeah. It's amazing how much of their shtick is based on falsehoods that get repeated, without any fact-checking, simply because they are "juicy" and irresistibly convenient to their story. Nice Avatar you gave me- you got the joke! Thanks!
 

Mattnik

Moderator
It'd only be worth doing if a proper format could be agreed, otherwise it will just be a massive Gish gallop on his part. I hope it happens.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As far as I can recall, Dane has NEVER engaged a debunker. He tends to use very old misconceptions that were debunked many years ago. Specifically (as well as the -70 thing) he will talk about global dimming (which actually turned into global brightening a long time ago), and he will talk about various chemical tests, which generally just show normal levels, of were incorrectly done.

Really before engaging in a forma debate he would do well to sort out these misconceptions.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
OMG! Snow that sticks to trees, power lines, etc!! Must be artificial!

Do they really believe this stuff?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He's saying that the atmosphere is being loaded up with metallic particulates to allow HAARP to move the jet stream and to nucleate unusual high-temperature snow.

He's saying that the chemical "nucleators" are so powerful that they freeze his ponds and then out-gas the water.

Seems like his theory has evolved a bit since he was in WITWATS. I think if anyone is going to debate him you'd want to be clear exactly what the debate is about.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think really this is just his winter theory. It will change this summer as the weather changes.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think in order to debate him effectively, someone would need to know what the actual evidence is that Dane claims to have. It all seems a bit vague based on the bits of his talk I've listened to.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Caller is talking about metabunk posting screencaps about violence against chemtrail pilots. Cautioning people to "keep it out of their vernacular". One caller had mentioned nothing being done by officials and not working WITH the system but against it. When Wigington happened to use the word "execute" the caller said "I like that word--execute".

I don't think he'll be debating you Mick, he says you have serious mental issues.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Caller is talking about metabunk posting screencaps about violence against chemtrail pilots. Cautioning people to "keep it out of their vernacular". One caller had mentioned nothing being done by officials and not working WITH the system but against it. When Wigington happened to use the word "execute" the caller said "I like that word--execute".

I don't think he'll be debating you Mick, he says you have serious mental issues.


So, he wants to debate the debunkers, except for the crazy ones?

I'd be happy to debate Dane, as would a lot of people. So how can he say that nobody would debate him?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I missed that show. I have seen various reasons from several chemmies for refusal to debate debunkers, recently. It's been "They are crazy"; "They are dishonest"; "They are government agents"; "They are 'fake' pilots"; "They don't really have any knowledge", etc. None of the excuses really makes sense. Danes claim that no one will debate him is just bizarre, but so are many of his other claims, so....
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Dane says of me

I think I can understand how he might think that, given that his world-view is so very different to mine, he must think I'm a bit crazy for believing it. Kind of like how a far right Tea Party member might think that far-left liberals have serious mental issues. So I don't really see that as a personal attack, more just an indication as to the depth of chasm between our worlds, and an indication of the difficulty in bridging that chasm.

I would take issue with "couldn't carry on a normal exchange of conversation" though. I spoke at length to many people at the conference. Dane simply refused to discuss any of the actual evidence issues with me. All I wanted to do was discuss the pond test results, and explain what the problems were. At some point I mentioned that the lab test used was EPA 6010B, and was about to explain that they were not testing for elemental aluminum, and he cut me off at that point saying something along the lines of "don't start quoting nonsense science" or similar, then left.

Anyway, I think we should remain open to the possibility of communication. Lots of people would be happy to debate with Dane.

View attachment Dane Wigington on Russ Tanner Show may 6 2012 - clip.wav
 

Mattnik

Moderator
It's telling that he has to resort to try and discredit metabunk and Mick like that. Addressing the facts should be a breeze.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I have seen that basic thing said many times- "Don't start quoting junk science". They won't even listen to what you have to say because they "know" you'll be lying. That and: "I can't believe you can't see what is so obvious". Yes, it is a giant chasm between world views which drives it, but they seem completely unable, with their "opened minds", to even listen to the opposing view. It's really quite curious. Edit to add: They don't seem to be able to see the absurdity of claiming that simply because something is found in ground samples, and gravity exists, that it must have come from aircraft high in the sky.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
I would wager that in the venue in which Mick met Dane, Dane would consider a normal exchange of conversation to be Dane talking and the other participant nodding in agreement or even wide eyed wonder at his startling revelations.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
I missed that show. I have seen various reasons from several chemmies for refusal to debate debunkers, recently. It's been "They are crazy"; "They are dishonest"; "They are government agents"; "They are 'fake' pilots"; "They don't really have any knowledge", etc. None of the excuses really makes sense. Danes claim that no one will debate him is just bizarre, but so are many of his other claims, so....

At risk of sounding like I'm into CT's, anybody else see the pattern developing in the information from what you might call the leaders or trend setters (and those who would like to be), in the chemtrail scene at the moment?

If you think of it as a single entity, chemtrails is trying to piggyback onto or conflate with geoengineering, which will probably be a genuinely important mainstream debate sooner or later, like this is what they've been talking about all along.

Looks to me like the leadership smell a profit, and are desperately trying to discredit their most vocal critics, the debunkers. The likes of Dane know they don't ever actually have to have or win a debate because, like all good cults, whatever the leadership decree is accepted and repeated without question on the whole, certainly in the internet echo chamber.

I've seen attacks on this debunkers generally and this site specifically before, but I'm willing to bet there are some deeply unpleasant manipulators at work somewhere at the moment.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Yes. Equating geoengineering with chemtrails is a strong, recent development, afaik. Then they start mixing in things like cloud-seeding and stir it all up in a mishmash which their followers accept without question.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Cloud seeding gives it a legitimacy. Since it is easy to document, that shows that folks are 'messing with the weather'. The fact that comparing the cloud seeding to what they call chem trails, is like comparing pineapples to pinecones is what they miss.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Yes. Equating geoengineering with chemtrails is a strong, recent development, afaik. Then they start mixing in things like cloud-seeding and stir it all up in a mishmash which their followers accept without question.


They are subjects that actually exist. Chemtrails is total bunk. There is nothing there. So they've moved the goalposts. I guess they've realized how OUT THERE "they're spraying us to give us the flu" "they're spraying to innoculate us against (something)", "they're depopulating the planet" and "they're spraying us to sterilize the population" sounds.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
But they are still spraying Corexit along the Gulf coast, according to some. None can explain WHY, other than to give folks ' the blue flu' or something along that line.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They are subjects that actually exist. Chemtrails is total bunk. There is nothing there. So they've moved the goalposts. I guess they've realized how OUT THERE "they're spraying us to give us the flu" "they're spraying to innoculate us against (something)", "they're depopulating the planet" and "they're spraying us to sterilize the population" sounds.

In some ways this is a problem in debunking. By taking the bunk out of a topic it can actually make it stronger, as the theory gets more refined.

Conspiracy Theories are viral ideas. Memes. They mutate and adapt to changing conditions. The longer a theory has survived, the stronger it has become.

You could compare debunking to antibiotics. Does indiscriminate debunking of conspiracy theories result in debunking resistent CTs?

That's why it's important not only to debunk, but to provide something to fit the gap that is left by the debunking.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
In some ways this is a problem in debunking. By taking the bunk out of a topic it can actually make it stronger, as the theory gets more refined.

Conspiracy Theories are viral ideas. Memes. They mutate and adapt to changing conditions. The longer a theory has survived, the stronger it has become.

You could compare debunking to antibiotics. Does indiscriminate debunking of conspiracy theories result in debunking resistent CTs?

That's why it's important not only to debunk, but to provide something to fit the gap that is left by the debunking.


Yes! They take the debunking and then adapt their story to work around it. I have seen where recently some of them have taken the fact that there are lots of photos of persistent contrails going back decades and abandoning the idea that chemtrails just started in the 90s. Edit to add: They just start saying that chemtrails started "way back". When asked about other chemmie's claims that nothing persistent existed when they were kids, they just fall silent. It's impossible to MAKE them put their various claims next to each other and look at the contradictions. They just focus on whatever aspect of it seems convincing to them and run with that, refusing to look at the rest. Horse--> water--> no drink.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I'd like to add that I think a significant percentage of people on the net speaking FOR chemtrails don't really believe it or care if it's true. They are just attracted to the potential for getting a rise out of people- getting a reaction- stirring the pot, etc.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'd like to add that I think a significant percentage of people on the net speaking FOR chemtrails don't really believe it or care if it's true. They are just attracted to the potential for getting a rise out of people- getting a reaction- stirring the pot, etc.

Not just that, but there's also an "ends justifies the means" mentality, where the facts are unimportant, so long as they fit the world view. It's not important that there's no actual evidence of spraying, they must be spraying because that's the type of thing they do, and if you don't think so then you are a government trusting fool.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
True, but the remnants of the earlier parts of the meme persist. The "spraying us like bugs" and "killing us with toxins" claims still abound.

Indeed, the old memes still persist in places that are like an endless plain of meme petri dishes - Facebook and Youtube. You can't sterilize Facebook, stuff will always grow there.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Yes. I started to say earlier, that the bottom line of the belief system of the type of people who buy into this sort of stuff is that there is a giant conspiracy to control their lives. As far as I can see it is based on the idea of blaming something external for whatever happens to them- the abdication of general personal responsibility for one's own life.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Indeed, the old memes still persist in places that are like an endless plain of meme petri dishes - Facebook and Youtube. You can't sterilize Facebook, stuff will always grow there.

Plus there are always people posting things that have been debunked because they've just "awakened" and think they're sharing a new discovery. Like tanker enemy's You Tube videos, of the barrels inside the planes.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I used the feedback form on his site to leave a message for Vinny Eastwood (the interviewer) this morning. I referred him to the messages on that vid and also to this forum. http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/index.html

Edit to add: I have also left a message via the contact form at Dane Wigington's site calling his attention to the responses on that vid and telling him that his challenge to debate has been accepted. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
 

mustanglovrsue

New Member
all i know is i see the clouds have changed bigtime. ive been taking pictures of clouds/sunsets for years. so i noticed. i live by a small airport and by Vandenburg air force base. our airport is small so we get a lot of blimps and experimental planes landing there. vandenberg shoots up things that have busted out our windows. so planes, even weird ones, im used to. i KNOW they are spraying something because my eyes and camera aint lying tome! they are spraying something and its on purpose, so the ONLY thing i want to know is what are they TRYING to do? my mind does not go straght to 'the govts trying to kill me' it could be true, but i dnt think so. santa maria grows a lot of broccoli strawberrys couliflower, etc. the SAME foods the govts eats! so its dumb to spray stuff that they will eat and breath too.
now if someone were to tell me that they are just trying cool new effects for planes for movies, id actually buy that. what bothers me is all the people that lie! that get so nervous when you ask them.( like the local weatherman, a man ive known for years personally, flat refused to talk about anything, said he wont allow himself to be put in a contraversy, he flipped out! my exact question was ' so what do you think about those planes spraying stuff?' im not an activist, i dont try to figt with folks, what i would like to know, plain and simple, is ' since they started the spraying, have weathermen/meterorologists noticed anything different in the way the clouds/atmosphere act? ' thats really all i want to know. but theres tons of people that get MAD AS HELL if you even bring it up! thats what tingles my spidey senses, most people dont get so mad over a simple question.
as far as debate dude, you guys are giving him way too much publicity. if he asked for a challenger ( i did not click the link to watch youtube) and several have taken him up on it, his dead give away is when someone doesnt want to hear 'sciency junk' right then and there, hes an idiot, the only think dumber is for a smart person to give a fool anymore facetime.if someone a straight smack talker, dismiss them. period.anybody that does want to learn or even debate, wont stick their fingers in their ears and yell lalalala!!
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
T Claim: Jim Hoffman's "9/11 progressive collapse challenge" can't be met 9/11 348
Rory Explained: Space Shuttle Footage Reflection of Face [Shot Through Window] Conspiracy Theories 5
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
Svartbjørn The Challenge with Peer Review General Discussion 4
TWCobra Skyderalert Whistleblower challenge Contrails and Chemtrails 54
Truthnow A challenge to you to discuss this openly Contrails and Chemtrails 62
TWCobra Debate Challenge from Madisonstar Moon to Mick West West/Wigington Geoengineering Debate 283
Critical Thinker Role reversal challenge: Disprove we are not "in the Matrix" Practical Debunking 43
I Chemtrail Challenge! Prize offered! Contrails and Chemtrails 7
C CAJeffO's chemtrail debate challenge Contrails and Chemtrails 45
Jay Reynolds Debate challenge for John Hammell of IAHF Contrails and Chemtrails 4
TWCobra Chemtrail debate challenge. Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Mick West A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science Contrails and Chemtrails 8
FreiZeitGeist New Blog: The Chemtrails Challenge Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West The Dimming - New Documentary From Dane Wigington Contrails and Chemtrails 8
MikeG Toxic Spraying and Radio Frequency Bombardment Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Jacob Aman J. Marvin Herndon's chemtrail letter to San Diego City Council Contrails and Chemtrails 39
Rico Debunked: Dane Wigington's Undeniable Footage of Jet Aircraft Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 42
FuzzyUK "Geoengineering And The Collapse Of Earth 2014", a Dane Wigington presentation Contrails and Chemtrails 16
JRBids Dane Wigington "Nucleated 'fake snow' demystified" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Dane Wigington - Inaccuracies and Omissions Contrails and Chemtrails 269
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Dane Wigington's Claims That UV is "Off The Charts" Contrails and Chemtrails 207
Jay Reynolds Geoengineering Watch Radio: Dane Wigington's Quack Infomercial Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Jay Reynolds Dane Wigington & Co. get taken to the cleaners by climate scientists Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Jay Reynolds Global Skywatch Conference Call with Dane Wigington, Nov 2012 Contrails and Chemtrails 110
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Dane Wigington's- “Heavy Wet Snow” Is Now Often The Norm Contrails and Chemtrails 45
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Dane Wigington's Video for CBC Conference Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Jay Reynolds Debunked- Dane Wigington's 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 34
Jay Reynolds Dane Wigington's speech Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Mick West Wigington/West Geoengineering Debate West/Wigington Geoengineering Debate 233
TWCobra Wigington/Max Bliss Debunked. Automated Chemtrail dispersal Commercial aircraft Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Related Articles































Related Articles

Top