John Massaria
New Member
I thought there were 7 pages to this thread... good thing I screen saved the last few... you guys are so funny over there in UK.... so much fun! semantics and word break down... I love language.
Chemtrails Video with Ballast Barrels
- Thread starter Jay Reynolds
- Start date
John Massaria
New Member
yes, just checking my notes... over 238 posts...
View attachment 1857
just curious as to why the moderator did that...
View attachment 1857
just curious as to why the moderator did that...
Attachments
John Massaria
New Member
I think you guys have a debunking thread saying the "government" doesn't police the web? something like, "even facebook uses bots"
wow... I guess I debunked that too...View attachment 1858View attachment 1859
wow... I guess I debunked that too...View attachment 1858View attachment 1859
Attachments
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Jesus do you ever stop [...]
So, because someone reading this thread, which mentions your facebook page, went and looked at your facebook page, it proves they work for the government and are... what, stopping you from spewing your nonsense somehow? On your trail? About to assassinate you?
[...]
You've got nothing.
So, because someone reading this thread, which mentions your facebook page, went and looked at your facebook page, it proves they work for the government and are... what, stopping you from spewing your nonsense somehow? On your trail? About to assassinate you?
[...]
You've got nothing.
John Massaria
New Member
I also have screen shots of your debunking agent visiting and "correcting" my ALMA facebook fan page, right here on this thread.
I respectfully love the attention, but I would like to put all this to rest. I do not wish to make a federal case or stir trouble. I can appreciate what you are doing, "fixing" people is a good thing. However, the video was taken down, all of my posts have been taken down ever mentioning contrails, seeding and chemclouds- all over my facebook page. I would be very grateful if this entire thread would be removed completely. Very grateful. I can just as easily make a case against your web site for harassment and intimidation. I would rather call a truce... and get rid of all this... let me know... like I said, I love debate, but this is no longer a debate, its a request and a kind one.
I respectfully love the attention, but I would like to put all this to rest. I do not wish to make a federal case or stir trouble. I can appreciate what you are doing, "fixing" people is a good thing. However, the video was taken down, all of my posts have been taken down ever mentioning contrails, seeding and chemclouds- all over my facebook page. I would be very grateful if this entire thread would be removed completely. Very grateful. I can just as easily make a case against your web site for harassment and intimidation. I would rather call a truce... and get rid of all this... let me know... like I said, I love debate, but this is no longer a debate, its a request and a kind one.
Mattnik
Moderator
You've consistently avoided any debate, that's why John.
John Massaria
New Member
(directed at Pete's colorful metaphors) intimidation again. name calling again. it continues... you are not the moderator here, and you are treading.
John Massaria
New Member
I "avoided" debate after I was banned, not by choice... that's how you operate? You ban a member when intimidation fails and then say they avoided debate? Kind of fixed in your favor.
John Massaria
New Member
Your "team" searched my personal history, went to the John Mack Institute Xperiencers web page, went to three separate facebook pages and my own personal page. Visted my three youtube channels and who knows what else... your "staff" even grabbed a photo of me and posted it without consent or choice... and then grabbed another different photo of me and used it as my avatar for your debunking web site... I would call that stalking, intimidation and harassment.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
No, I'm not trying to intimidate you, just sharing my humble opinion of you. I'm sure you're not intimidated.
'Name-calling' is it?...
"debunking agent"
"government-op debunker"
That's kindergarten-level nonsense.
alleging a cover-up because the thread got moved?
And being temporarily banned is a sign that your argument had absolutely no content. It's meant to give you time to reflect and consider using actual facts and addressing actual issues that are raised.
'Name-calling' is it?...
"debunking agent"
"government-op debunker"
That's kindergarten-level nonsense.
alleging a cover-up because the thread got moved?
And being temporarily banned is a sign that your argument had absolutely no content. It's meant to give you time to reflect and consider using actual facts and addressing actual issues that are raised.
Belfrey
Senior Member.
"Debating" ideally involves listening to/reading and responding to the points that other people make and the questions that they pose. For the most part, that's not what you were doing.
John Massaria
New Member
Your thread has it's own rules, and I signed them agreeing to the rules and terms as a member. I concede its your moderators prerogative to ban a member, but you can't say I was repeating info, I posted a photo twice... and restated myself only once (so I repeated myself only once)... hardly worthy of a ban... your moderator is editing posts... look again its his prerogative. You have a web page to maintain, and I agree some guests or new members may be rude or use rude language or become absurdly repetitive...
John Massaria
New Member
there was a huge delay in responses and questions being asked- I don't know why... perhaps it was a busy morning and posts were slowed down.. I recorded the entire event, so I can provide time stamps of it... and how it looked on my end at my computer...
Mattnik
Moderator
John, please address these two questions as asked by Mick. Lets get this back on track.
1) What exactly are the barrels in your video? The answer is in the first post of this thread, but I want you to explain it, to make sure you understand.
2) How long can a contrail last, and what factors influence that duration?
1) What exactly are the barrels in your video? The answer is in the first post of this thread, but I want you to explain it, to make sure you understand.
2) How long can a contrail last, and what factors influence that duration?
John Massaria
New Member
The name of your site is metabunk and your own definition of debunking is clear, its on your main page. Yes, you are a debunker... its not really an insult, but proper verbiage.
"entitled ADD brat whose been told they're 'special' " now that is not accurate and clearly an insult. I counted about 7 of these from page 3 til page 7, when there was a page 7. Again, I have the screen saves...
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Well there's a bunch of people here who take an interest in truth, and especially in those who publish/post disinformation or misuse truth to create a false picture.
So when you came to their attention for a common misuse of known pictures, they took an interest in who was saying this, and what else they were saying.
All your stuff was posted for the world to see. Are they not allowed to look at it if they don't agree with it? Are they not allowed to want to correct it?
Admittedly it would be weird to find out a bunch of people you don't know are talking about you, but when you put the things out there that you do with your name attached like you seem to have an interest in doing, wouldn't you expect that?
Of course people's curiosity would be peaked and they would visit the source of the discussion - your publicly available web-pages. Wouldn't you be pleased with the additional exposure and opportunity to reach a wider audience? If you believe in what you're doing you can easily justify it to rational questioning, if it's based in truth in the first place.
There was plenty of opportunity for a level discussion which went ignored. The initial image issue was rather ungraciously cleared up amid derogatory uses of 'debunkers', but then your other information was challenged too. You didn't like that. Some here didn't like that, and went to your pages to tell you so. So what?
As for your photo, I guess that's Mick's question to answer, but if it was publicly available in the first place, well...
I understand your feelings though, I HATE pictures of myself.
John Massaria
New Member
According to the data supplied, they are "water tanks", and contain no chemicals what so ever. They are used for balancing the aircraft during test flights. This is what has been printed and no evidence proves other wise. Many people speculate as to other possible uses.
A CONtrail can last hours and even days, depending on the level of atmospheric conditions. They form into cirrus clouds occasionally, again depending on conditions. Some theorize they may contain more than just water vapor.
(this from memory- not sure what else I forgot...
but you do realize I found out a ton more while researching... so there is that)
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
I'll give you that.
There's only so much 'government disinformation agent' crap I can take before my brain explodes. And it wasn't even directed at me.
7 what? insults? Yeah, they're not helpful, but it does happen. I wonder who cast the first stone? Best to ignore them and come back with a verifiable fact that is relevant, it makes things much more interesting.
John Massaria
New Member
where are pages 6 and 7?
John Massaria
New Member
So, this thread stays? am I correct? I can't ask again to remove it all... again?
Mattnik
Moderator
The original thread is here. Mick split it into this one as it was going way-off topic - check the last post. This way is preserves the other thread and keeps it as concise as possible and visitors can easily see what's being discussed / debunked.
With regards to removing the thread, I think that's at Mick's discretion.
Last edited by a moderator:
John Massaria
New Member
anyone still here... (crickets creeking)
John Massaria
New Member
see there is a delay huge! I refreshed the page, even closed it and started browser... I just got your post now... perhaps it would be good to mention this on the ABOUT & rules page- "please wait for responses, as some of the servers are delayed. We dont want repetitive responses or upset members!
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
The thread has shifted to its own, so those first two pages might have belonged to the other thread?
Or Mick edited out the insults or irrelevancies, and this is all that's left.
The basis of your concern seems to be environmental pollution as opposed to deliberate chem-trail deployment? Or you think we are being sprayed?
What percentage of a contrail contains toxic substances for you to be claiming aircraft pollution is poisoning and sickening the population, eg, accumulating in toxic quantities?
Do you think this is of more concern or impact than ground-based pollution?
The photo of the plane in the 'chemtrail' article you used shows a fire-retardant plane - how does using this photo prove, or even suggest, a chemtrail operation?
Do you see why a study of the case-orange report cast's doubts as to its relevance as a truthful document?
Do you see the relevancy of Jays graph showing results of volcanic eruptions?
Or Mick edited out the insults or irrelevancies, and this is all that's left.
The basis of your concern seems to be environmental pollution as opposed to deliberate chem-trail deployment? Or you think we are being sprayed?
What percentage of a contrail contains toxic substances for you to be claiming aircraft pollution is poisoning and sickening the population, eg, accumulating in toxic quantities?
Do you think this is of more concern or impact than ground-based pollution?
The photo of the plane in the 'chemtrail' article you used shows a fire-retardant plane - how does using this photo prove, or even suggest, a chemtrail operation?
Do you see why a study of the case-orange report cast's doubts as to its relevance as a truthful document?
Do you see the relevancy of Jays graph showing results of volcanic eruptions?
John Massaria
New Member
I don't think you understand that yes, pages 1-3 were cut off and moved, but so were the last two pages as well... which I really could care less if they were or not... just want to know if this whole bloody thread with my name in it can be removed...
Last edited by a moderator:
Rico
Senior Member.
Have you tried asking Mick via a PM? I'm sure he can be reasonable if you ask nicely.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Dunno, Mick is the one to decide that. I guess it's a fair request, but sometimes these things are useful to others. You don't have to participate I suppose, but people have taken an interest in what you're saying so it might keep coming up - you can expect them to discuss it. It's not you, it's the subject matter.
John Massaria
New Member
Look, I don't want to share anymore... I have found new evidence that supports a possible coverup. We all know what I mentioned before, "If governments lie 10 times why is the 11th a conspiracy." You guys are great, and I am sure there are a bunch of knuckleheads who believe a great many things, but the facts are the planet is heating up. We are loosing species at an alarming rate. Our government and other world governments may, just may have realized this and just might, might be working to try and fix it... you and I would really never know, because it would possibly cause world wide panic if, IF, the world were in trouble.
John Massaria
New Member
I understand, if it stays up then I am still involved... the thread here has seen something like 40,000 views... it is a lot I guess a lot... many people are watching to see how this turns out. My video has been translated into a few different languages and mirrored at least 5 times, not by me mind you, by others. In addition, my one month old video has or had should I say, seen close to 90K hits.
John Massaria
New Member
Look, the NEW research I did educated me. It opened my eyes even further. And lends more questions... and few answers. There is something to be concerned about, and it doesn't stop where you or I can go...
Mattnik
Moderator
So you've got this evidence but you're not willing to share it? What on earth is the point in that?
John Massaria
New Member
It shows clearly we have the ability to spray any chemical anywhere, at any time.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
I think it's Mick's bedtime.
Well, people will of course be interested in what you come up with, so be prepared for this whole thing to come up again with your new project; ie, to have your ideas challenged and your evidence examined. No-one here is pro-pollution or pro-cover-up (I hope), they'll just be interested in what can be proven, what can be proven false, what's speculation, and whether that speculation is reasonable.
You don't have to care what they think or participate, but they have a right to pick it to pieces if it's flimsy.
It's a hobby.
Good luck, apologies for the 'indigo' jab.
(another thing I don't believe in, indigo children. I'm probably just jealous cause I want to be special too.
)
Well, people will of course be interested in what you come up with, so be prepared for this whole thing to come up again with your new project; ie, to have your ideas challenged and your evidence examined. No-one here is pro-pollution or pro-cover-up (I hope), they'll just be interested in what can be proven, what can be proven false, what's speculation, and whether that speculation is reasonable.
You don't have to care what they think or participate, but they have a right to pick it to pieces if it's flimsy.
It's a hobby.
Good luck, apologies for the 'indigo' jab.
(another thing I don't believe in, indigo children. I'm probably just jealous cause I want to be special too.
)
John Massaria
New Member
It's extensive... and again it all comes down to this you don't work for the government, and even if you did, even you might not know what really goes on... its speculation and conjecture. If global warming is what many say it is, and a global extinction event were on the horizon, the evidence of trying to stop it would be evidence that there is a threat. Neither I nor you can deny the earth is heating up.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
uhoh, now you done it. Someone will be along shortly to disabuse you of this notion.
(for my part - it's not spraying, it's dumping. It's not anywhere, it's limited to certain operating altitudes.
But, get on with you.)
John Massaria
New Member
I have no immediate plans for new projects. The ORIGINAL video simply was a slide show- originally a phone call between two guys I never even heard of before... and until I made the video, I really never knew how big the issues were... or how people believe what they believe... don't worry it wasn't the Indigo part that was the worst of it... the whole thread from beginning to end was... (true story)I think it's Mick's bedtime.
Well, people will of course be interested in what you come up with, so be prepared for this whole thing to come up again with your new project; ie, to have your ideas challenged and your evidence examined. No-one here is pro-pollution or pro-cover-up (I hope), they'll just be interested in what can be proven, what can be proven false, what's speculation, and whether that speculation is reasonable. You don't have to care what they think or participate, but they have a right to pick it to pieces if it's flimsy. It's a hobby. Good luck, apologies for the 'indigo' jab.
(another thing I don't believe in, indigo children. I'm probably just jealous cause I want to be special too.
Mattnik
Moderator
So it's not strictly evidence then. And no, I'm not denying the planet is heating up - it's something I'm very interested in.
'the evidence of trying to stop it would be evidence that there is a threat.'
I think we'd see a mass of data, papers and much discussion among scientists - much like there is with climate change data and analysis at the moment.
John Massaria
New Member
disabuse- nice lol... finally some cuteness...
yes, I know that particular plane has altitude issues for effective spraying/dumping. The fire retardant is a conventional dump unit for a particular use... BUT it illustrates dispersion, and not the only type of dispersion, just a particular "sprayer" for a particular job.
I'm usually not online between 6PM and 9PM Pacific time.
The thread was split, as it was more about John and his video than it was about ballast barrels.
I'm not deleting the thread. John, if you want to take back things that you said, then just write a correction. It's better to correct your mistakes than pretend they never happened.
There have been lapses in politeness. I partly blame myself for not clarifying and enforcing the politeness policy. I'm working on improving that.
The 40,000 views are for the original (92 post) thread correcting the mis-identification of ballast barrels. This (200 post) split thread currently has 304 views.
But the basic issue there is that John's video contained a lot of images of equipment that is perfectly innocuous, and has a known purpose, and was presented as some kind of evidence backing the words of Tanner and Wigington.
Spraying stuff out of a plane is not rocket science. Nobody has every suggested it is in any way difficult to spray stuff out of a plane. The fact the we can spray stuff out of a plane is no more interesting that the fact that we can spray stuff out of a car window. It's not evidence of anything. There is NO evidence that the persistent trails are anything other than persistent contrails, and NO evidence of any kind of covert geoengineering program or any kind of covert spraying program.
The thread was split, as it was more about John and his video than it was about ballast barrels.
I'm not deleting the thread. John, if you want to take back things that you said, then just write a correction. It's better to correct your mistakes than pretend they never happened.
There have been lapses in politeness. I partly blame myself for not clarifying and enforcing the politeness policy. I'm working on improving that.
The 40,000 views are for the original (92 post) thread correcting the mis-identification of ballast barrels. This (200 post) split thread currently has 304 views.
But the basic issue there is that John's video contained a lot of images of equipment that is perfectly innocuous, and has a known purpose, and was presented as some kind of evidence backing the words of Tanner and Wigington.
Spraying stuff out of a plane is not rocket science. Nobody has every suggested it is in any way difficult to spray stuff out of a plane. The fact the we can spray stuff out of a plane is no more interesting that the fact that we can spray stuff out of a car window. It's not evidence of anything. There is NO evidence that the persistent trails are anything other than persistent contrails, and NO evidence of any kind of covert geoengineering program or any kind of covert spraying program.
Similar threads
