Dane Wigington - Inaccuracies and Omissions

Leifer

Senior Member
I found this article, in Dutch:
I couldn't find any official ruling for the case, only that same link that states the court ordered testing. The case kinda runs dry after that.....from what I could(n't) find.
Court ordered testing ? where are the results ?
Kinda off-topic here, but I'm curious.

I have another post on Felderhof's and Dane's recent post, mostly pointing out that Felderhof's "whistle-blowing" is not related to geoengineering, nor is it anything that Dane believes in either.
https://www.metabunk.org/will-chemtrail-believers-now-ride-the-aerotoxic-syndrome-bandwagon.t2100/#post-167216

Willem Felderof has a website...hard to find because he's calling himself "Juan Matus".
http://juanmatus.com/
(...but it's simply links to other articles, ....not even a "contact" or email link.)
"Don Juan Matus", is a reappearing character in several Castaneda books.
On Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/juan.matus47?fref=nf

JUAN.jpg
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
Dutch court transcript via google translate -

as I read it the judgement is that KLM are not required to pay wages when he refused to work, and KLM are required to commission an independent review of TCP levels in cockpits within 14 days, to be completed within 6 weeks after that, and to pay penalties of 1000 Euro per day they do not meet this requirement to a maximum of 50,000 Euro.

 

MikeC

Closed Account
A search for "KLM TCP Cockpit Study" finds a few Dutch articles from eth end of 2013 apparently showing very low levels of TCP - eg this one:

so it looks like that was the end of his crusade in this instance - the court ordered the tests, the tests were done, nothing was found.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Five days ago, Dane Wigington reprinted this excerpt from a recent article in ELUXE magazine:

Besides the fact that this incredibly wrong description of ordinary contrail formation was reprinted, I notice that even though Wigington included many internal links in his reprint, he deleted a link from the original ELUXE version to an accurate Wikipedia description of contrails

Here is the ELUXE version, note the link in the first paragraph:

http://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dangers-of-chemtrails/#comment-443946

So, yet another example of what appears to be a deliberate omission and an inaccuracy by Dane Wigington.

If he had just published the inaccuracy it might have only appeared to be negligence or a lack of due diligence, but the deliberate omission of only that particular link which he realizes would be contradictory and accurately informative points towards yet another deliberate deception.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That entirely backwards explanation sounds like the one given by Allan Buckman
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/08/chemtrail-whistleblower-allan-buckmann.html
It's quite bizarre. An utter rejection of all known science, and pretty much a rejection of common sense. Ice crystals and water drops are visible. Water vapor is an invisible gas.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
I couldn't find any official ruling for the case, only that same link that states the court ordered testing. The case kinda runs dry after that.....from what I could(n't) find.
Court ordered testing ? where are the results ?
Kinda off-topic here, but I'm curious.

I have another post on Felderhof's and Dane's recent post, mostly pointing out that Felderhof's "whistle-blowing" is not related to geoengineering, nor is it anything that Dane believes in either.
https://www.metabunk.org/will-chemtrail-believers-now-ride-the-aerotoxic-syndrome-bandwagon.t2100/#post-167216

Willem Felderof has a website...hard to find because he's calling himself "Juan Matus".
http://juanmatus.com/
(...but it's simply links to other articles, ....not even a "contact" or email link.)
"Don Juan Matus", is a reappearing character in several Castaneda books.
On Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/juan.matus47?fref=nf

View attachment 15568
Ive got a friend that's a judge in the Netherlands.. granted its family court, but he might know where to go to find the ruling or he may know the judge that presided over the case.. I'll get back to ya as soon as I find anything.
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
An utter rejection of all known science.
the problem is Mick you are dealing with people who have zero knowledge of science - and I speak with some authority because I am describing myself - but luckily I do have a skeptic mind

if someone puts forward an extra ordinary claim, I demand extra ordinary proof - I am sceptical, but cognisant of my intellectual limitations (which is an eternal frustration, I would love to be able to follow your maths on various threads, but I simply can't :-(, but luckily I do know bullsh1t when I see/read it )

to most people water vapour and steam are one and the same

most people would say that what they see coming out of the kettle is water vapour

so when people say - look at the Aluminium content in the soil - most people do not realise Aluminium is the 3rd most abundant metal in the Earths crust

when people say - "look the sun is responsible for the observed warming" - it seems obvious, unchallenging, absurdly un-sceptical

YOU see the nonsense Mick, but a lot of people don't

I think the temptation is to judge people by your (high) critical/knowledgeable standards



arrgh - skeptic or sceptic !!!!! - which is the correct spelling
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member
the problem is Mick you are dealing with people who have zero knowledge of science - and I speak with some authority because I am describing myself - but luckily I do have a skeptic mind

if someone puts forward an extra ordinary claim, I demand extra ordinary proof - I am sceptical, but cognisant of my intellectual limitations (which is an eternal frustration, I would love to be able to follow your maths on various threads, but I simply can't :-(, but luckily I do know bullsh1t when I see/read it )

to most people water vapour and steam are one and the same

most people would say that what they see coming out of the kettle is water vapour

so when people say - look at the Aluminium content in the soil - most people do not realise Aluminium is the 3rd most abundant metal in the Earths crust

when people say - "look the sun is responsible for the observed warming" - it seems obvious, unchallenging, absurdly un-sceptical

YOU see the nonsense Mick, but a lot of people don't

I think the temptation is to judge people by your (high) critical/knowledgeable standards



arrgh - skeptic or sceptic !!!!! - which is the correct spelling
But his experts do not have a zero knowledge of science, this is the issue that reinforces their belief. Mangels obviously has an understanding of science it is just he makes unsubstantiated claims.
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
sure, and that goes to the heart of this whole debacle

are the perpetrators of this anti science, anti knowledge agenda being wilfully mendacious and proselytising

after all converting the confused is easy
 
Last edited:

tadaaa

Senior Member
further to my point above David, we must be mindful of the fact that just because we see the absurdity of these beliefs

it is not a given that everybody else does

I am not saying I know the answer - I feel as frustrated as we all do, at the celebration of ignorance that seems to pervade the current climate
 

deirdre

Senior Member
Staff member
the problem is Mick you are dealing with people who have zero knowledge of science - and I speak with some authority because I am describing myself - but luckily I do have a skeptic mind
yea, but in this case he was trained by the Air Force as a weather observer. Wouldnt that mean he knows at least a little something about clouds? and probably (i would hope) that engines combust and combustion produces water? I mean its the Air Force, knowing about planes is kinda their niche. no?
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
But surely even someone who knows nothing about science would see that it is nonsense that "ice crystals are invisible and only become visible once they turn into a gas"? Maybe I am just being hopelessly over optimistic again...
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
But surely even someone who knows nothing about science would see that it is nonsense that "ice crystals are invisible and only become visible once they turn into a gas"? Maybe I am just being hopelessly over optimistic again...
I think, all along, people who believe Dane are mostly listening emotionally, not intellectually. They don't analyse what the words mean, they just go by the feeling being expressed.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think, all along, people who believe Dane are mostly listening emotionally, not intellectually. They don't analyse what the words mean, they just go by the feeling being expressed.
It's also a trust issue. Someone on Facebook told me that they don't understand the science behind "incredibly rare sun dogs", but they trust Patrick Roddie, and they don't trust me.

So to accept that I might be right seems like a betrayal of that trust, an insult to someone they respect.

It's a difficult thing to get past, which is why I try to keep things as neutral as possible in discussion, and try to show them neutral sources.
 

NoParty

Senior Member
To be fair, Mick: You're always typing stuff that forces me to think...Roddie is simply nicer to my inferior temporal gyrus.




Here's something Roddie wrote earlier this year:

"I collected rainwater in clean glass bowls on the roof of my San Francisco apartment building on April 5th, 2015, six thousand miles downwind from the nearest factory, power plant, refinery, freeway, quarry or mine."

It seems simple...straightforward, earnest...trustable. But I can't figure out the 6,000 miles part...
There's scarcely a spot in SF that is 6 miles from a freeway, never mind 6,000 (???)




p.s. I didn't see a Roddie thread...so I just put this here...
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member
T
Here's something Roddie wrote earlier this year:

"I collected rainwater in clean glass bowls on the roof of my San Francisco apartment building on April 5th, 2015, six thousand miles downwind from the nearest factory, power plant, refinery, freeway, quarry or mine."

It seems simple...straightforward, earnest...trustable. But I can't figure out the 6,000 miles part...
There's scarcely a spot in SF that is 6 miles from a freeway, never mind 6,000 (???)
The keyword here is DOWNWIND. If Roddie lives near the coast and believes that the wind in his place is ALWAYS westerly, then 6,000 miles downwind is… China!;)
 

NoParty

Senior Member
The keyword here is DOWNWIND. If Roddie lives near the coast and believes that the wind in his place is ALWAYS westerly, then 6,000 miles downwind is… China!;)
OMG! I...I...I'm speechless...


Okay, I should clarify: I lived in the Bay Area for years, and remember winds coming from all directions. Especially the so-called "Diablo winds" which come from the east
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_wind.

Today the wind is mostly from the northeast
Screen Shot 2015-10-24 at 1.01.26 PM.png

Here is the traditional wind pattern for January in SF.
Thus my reluctance to assume a constant westerly wind in SF.


Screen Shot 2015-10-24 at 12.59.33 PM.png

Now, to be fair, Roddie claims to have done his science experiment in April...
of course, we have no way of knowing whether he says that because it's true,
or if he knows that April is probably the month that the wind is most consistently westerly.


Screen Shot 2015-10-24 at 1.00.01 PM.png
At any rate, I'm still amused by the implication.

Sorry, back to the great Dane.
 
Last edited:

MikeG

Senior Member
It's completely widespread that anything having to do with Metabunk is not to be trusted. When you ask them to point out something wrong here, they usually just fall silent.
I ran across the "Metabunk is a site for disinformation agents" claim from a friend on Facebook. When I asked if she had ever visited Metabunk, that is exactly what I got: silence.

Hama Neggs' comment in #95 is spot on. Faith is what drives much of CT debate, particularly with respect to Wigington. Challenging faith is akin to challenging orthodoxy.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
I ran across the "Metabunk is a site for disinformation agents" claim from a friend on Facebook. When I asked if she had ever visited Metabunk, that is exactly what I got: silence.
Ask her again. I like to press that sort of issue and not let them just toss out that claim and ignore challenges to it. "What are you basing that opinion on?" is a good question to ask.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
It is my experience that they usually they don't fall silent - they start shouting "shill" and "you're not seriously using metafail as a source are you" various other "insults!!
 

MikeG

Senior Member
Ask her again. I like to press that sort of issue and not let them just toss out that claim and ignore challenges to it. "What are you basing that opinion on?" is a good question to ask.
That's fair.

In the past, I have actually spent a fair amount of time researching various claims, from chemtrails to Arctic methane, etc. The most recent is about Fukushima radiation. Then I ask her to engage the claims made by the various websites that provide this bunk.

Unfortunately, that is where the conversation breaks down. It seems that confirmation bias makes her threshold for credibility stay at about the "click bait" level of discourse. When I press, the goals posts move.

She is very good at the Gish Gallop, almost to the point where it sounds a lot like Dane Wigington.

I am not giving up. I am just beginning to realize just how long it might take.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
Staff member
I ran across the "Metabunk is a site for disinformation agents" claim from a friend on Facebook. When I asked if she had ever visited Metabunk, that is exactly what I got: silence.
well remember, if she is sharing bunk videos then giving a metabunk link can prevent the bunk from spreading. which is the most important thing. You could of course just gently mention that Metabunk is an open public forum..anyone can (and does) post here and if she disagrees with anyones post she can ask for more evidence (unlike other websites).

Women also like Snopes, so check snopes for debunks. Mixing up the debunk sources including NASA etc helps, if it is someone who just reshares alot of bunk.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member
I ran across the "Metabunk is a site for disinformation agents" claim from a friend on Facebook. When I asked if she had ever visited Metabunk, that is exactly what I got: silence.
A few times I've asked CT believers to come here and debate their 'evidence' or theories. None of them ever do.
 

M Bornong

Senior Member
It's completely widespread that anything having to do with Metabunk is not to be trusted. When you ask them to point out something wrong here, they usually just fall silent.
I rarely link directly to metabunk anymore, unless I know the person is actually looking for the real information. I use the information that I learn here, and the sources that are used behind the debunks here. It's not as easy for them to shut you down immediately and scream "SHILL"
 

NoParty

Senior Member
I rarely link directly to metabunk anymore, unless I know the person is actually looking for the real information. I use the information that I learn here, and the sources that are used behind the debunks here. It's not as easy for them to shut you down immediately and scream "SHILL"
You're a better man than I. :)

These days I will almost never invest any significant time in trying to bring someone around who has reached
the "I call everyone who doesn't agree with my CT a 'shill'" stage...it just seems like such a commitment,
with little chance of turning that ship around. Maybe I'm getting old, and mindful that I don't have enough
hours to waste addressing the truly vehement.
Have I mentioned, recently, the renumeration necessitated for a unit of unsliced bread, when I was in my tenth annum? :oops:
 

Lisa P

Active Member
A few times I've asked CT believers to come here and debate their 'evidence' or theories. None of them ever do.
From someone that was a chemtrail believer and loved a good argument that is waaay too scary an offer.

Once I found this place I did come here often to see what you all had to say and that helped a lot. I think one of the first things I read was the debate between Mick and Dane. I totally agreed with what Dane had to say but couldn't help but think how respectful and well mannered Mick was. I think it was a few months before I built up the courage to ask some questions but at that stage was starting to realise I was wrong. I was told by the chemtrail crowd not to associate with anyone from Metabunk and not to argue but I never listen if I am told what to do, reverse psychology works well with me!
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
That's fair.

In the past, I have actually spent a fair amount of time researching various claims, from chemtrails to Arctic methane, etc. The most recent is about Fukushima radiation. Then I ask her to engage the claims made by the various websites that provide this bunk.

Unfortunately, that is where the conversation breaks down. It seems that confirmation bias makes her threshold for credibility stay at about the "click bait" level of discourse. When I press, the goals posts move.

She is very good at the Gish Gallop, almost to the point where it sounds a lot like Dane Wigington.

I am not giving up. I am just beginning to realize just how long it might take.
The hardest thing is not to go for the Gish Gallop. It's soo tempting to respond to the new bunk they toss at you, because you know it's wrong too, But that never gets you anywhere. You HAVE to keep bringing the discussion back to the original point and keep them from changing the subject. As Mick has said, sometimes the best you can hope for is that they fall silent due to not knowing what else to say.
 

MikeG

Senior Member
well remember, if she is sharing bunk videos then giving a metabunk link can prevent the bunk from spreading. which is the most important thing. You could of course just gently mention that Metabunk is an open public forum..anyone can (and does) post here and if she disagrees with anyones post she can ask for more evidence (unlike other websites).

Women also like Snopes, so check snopes for debunks. Mixing up the debunk sources including NASA etc helps, if it is someone who just reshares alot of bunk.

I agree. Sometimes it is a matter of the messenger rather than the message. I will try recommending Snopes.


Alternatively, I also try to engage her over the original source of a claim.

Just this morning, she sent “Fluoride Officially Classified as a Neurotoxin in World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journal,” which cites the 2014 Lancet article as a source.

http://asheepnomore.net/2014/05/23/fluoride-officially-classified-neurotoxin-worlds-prestigious-medical-journal/

From what I have learned here on Metabunk and other reading, it is a typical “argument from authority” approach.


In response, I redirected her to the actual Lancet article.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/fulltext

I recognize, as the study does, that high concentrations of any chemical are, by definition, toxic.

Then, I asked her to look at the article’s references to fluoride, which as it turns out, come from a study focused on China.

I then pointed out that China does not fluoridate its water supply. I noted that the most likely sources are natural (some areas of the world do have higher concentrations of fluoride in the water) and industrial (soft coal burning is apparently one main source).


Hopefully, this approach shifts the discussion from false correlations over to actual causation.

That is part of my methodology right now at least.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Hopefully, this approach shifts the discussion from false correlations over to actual causation.

That is part of my methodology right now at least.
I think it's good to at least TRY to get them to begin to suspect the motives or veracity of those who's stories they have been accepting as fact. In other words, after you show them that something going around the net is wrong, get them to look at the people who are repeating it.
 

M Bornong

Senior Member
but interesting comment from Dane:

It is so sad these people give up so much to maintain that belief.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
I must say the comments on GEWatch are pretty discouraging...the same old myths and falsehoods that we have been attempting to correct for years:

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/government-implements-illegal-gag-order-on-national-weather-service-and-noaa/#comment-122055


but interesting comment from Dane:

In my experience with the Planet X hoax, people will put up with the "soon" prediction for YEARS, if you throw them an occasional tidbit to keep them interested.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member

NoParty

Senior Member
...interesting comment from Dane:

I kinda hoped so, for you (for quite a while), Dane. But you are one of the soundest sleepers I've ever encountered. :oops:
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
huh??!!:rolleyes:
A lot of what Dane touts originated with Russ Tanner, including, as Dane says, that "short bright trails" are also "chemtrails". Tanner has been talking about non persistent trails being "chemtrails" for quite a while now. See here:

http://globalskywatch.com/stories/my-chemtrail-story/story/02-Summary.html#.VjHYN9KrQ1I

And here: http://globalskywatch.com/stories/my-chemtrail-story/chemtrail-information/the-great-contrail-con.html#.VjHcqdKrQ1I
And here: http://globalskywatch.com/stories/my-chemtrail-story/chemtrail-information/plumes-change.html#.VjHhN9KrQ1J

 
Last edited:
Top