Debate Challenge from Madisonstar Moon to Mick West

Leifer

Senior Member
OK. I'm going to have to break the silence, and ask what is the progress ?
John Massaria claimed he was going to moderate a YouTube recorded discussion, between Dane Wingington, and Mick West.
No Madison involved at all.
Massaria says tonight on his FB page "Mick was a no-show".

I guess that means the schedules did not work-out.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It was my fault. I confused the date, and thought it was on Monday. So it now has been rescheduled for Tuesday.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It was entirely my fault. I just wasn't thinking about it, then my wife announced an impromptu dinner party, and my brain was wiped clean while I tidied up for that. And then I somehow had in the back of my mind that the talk was Monday.

And a potential talk with Madison was different from this talk, which was with Wignington, moderated by Massaria.

Anyway, rescheduled for Tuesday, assuming my brain fart does not get interpreted as some ploy.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
chemtrail effects no doubt...
Well, it was a Saturday night....I just assumed you may have been busy with family.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
...or at a micro (chip) brewery.



(ok, I'll stop....keep it serious)

So Tuesday....will be a recorded/replay, to be aired on Massaria's YouTube page after the talk ?
?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Did I hear correctly, Mick, that Massaria won't speak to you after some previous incident? Will you describe what happened?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Did I hear correctly, Mick, that Massaria won't speak to you after some previous incident? Will you describe what happened?
It was this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/chemtrails-video-with-ballast-barrels.1232/

He felt intimidated and harassed, so he left. I think his perception was baseless. Especially when he framed the use of "John Doe" in an analogy involving a murder victim as some kind of personal death threat (as his name is also John)

I think he's also convinced I'm some kind of paid shill.
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member
So it's not skype?
He promised not to edit it (audio-wise) (Massaria that is)

I hope he will give you fair-play...image-wise.

Some bias may be unavoidable.

It is what it is.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
It was this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/chemtrails-video-with-ballast-barrels.1232/

He felt intimidated and harassed, so he left. I think his perception was baseless. Especially when he framed the use of "John Doe" in an analogy involving a murder victim as some kind of personal death threat (as his name is also John)

I think he's also convinced I'm some kind of paid shill.
OK. I read that thread before. He's the guy who wouldn't admit to falsely implying that the photos of barrels and nozzles and such were related to chemtrails. I can't imagine him fairly moderating your discussion with Wigington. Are there any ground rules laid out at all?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
OK. I read that thread before. He's the guy who wouldn't admit to falsely implying that the photos of barrels and nozzles and such were related to chemtrails. I can't imagine him fairly moderating your discussion with Wigington. Are there any ground rules laid out at all?
Massaria says he will ensure equal time. That's it. That's fine by me.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I was the person that used the 'John Doe' analogy. I didn't think that someone would take it personally since that is the default name used in the US.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Equal time split four ways means you get 1/4 of the total time, Russ Tanner, Dane Wigington and Jim Lee get 3/4.
Word.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
So it's not just Dane, it's all 3 of them at once against Mick? If so, Mick will be lucky to speak for 30 seconds before being interrupted.

PS: I would decline if it suddenly became 3 against 1.
 
Last edited:

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
Wait! A 4-way debate! 1 against 3? Plus the "moderator".

I would decline as well, unless it was 1 on 1, sequentially in turn.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
Wait! A 4-way debate! 1 against 3? Plus the "moderator".

I would decline as well, unless it was 1 on 1, sequentially in turn.
Ross and jay should be included........in another future debate.

We should setup a proper debate ourelves......2 hour long (at least)....and have it in a publicly live forum/venue....maybe 3 participants from either side, total 6.

Maybe CalTech ??
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I just had the talk with Dane, went pretty well, very polite all round. Covered a lot of topics. I explained my issues with the UV measurements, and Dane is going to video the process of taking the measurements. He did not do it personally.

We actually covered a lot of the "classic" chemtrail topics as well, like the start/stop, and the KC-10 video of aerodynamic contrails, I was surprised that Dane was not familiar with the explanations for these things.

We argued over a few claims that Dane made, like global dimming (going down, not up), and if the ZCS tests killed thousands of people from radiation (nope).

The audio should be out in a day or two. We agreed it should only be presented unedited.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
I am confused Mick. No swearing? No Insults? No Gish Gallops? No mindlessness?

What sort of debate was that? ;)
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Mick, and anyone else. I'd suggest that if anyone is involved with a debate, prepare your key points and create a thread specifically for the debate with supporting links for your points. That way, the audience can be easily referred to the documentation. Hold the information ready for use until shortly before the debate and just prior to your presentation post it here. During the debate, refer the audience to google "metabunk contrails and chemtrails" and they will easily find your references. As we have focused attention on practically every part of their claims, mostly you just need to identify links to existing threads.

It doesn't surprise me at all that Dane isn't familiar with the information which contradicts his claims. True belief doesn't countenance contradiction and avoids it to maintain internal stability. That is the reason why they generally avoid debate, direct their followers to avoid outside information and actively work to become the exclusive conduit through which they can filter out anything which is contradictory.

I have always tried to fully inform these people through email of their weaknesses and document that fact. I have the emails to/from Wigington, Mangels, Murphy, Saive and Griffin which show what they have been told, and even some of their private (non)responses. That way they cannot cry ignorance and you can show both their personal disregard for the facts and document how they have actively suppressed what they should have told their followers. They cannot plead ignorance if they have been told, and by documenting their actions after receiving the information some people will begin to see that there is an essential element of dishonesty in denying that to others. Most people don't like being told things which contradict their beliefs, but they usually dislike being told less than the whole truth even more when they can see a deliberate deception. It is a major weakness with this hoax if properly presented.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I did prepare several points in advance, however the conversation evolved in such a way that it would have been impossible to just stick to some script. I'm going to do a fact-check post on the various points raised. I was surprised by some of the things that Dane was still claiming - like he was not aware of aerodynamic contrails, and so thought the infamous KC-10 video was genuine spraying.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
I was surprised by some of the things that Dane was still claiming - like he was not aware of aerodynamic contrails, and so thought the infamous KC-10 video was genuine spraying.
Oh, my. And none of his friends told him? No wonder he is having trouble understanding, since he doesn't understand the subject matter.

His BFF Rosalind Peterson has full information on her site, which also debunks his claim that original contrail minimum formation temp is -70F.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...xoDACg&usg=AFQjCNFxe8xeYi0Hj9gppgbtQMOFsDMiTg
NACA 1942.jpg
1942 NACA Contrails.jpg
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
We argued over a few claims that Dane made, like global dimming (going down, not up).
Dane has no excuse for not knowing that global dimming ended many years ago. I sent him the information and invited him to debate that issue over a year ago.
Here is the email I sent him:
Debunked- Dane Wigington's 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering
Jay Reynolds <thechief762@gmail.com>
6/17/12


to danew, Francis, whtagft


Dane,
I enjoyed debunking your recent article. Please join with me to debate the issue here:
Debunked- Dane Wigington's 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/615-Debunked-Dane-Wigington-s-10-quot-bullet-quot-points-regarding-geoengineering?p=10389&posted=1#post10389
Here was his response, no discussion of the issues. He knows it all.

Dane Wigington < danew@frontier.com >
To: Jay Reynolds < thechief762@gmail.com >
Sent: Sun, June 17, 2012 10:01:06 AM
Subject: Re: Debunked- Dane Wigington's 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering

LOL , your a real piece of work Jay, and not worth a moment of my time. People are waking up fast and all the BS you can sling won't stop that from happening. I enjoy the fact that you are sucking in the same poisoned air I am.
Happy breathing.
Here is what he was told:

Jay Reynolds said:
Dane- 5.SRM are causing "global dimming" on a scale that can hardly be comprehended. Current figures are averaging in the 20% range globally, but in some areas, like Russia, the total amount of sun that now reaches the ground is some 30% less than only a few decades previous. This reduction of sunlight further amplifies the currently occurring global droughts. Sunlight is a major component of evaporation.

Jay- Dane Wigington has claimed that he is a "Climate Researcher", yet he appears unaware that long term measurements by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, previous 'global dimming' has been replaced by 'global brightening':
ETH (Zurich) said:
The results showed that on average the surface solar radiation decreased by two percent per decade between the 1950s and 1990.

In analyzing more recently compiled data, however, Wild and his team discovered that solar radiation has gradually been increasing again since 1985. In a paper published in “Science” in 2005, they coined the phrase “global brightening” to describe this new trend and to oppose to the term “global dimming” used since 2001 for the previously established decrease in solar radiation.
Dane- 7. The SAG and SRM particles are "light scattering" materials. This alters the light spectrum and will likely cause many, and as of yet unknown, negative effects on all life forms. Blocking out the sun alone is of extreme concern regarding photosynthesis, but when one considers the fact that the light which does get through the toxic particulates is in altered form, the concern is much greater still.
mauna loa2.jpg
Jay- Again, referring to the data, Aerosol Optical Thickness data since the 1960's shows no diminishment or scattering.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...ints-regarding-geoengineering.615/#post-10381
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm working on a more comprehensive review of global dimming and brightening. It's an interesting topic, lots of local variation. But the key thing is that in North America, there has been consistent brightening.

Dane often quotes a figure of 22%. Turns out that's a figure for one location in Israel, between 1950 and 1990. So nothing at all to do with his solar panel degradation.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
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
Graham2001 Socrates - “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." Quotes Debunked 5
wonderland78 Help with a debate about curvature and distance calculations Flat Earth 30
Mick West Debunked: FBI Data Reveal 7,700 Terrorist Encounters in US General Discussion 6
Van Wigington Debate Mentioned in this radio segment, Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, January 30, 2016 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Pete Tar Fullerton/Novella 9-11 debate Practical Debunking 0
Mick West Jim Babb & Kristen Meghan - Chemtrails Debate at Porcfest Contrails and Chemtrails 55
FreiZeitGeist Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Wigington/West Geoengineering Debate West/Wigington Geoengineering Debate 233
Charlie Primero C-SPAN Conspiracy Debate - Webster Tarpley vs. Jonathan Kay General Discussion 1
tryblinking Reasoned, open, factual debate about 'chemtrails'...? Is it possible? Contrails and Chemtrails 152
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
Critical Thinker Role reversal challenge: Disprove we are not "in the Matrix" Practical Debunking 41
Hama Neggs Challenge from Dane Wigington General Discussion 71
I Chemtrail Challenge! Prize offered! Contrails and Chemtrails 7
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
TWCobra Madisonstar Moon posts 59 year old photo of B47's contrailing. Contrails and Chemtrails 0
TWCobra Very good question asked by Madison Star Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 27
Hama Neggs Mike Glynn debates Peter Kusznir with Madisonstar Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Related Articles


























Related Articles

Top