Yeah, I'm following up with Massaria, who said there's a "problem" with the recording.
about an hour ago
I spoke to our chemtrails whistleblower "7" and everything is set 7 sent me MANY links and documents to back everything they have told me. I knew MetaPUNK would send in their goons as soon as I posted about said whistleblower. I had a message today from Mick West and he actually believes he can scare me into thinking 7 is a fraud,,,, Mick West writes:
"Madison, I saw your post on the "Whistleblower" (7). I feel very strongly that this is a hoax similar to the Max Bliss thing. I imagine you will go ahead with this anyway, but I want to go on the record as saying A) I think it's a hoax and It's nothing at all to do with me, or (AFAIK) anyone who posts on Metabunk. Please exercise caution, and get the person to provide some corroboration of their claims. Please don't trust them because you like what they say." ATTENTION MetaPUNK (from Madison): It's going down whether you guys want it to or not. You can't stop us and you also can't trick me into questioning my sources. CHEERS
What is so bad about questioning sources?
It doesn't necessarily mean discarding them. It merely means checking their veracity and trustworthyness. Only if you are afraid of questioning your own beliefs can you be afraid of that.
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.
Not only that, but she has since been cheering peekay on about it:The fact that Peekay came out later and said he had no intention of debating, but had only intended to attack, speaks volumes. Madison stood by, having asked for politeness, and never said a word about his opening statement being so utterly impolite.
Yeah, I'm following up with Massaria, who said there's a "problem" with the recording.
Let me suggest, ehm, Linux.
Yeah, I don't think that's the problem. This delay on releasing it makes it look like he never wanted to release it in the first place, and so made the story about the virus. That's the perception his actions give. I'd be happy to be proven wrong by him just releasing the audio.
I don't want to post it yet, as I'd prefer Massaria to release it."I want to let you know tonight's debate is being recorded, and shall not be modified in any way. It'll be for public domain, copyrighted but shall not be modified at all."
No, he asked me not to record it, but I was concerned that something like this might happen, so I made a backup copy, intending to delete it as soon as he released his copy. And yes, it would be the exact same thing as his copy that he claimed he was going to release into the public domain.
It's not as if people were unaware they were being recorded. At the start Massaria says
I don't want to post it yet, as I'd prefer Massaria to release it."I want to let you know tonight's debate is being recorded, and shall not be modified in any way. It'll be for public domain, copyrighted but shall not be modified at all."
I think you should release it as actual audio. Then nobody can claim you altered anything when transcribing.
J: = John Massaria
D: = Dane Wigington
M: = Mick West
GE used for Geoengineering in places. Fillers ("um", "er", etc) have been removed.
J: Okay, so ah, thank you everybody for joining us. Thank you Dane Wigington and Mick West for joining us for this long overdue debate, I want to let you I want to let you know tonight's debate is being recorded, and shall not be modified in any way. It'll be for public domain, copyrighted but shall not be modified at all. Okay, ah, is everybody in agreement with that?
D: I'm in full agreement John
J: okay that's Dane, and Mick?
M: yes, sure
J: Okay I want to give a special thanks to Madison Star Moon for putting this all together and with that we will start out conversation
Okay for my first question we will try to keep the answers under 2 minutes, obviously you can go over a bit, I'm hoping each of you will get approx equal time, you kown 30 approx with 10 min worth of questions. Is that okay
M: sounds good
J: Mick, can you tell me about yourself, and why you feel compelled to do what you do
M: Right, so my background is I'm a computer programmer, I'm from England, you can probably tell by my accent, and I came to America about 20 years ago, and I started a software company that did fairly well, and about 10 years ago I kind of went into semi-retirement so I have a lot of spare time now and I just kind of do a bit of consulting work, and, one of the things I do with my spare time is debunking, which has always been a hobby of mine. I've always found it really interesting the science behind the claims, things like chemtrails, various other things like that, 9/11 debunking, things like that.
I'm primarily interested in the science behind it, and trying to figure out, you know, why people think the way they do about certain things, and how you can convince them of what actually the real science is behind things - if it is actually incorrect, there are obviously conspiracies that are true, so I don't just go round debunking conspiracy theories. What I like to do is focus on individual claims of evidence within those theories, like the chemtrail thing for example, I focus on "can contrails persist or not", which is a big misconception people have.
So basically, you know, it's kind of been an interest of mine. It started out more of a hobby, but now it's taking up more and more of my free time. And I have my two web sites, which you know, and the contrail one came first, then I did the forum which now I spend a lot of time on just kind of discussing various topics. Okay, that's basically it.
[Discussion of phone audio going in and out]
J: So you're into this for basically: correcting people when they are wrong, I guess? Is that right?
M: Yes.... I would say that, but it's not specifically that, it's, you know there's a greater issue here which I think is that things that are incorrect, that people believe in, are distracting from real issues, like there's lots of really bad things going on the world and in our country, everywhere, that are not getting the attention they deserve from some people because these people are focussing on conspiracy theories that are wrong things like the chemtrail conspiracy theory[J: Okay] So I think that [J: Understood] there's more to it than simply correcting people
M: Okay. Dane, can you tell me why you feel like what you're doing, ah, is, well first of all tell me about yourself, and tell me why you feel compelled to do what you do.
D: I'll make this very brief. But, with a background in renewable energy, former Bechtel power employee, home was on the cover of the world's largest renewable energy magazine, moved to the pacific NW, to try to find clean air. When intermittent gid patterns were appearing in the skies above my home on various day, blocking 60, 70, 80% of my solar power uptake, clearly something was going on. I dove in research, quickly came on the subject of geoengineering, which is a term we use because that is, Mick likes, Mick mentioned the science and we like to use the scientific term on that, which is GE so uh, so, Solar Radiation Management, Stratospheric Aerosol geoengineering. Began to do testing, at the state certified lab, came up with the exact same primary ingredients listed in numerous GE patents, Aluminum, Barium, Strontium, Manganese, and, quite simply after examining and researching the gravity of having these material fall down from the sky, the effect on the soils, waters, breathable air column. and the damage to the atmosphere that's known to be caused from dispersement of particulates in the atmosphere, I felt the gravity was so immense that there was simply no greater, or not a more logical priority than to focus on this issue because the ramifications were so dire. So this is why I've spent the last decade plus in research on this issue and trying to educate the public on the science behind geoengineering which is the term that leads to science
Lyrics to a pop song?
J: Okay. Mick, do you do this for any sort of compensation or money?
M: No,not at all, like I said I semi-retired about ten years ago, I did fairly well in the video game industry, so I don't really need to have an income. I'm not like super rich, but I don't need to, you know, pull in money. You'll notice there's no adverts on my website or anything like that. And noone is paying me to do it
J: Okay, Dane, Same question, are you doing this for money
D: Not only is it not for profit, it has only been at my own expense, something in the realm of 40 to 50K in the last 10 years, so absolutely not for profit, only at great personal expense economic expense.
J: Okay, that leads me into th next question, Mick, don't take this personally, but sometimes people think at little bit differently when they have children. And I'd like to know, do you have children.
M: I don't have children, no, but I know a lot of people who do, and I have children in my family, not personally. So, I am very concerned about the future of this planet and that is certainly that is in my thoughts all the time. I'm not just doing this without consideration for the next generation. I very much care about them.
J: And Dane, [Dane: Yes], do you have any children of your own?
D: Two, seven year old - eight year old son, fourteen year old daughter
J: So obviously both of you, I mean, maybe one more than the other has a little bit of a different feeling about how they go about their lives every day. I know I have two children and I think continually about my two children and what the future is going to hold, and that's why I do what I do. It seems like both of you feel ... similarly, but again having children you see you life going beyond that.
And er, anyway why do you think ... let's see, sorry, many listeners want to know what your thoughts are on God. Okay, so Mick, I'm going to ask you that, faith in an almighty creator or keeping religion out of the equations and just asking you if you believe in God or a supreme creator?
M: No I don't, I'm an atheist, I don't see any evidence for there being a god. But I don't think that has any bearing upon the matter at hand, which is really pure science.
J: That's up to our listeners to listen for ...
M: Oh yeah I know people have different opinions on that but...
J: I understand and I respect your agnostic kind of view [Mick: Atheist] atheist view. Dane, how about you
D: I do, in a non=denominational undefined sense John, the forest is my cathedral if you will. I don't believe we are alone, but again I respect Mick's views on his position as well, I do respect that.
M: Thank you
J: Alright, let's get into the debate on geoengineering, Mick I understand you have an under...stand that geoengineering is global, you know, weather modification, am I right in saying that?
M: Ah, I don't know what the question is.
J: Geoengineering as a term, meaning man made wh....
M: Ah right, er, no. Well, geoengineering will be more climate modification. Weather modification generally applies to more local things, such as cloud seeding. Cloud seeding is the primary form of weather modification. Geoengineering would be something like spraying stuff into the upper atmosphere to block out the sun, or painting roofs white all round the world to reflect the sun, and there are various other proposals. But they are all just proposals at this point at this moment.
Weather modification is obviously real, that's been going on for 50 years but geoengineering is still that the proposal stage, right now.
J: Okay, Dane, how would you respond
D: If we can go back and forth, I would like to ask, and Mick you can ask me questions as well [Mick: Okay], on what do you base the statement that you know they are all just proposals.
M: right, well I don't know. But I don't see any evidence otherwise. I've talked to lots of geoengineers like David Keith and Ken Caldeira and they've given me no idication that there's anything ongoing and if you look at the evidence from the, say the Manu Loa (I think that's how you pronounce it) observatory, there's been no real change in the solar irradience. And there's really basically, I mean I know that you think, you claim to have have various pieces of evidence, from my perspective though I don't see any evidence that geoengineering is ongoing, and we can get into the actual claims of evidence later.
D: What would you consider a global dimming figure that's not disputed in the scientific community of 22%? What do you think is causing 22% of the sun's direct rays to not reach the surface of the planet?
M: Well, that's an intersting point because global dimming has actually decreased since the early 90's, there's been, you know, there's been lots or articles about global dimming, but if you look at the actual figures, there hasn't been a dimming effect since Mt Pinatubo and if you
D: I would implore people to investigate that because I think you'll find data quite to the contrary, so we can leave that there but I would implore...
M: All I, I would also encourage people to look that up because I know you bring it up quite often and I'm quite bemused as to why you do because really it's, the science says there hasn't been any global dimming for the last 20 years.
D: Actually there's program from, a study from almost every major institution that says there is, now you said that you haven't seen the evidence to the contrary, ... heard that these program are not going. Are you familiar Mick with anything in the way of government documents that might outline anything that might far exceed any quote local weather modification programs, are you aware of any such government document that might indicate actual verifiable existing programs.
M: Not that's an existing program no, I know obviously people talk about geoengineering ...
D: Historically, that this has gone on, anything historically that...
M: That it's gone on?
D: ... that the US government is involved with weather modification, is there anything that you've seen historically...
M: well, I know that there is
D: ... the US government has engaged in weather modification program on a national level?
M: The US governemnt is involved in monitoring weather modification levels, particularly recording what weather modification happens and where, so in that sense I guess you could say that they have. But the US government itself doesn't actually do very much in terms of weather modification, it's mostly local governments, local water boards who actually do it because it's all about increasing rainfall. There's lots and lots of government documents because it's water, which is a very important resource, so there's lots of documentation about it. but there's not large scale federal government...
D: So you not aware of anything historically though that the US government has been involved in national weather modification programs?
M: I'm not aware of it, no.
D: Okay, I'd like to refer people to a document we found in the NASA archived from 1966, a document from the interdepartmental committee for atmospheric scientists, scientists, a presidential document, are you aware of any agencies that would be involved in this, I'd like to go over that real quick if I may John, [J: Sure] on this document [13:10]
This is interesting. Once you get into the flow of the "reading" format....it works quite well.
Because when reading, it eliminates verbal inflections and attitude. This may be a benefit, or a detriment....at certain points in the discussion.
D: Okay, I'd like to refer people to a document we found in the NASA archived from 1966, a document from the interdepartmental committee for atmospheric scientists, scientists, a presidential document, are you aware of any agencies that would be involved in this, I'd like to go over that real quick if I may John, [J: Sure] on this document which people can look up on our web site and elsewhere. US weather modification document from 1966 80 pages long, existing program [...] called and termed "national weather modification programs", which amounts to, this is what geoengineering is, this is what the term implies and these are what the programs that existed as of 1966.
We had dept of defense, dept of defense, dept of commerce, dept of health and education, dept of interior, dept of state, federal aviation agency, council of economic advisiors, atomic energy commission, National Science Foundation, NASA, Dept of Agriculture, Bureau of Budgets, Universities involved, University of California, LA, Institute for advanced studies,MIT, University of Wisconcin, UC California Livermore, Colorado State University, State University of Minnesota, Woods Hole (sp) Oceanographic Institute.
Now these are programs that existed. This is not monitoring. These programs actually existed. So, you know, perhaps that a document you might want to take a look at Mick, Because [crosstalk]
M: I just had a quick look at it, and all it is is basically a list of Silver Iodide cloud seeding programs.
D: It's actually [laughs] much, much more than that, and I would encourage anyone to look, examine that document. I don't want to get caught on one point but, John, whatever you next question is for Mick or me, I'm ready to go for that.
J: Yeah, Mick, some of the things that you and I actually talked about on your web site, and one of the reasons why I left was, I couldn't really talk too much to you about documentation. There's tons of documentation about geoengineering. Now whether or not you use that terminology, it is modifying the weather, for some other reason. And I'm not sure that you understand that that term could be used in a broad sense, just the word chemtrails. A lot of people hate that word it's kind of a taboo term [Mick: uh huh], what's your term, I mean I can't even use "chemtrails" on my autocorrect and try to add it to my dictionary, yet that word was used, I count more than four times in official documentation. The bill HR2977, I beleive it was. It was used in the united states Air Force docuemnt in 1991, and it was also just recently used by a NASA scientist this year, I think it was last month, with the rocket launching in, I don't rmember the name right now [M: Wallops] I actually had this but, he actually used it as a term because he uses, he basically says they use chemtrails for certain things.
M: Yeah, well he was .... rocket,... chemical trail from a rocket ...
J: I understand, I know what he was using it about, but he also used the word. So my question to you is, Mick, how is it that a government congress, and don't say that the guy was a UFO guy or whatever. It's a document that was printed and given to the United States Congress, I know it didn't get approved, how can you say that it isn't a real term.
M: Well, it is a real term. It's a term of a theoretical, device I guess, In the context of that particular document they were using it as a "space based weapon", because it was a list of space based weapons, so it's not entirely clear what they acually meant by that because obviosuly the things...
J: But he still used the term!
M: oh yeah, he used the term. But you know who actually wrote that?
[Some cross talk from Mick]
J: I do know who wrote it, and it's not important. What's important is that it was used in an official document and also it was used in the United States Air Force Paper, You want to tell me why people refuse, why is that term so taboo?
M: Because it refers to a theory that most people think is groundless...
J: It's not a theory!
D: Let's let Mick go John. I want to, I mean if we're talking about that term I honestly...
M: Yeah, I think it's actually kind of besides the point what the term ....
D: .. [inaudible] term as well
J: I just don't understand how that term, is a legitimate term that was used by, not me, buyt the United States Air Force, by a NASA weather man.
M: The air force things was the title of a chemtistry manual. And the NASA man was talking about chemtrails spray from a rocket ...
J: It's refered to in the manual, as adding fuel additives to the jet fuel, so I'm not sure, you know there's lots of terms here that are going around, and you know, Dane was trying to bring up geoengineering, there's tons of papers and documents and patents that refer to geoengineering.
M: Well, let's talk about geoengineering them,
D: Let's let Mick get onto a specific, perhaps John we can go ahead just, the ability to defend whether it's going on and if Mick want's to present his position on why he think's it's not going on, I can perhaps can present data to the contrary
J: Okay. Sure. Let's go there.
M: Well, maybe we should start the UV issue? If that's alright Dane?
D: Go right ahead
M: I was looking at the figures you've posted on your web site. Now, I don't know if you look at at the email I sent you the other day? But basically it looks like you are using the figure UV A/B [A slash B] to mean A+B [A plus B]?
D: [pause] UV is measured, Mick, in milliwatts per centimeter squared on the meters [Mick: Aha], they measure it in the same manner, and we have two meters to measure the delineation between A and B, and I don't know exactly what kind of equation you're trying to build, bcause it's very straightforward, the A is measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared, UVB is measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared, and UVB is about 70% of the total UV. ...
M: ... let me explain ...
D ... you have to explin the math, and you can't get it and clearer than that. So.. I don't know where you are going with this:
M: I'll explain. You have, basically there's two columns, well three columns, there's UVA, there's UV A/B, and there's UVC in that table that you have on your web site, would you agree with that?
D: [pause] Make your equation Mick, because ... we measure UVA and we measure UVB, and these measurements are extremely straightforward,a nd I don't know exactly where you are going with it.
M: Okay, let me try to explain. On the table you didn't list UVB. On the table. You have a column labeled UV A/B, which, in normal UV measurements is the UVA divided by UVB, and it seems from your calculations and percentages you've used that as being the sum of UVA plus UVB and then you've calculated UVB by subtracting UVA from that. Which means that you are getting a vastly higher results, and if you actually take that as a ratio rather than a sum
D: How do you determine if UVA, and the combination of UVA and UVB is the same measurement milliwatts per centimeter squared, I don't understand you attempt to explain why we can't subtract UVA fro the total equation, you know this is done by a 40 year enviromental monitoring veteran, it's very straightforward, it's very simple. And by what premise do you say we can't take a known measurement for UVA and and deduct it from a combination of UVA and B?
M: Because the column you list, UV A slash B, the slash means divide, it does not mean add.
D: Do you have a problem with the particular symbol, it might, you're interpreting some other way, I don't know, but the bottom line is we have a calculate..., we have a measurement for the combination of UVA .... you know we are getting caught in semantics here Mick. UVA, UVB, we have a total combine measurement, and we have the ability with a very specialized meter to measure UVA only and that is the deduction of that leaves a remaining of UVB and some of that even spans to UVC, which we are now getting on the ground as well, which is supposed to be stopped 100,000 feet up, so make your point, because I want to get on to the fact the geoengineering is going on, but this is very straightforward math Mick. It's two plus two equals four equation.
M: Okay, well I'm just thinking that maybe you do have the ratio instead of the sum. But if in fact that is correct, what I would like to ask you is: why don't you do something...
[phone breaking up]
M: Okay, assuming you're correct, and that column is in fact A+B and not A divided by B, then the numbers that you are show are really really incredible. They are incredibly large. You are showing UVB at a rate which is higher than UVA when UVB should actually be about 5% of UVA.
D: suggest as low.... some studies suggest as low as 1% but a maximum of 5% is generally accepted...
M: Yeah, I've around 5%, a bit over isn't..., anyway let's say around five. But, that's an incredible thing. That right there I think that would be proof that something is going on, and I think that if those numbers are correct, I think what you should do is demonstrate that clearly to the world. I think what you've done now you've just put this table up, and it's a bit confusing and it's not clear. So, why don't you do something that would make it completely clear, like, take your meters out. Go out into the sun with a video camera, and then video yourself taking the readings and show the readings close up, show the units.
D: You know, that a great suggestion! I appreciate that suggestion, we'll do that, not just here, because we're already arranging meters for Norway, Maine, New Mexico, and Florida. So we'll do that in each location. And you know one that that makes it quite clear that the numbers are that bad Mick, and again, your suggestion is a good one and we will follow that up. The bark in the packific NOrht West is literally being fired off the trees. Completely fired off to the core wood. Trees are dying everywhere up here. It takes a tremendous amount of UV to do that. Nothing grows here, which is a known consequence of excessive UV. I mean the UV seems so staggeringly high that leaves are literally falling the trees right now. The started falling off in July. So, we see every single sign of excessive UV. Massive insect decline, we just a US forest service biologist, re-survey the terrestrial insects - 90% decline. Bark being burned off the trees. So we believe those numbers. We are actually trying to use conservative math, because f you take the UVA and if you calculate 5% of the UVA measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared, you would come out with 3.5, and if you divide that into the ten, which is UVB you'd get a number that's close to 3000%
M: Yes, they are very high numbers. I think they are really actually might be physically impossible to get, because it's not just ozone that absorbs UV B and C, it's the oxygen in the air, and ...
J: Mick, what's your understanding of what's going on, with the UVB readings, what,
D: While Mick's on that though, he does have a point, he is correct, Mick is correct in saying that oxygen is part of what blocks UV and UVB. But Mick are you aware that global oxygen percentages are dropping dramatically, are you aware of that?
M: No, I ... that's rather unlikely, what do you mean by dramatically? About 25% normally ... or 20%.
D: I encourage people to look that up. The atmospheric oxygen content is in fact plummeting rapidly, and some consider it to be the greatest threat we face. So..
M: I doubt that's been more that 1% though, and that's not going to make any difference to the UV absorption rate.
J: Again, just answer this question, [inaudible] everybody, can you just tell us, what are the implications of what Dane's saying? And what problems do you have with it? I want everyone to have an equal time here.
M: Okay, the implications to what Dane is saying is: that there's something seriously messed up with the atmosphere, and I think that he has his figures wrong, because I do not think that it's physically possible to get that type of ratio between UVA and UVB, and I think the most likely thing is just.
J: Hold on a second, Dane, are you taking the measurements yourself?
D: No, there's a 40 year environmental monitoring veteran, he's done 20 years for the government, he's about as qualified as they come in this field, and we actually ordered a second meter to confirm the calibration of the first. The meter is guaranteed to be within 4%, plus or minus, both meters are, they are both brand new. They were donated by an anonymous supporter and again Mick has a great suggestion, we will certainly do that back up those readings. We'll put it on video. I think it's a great idea, and we will definitely do that, and we'll do that not just in this location, but in Florida, and Maine and New Mexico, and Norway, we'll do it in all locations, no problem.
And again, one thing people should look up also, Mick, I know you know this, that particulates in the atmosphere, I'm not painting you into a corner, you know, to admit on Geoengineering [27:09]
Although fossil fuel combustion is unlikely to directly remove enough oxygen from the atmosphere to be of concern, it has the potential to cause a more significant drop in oxygen levels indirectly, through the emission of CO2. As explained in The Ocean as Carbon Sink: A Double Edged Sword, increased CO2 emissions are leading to ocean warming and acidification that endanger phytoplankton. So far, researchers have observed a decline in phytoplankton population of 40% since 1950. Since phytoplankton are responsible for the producing half of the oxygen in the atmosphere, it is reasonable to wonder how further declines in their population could affect the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere in the future.
They just doesn´t read a title, a disclimer or something simularD: Okay, I'd like to refer people to a document we found in the NASA archived from 1966, a document from the interdepartmental committee for atmospheric scientists, scientists, a presidential document, are you aware of any agencies that would be involved in this, I'd like to go over that real quick if I may John, [J: Sure] on this document which people can look up on our web site and elsewhere. US weather modification document from 1966 80 pages long, existing program [...] called and termed "national weather modification programs", which amounts to, this is what geoengineering is, this is what the term implies and these are what the programs that existed as of 1966.
I don't think it's quite a fair discussion. They seem to be driving it and are familiar with the details of whatever paper or sub topic they bring up.
I also am amused with the theory that if a word exists (chemtrails) then that mean geoengineering is taking place in the form of thousands of planes spraying [something or other] every day.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|C||CAJeffO's chemtrail debate challenge||Contrails and Chemtrails||45|
|Debate challenge for John Hammell of IAHF||Contrails and Chemtrails||4|
|Chemtrail debate challenge.||Contrails and Chemtrails||5|
|Socrates - “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."||Quotes Debunked||5|
|Help with a debate about curvature and distance calculations||Flat Earth||30|
|Debunked: FBI Data Reveal 7,700 Terrorist Encounters in US||General Discussion||6|
|Debate Mentioned in this radio segment, Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, January 30, 2016||Contrails and Chemtrails||16|
|Fullerton/Novella 9-11 debate||Practical Debunking||0|
|Jim Babb & Kristen Meghan - Chemtrails Debate at Porcfest||Contrails and Chemtrails||55|
|Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied"||Contrails and Chemtrails||3|
|Wigington/West Geoengineering Debate||West/Wigington Geoengineering Debate||233|
|C-SPAN Conspiracy Debate - Webster Tarpley vs. Jonathan Kay||General Discussion||1|
|Reasoned, open, factual debate about 'chemtrails'...? Is it possible?||Contrails and Chemtrails||152|
|T||Claim: Jim Hoffman's "9/11 progressive collapse challenge" can't be met||9/11||353|
|Explained: Space Shuttle Footage Reflection of Face [Shot Through Window]||Conspiracy Theories||5|
|Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge?||9/11||25|
|The Challenge with Peer Review||General Discussion||4|
|Skyderalert Whistleblower challenge||Contrails and Chemtrails||54|
|A challenge to you to discuss this openly||Contrails and Chemtrails||62|
|Role reversal challenge: Disprove we are not "in the Matrix"||Practical Debunking||43|
|Challenge from Dane Wigington||General Discussion||71|
|I||Chemtrail Challenge! Prize offered!||Contrails and Chemtrails||7|
|A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science||Contrails and Chemtrails||8|
|New Blog: The Chemtrails Challenge||Contrails and Chemtrails||3|
|Madisonstar Moon posts 59 year old photo of B47's contrailing.||Contrails and Chemtrails||0|
|Very good question asked by Madison Star Moon||Contrails and Chemtrails||27|
|Mike Glynn debates Peter Kusznir with Madisonstar Moon||Contrails and Chemtrails||22|