Debate Challenge from Madisonstar Moon to Mick West

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Dane keeps saying things like, I encourage people to look it up knowing full well the people that believe him will just go look at his website or anything else that confirms their bias. I seriously suspect some of these promoters know full well they are touting lies so they can make a profit.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Dane keeps saying things like, I encourage people to look it up knowing full well the people that believe him will just go look at his website or anything else that confirms their bias. I seriously suspect some of these promoters know full well they are touting lies so they can make a profit.

This is why I enquire why they never present anything in the form of a paper. In that form anyone would be able to pick it up and through references understand how they reach their conclusions. Instead we have to guess.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
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.
It is immediately apparent they have no facility whatsoever with their espoused topic, whatever it is. Nor have they with someone entering their discussion. Scientists normally, if they are about to enter a debate, compare terms and information material, to be sure that everyone is "on the same page", talking in the same units and terms. Otherwise there may well be confusion. There seems to be no eagerness here to do this.
They are so clueless that Mick's video suggestion surprises them. It is a very obvious suggestion, for any scientist or engineer, requiring no "deep thought". That simple maths left them apparently wishing to change the subject. They are on a semantic trail, of the sort blind people would be on were they to discuss color.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Dane keeps saying things like, I encourage people to look it up knowing full well the people that believe him will just go look at his website or anything else that confirms their bias. I seriously suspect some of these promoters know full well they are touting lies so they can make a profit.

I don't think Dane is making any money, I think it's as he says - he's spending his own money on this.

BUt on the first point - yes, "look it up" has a bit of a different meaning when the claim is bunk. Dane seemed to be suggesting that the oxygen levels in the atmosphere had dropped so much that they were no-longer blocking UVB. I knew that was a wild claim, as any significant change on oxygen would be massive news. If you look it up though the first result I found was:
http://disinfo.com/2013/01/atmosphe...er-than-atmospheric-carbon-levels-are-rising/

Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Are Dropping Faster Than Atmospheric Carbon Levels Are Rising
by Good German on January 27, 2013 in News
Forget rising temperatures and bigger storms, this is the big problem that neither side of the mainstream debate over environmental destruction is talking about. Peter Tatchell reported for the Guardianback in 2008:

The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects.

Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis.
Content from External Source
Which makes it seem like Dane might actually have a point. However if you look deeper, at the actual (hard to read) research behind this, you find that the atmospheric O2 is basically unchanged for the last few thousand years. And the recent decline is something like from 20.95% to 20.94% (or even smaller). Comparisons with prehistoric times are meaningless. One might as well compare the temperatures now to the last ice age and say global warming is a much bigger problem than we thought. Plus if you go back a bit further to the precambrian, the levels of O2 were around 10%.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

The largest fall in O2 was observed in the study of Swiss research team led by Francesco Valentino at University of Bern, for data collected at high altitude research stations in Switzerland and France. The Jungfraujoch (JFJ) station in Switzerland (3 580 m above sea level, 46o 33’N, 7o 50’E) is located on a mountain crest on the northern edge of the Swiss Alps. The Puy de Dôme station (1 480 m above sea level, 45o46’N, 2o 58’E) is situated west of the Alps at the summit of Puy de Dôme.

The research team confirmed the general upward trend for atmospheric CO2 and a downward trend in atmospheric O2. But since 2003 for JFJ, and mid 2002 for at Puy, there is a significant enhancement of O2 and CO2 trends compared to previous years. At JFJ, the rate of CO2 increase shifted up from 1.08 ppm (parts per million) for the years 2001-2002 to 2.41 ppm/y for 2003-2006; while the increase in D(O2/N2) and APO (measures of oxygen concentration, see Box 1) shifted downwards to greater extents from –2.4 ppm/y and -1.5 ppm/y to -9.5 ppm/y and -6.9 ppm/y respectively.
Content from External Source
the largest decrease is -9.5ppm/year, or 0.00095% decline per year.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What would be the equivalent altitude for the levels he is claiming oxygen to be at?

Dane didn't make any specific numerical claims. just "global oxygen percentages are dropping dramatically ... The atmospheric oxygen content is in fact plummeting rapidly, and some consider it to be the greatest threat we face", which would seem to imply a bit more than .001% a year.
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
What would be the equivalent altitude for the levels he is claiming oxygen to be at?
In the International Standard Atmosphere, the surface pressure is 1013.25 hPa.
If the oxygen were to decrease by 1%, the equivalent partial pressure of oxygen in the current atmosphere will be found at the altitude where the total pressure is 1% lower; at 1003.12 hPa. In the International Standard Atmosphere, this is at an altitude of 85 metres (276 feet).

This relationship is more or less linear, so a x% lowering of oxygen concentration is equivalent to the oxygen partial pressure at x times 85 metres in the current atmosphere.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Claim summary:
Dane is claiming that extraordinarily high levels of UV radiation are destroying the earth due to ozone depletion caused by geoengineering.
He rejects contradictory readings of UV at monitoring facilities, yet quickly accepts readings taken by an publicly anonymous person using an unknown device and methodology. He offers no evidence for ozone loss and probably never will attempt such an endeavor. His UV readings published so far are from an unspecified location. From the description, it might be from Francis Mangels' back yard in Mt. Shasta, CA.

Here is a basic primer on UV and zone:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/ozone-layer2.htm

For Dane's ozone/UV conspiracy theory to be valid, one would have to maintain control of all points which monitor both ozone and UV. For unless the earth's ordinarily protective ozone/oxygen interactions are substantially affected, UV simply cannot occur at ground level as he claims.

These separate sources of monitoring are ground based, ozonesonde and aircraft based and satellite based. These monitors are not all US based, they are worldwide. They are not alll governmental, some are university-led and even privately led endeavors. To cover up the gross anomalies that Wigington proposes would require collusion or co-opting of monitoring programs in many different countries worldwide at which people participate because they are dedicated to the environment, are dedicated career professionals and are in fact stakeholders in obtaining accurate measurements. Often these people are in competition to publish new and interesting datasets. They actively seek out exactly what Dane is saying is happening, yet are not replicating his results.

For his claim to work, one must also ignore contradictory evidence. Just like the large goldfish peacefully swimming in his supposedly "poisonous" pond, the perfectly green manzanita shrubs are visible in the background as he practically weeps over an isolated small one which has dried up. Perhaps that particular manzanita is growing over a large rock outcropping while the others are not. Who knows? Dane didn't make an effort to find out why some are growing well but one a few feet away is not. He shows an oak with damaged bark, claiming that the bark has been stripped due to UV levels at over 1000% of normal. Yet he ignores 100's of children who have been swimming at Redding's public swimming pool all summer:

rac.jpg

What has to be ignored is that if such skin blistering UV able to blast bark off of oak trees actually existed, one hour's sun exposure would equal 10 hours sun, 2 hours would equal 20 hours exposure and so on. Where are the children reporting into the hospitals after 1-2 hours at Redding's swimming pool?

Dane might be able to ignore these sorts of contradictions and he might be able to sell some people on it, but if looked at logically and openly, it actually is nothing short of preposterous.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Dane keeps saying things like, I encourage people to look it up knowing full well the people that believe him will just go look at his website or anything else that confirms their bias. I seriously suspect some of these promoters know full well they are touting lies so they can make a profit.

Glenn Beck does the same thing "but dont believe ME do your own research." Knowing no one will.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Does he have any photos of this:
And we're seeing native oak trees, with the bark literally cooked off the tree, down to bare wood, around half to three quarters of the tree where there's only a strip of cambrian layer left behind the tree, it's literally burning native vegetation like manzanitas, it's singing the leaves right off the bushes.
Content from External Source
It's yet another thing he should be able to clearly document.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Does he have any photos of this:
And we're seeing native oak trees, with the bark literally cooked off the tree, down to bare wood, around half to three quarters of the tree where there's only a strip of cambrian layer left behind the tree, it's literally burning native vegetation like manzanitas, it's singing the leaves right off the bushes.
Content from External Source
It's yet another thing he should be able to clearly document.
Yeah, although like I said, I can find you trees which show dieback in any landscape. Dead branches do shed their bark eventually, it doesn't have to be "literally cooked off".
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Really ? no one will ? :) spouting nonsense ?

I seriously doubt anyone who believes him is going to double check him if they're hearing what they want to hear. Figure well he wants us to check so we'll probably find out the same thing he did.
 
J

Joe

Guest
I seriously doubt anyone who believes him is going to double check him if they're hearing what they want to hear. Figure well he wants us to check so we'll probably find out the same thing he did.
It shows how little you know about his viewers .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I have some general comments to make.

I think that when the transcript is completed we should extract each and every one of Dane's claims and deal with them individually and thoroughly until there is no doubt they are debunked. Maybe a sub-forum on the Contrails and chemtrails page?

Here would be my suggestion for a title: Debunked: The Debate Dane Wigington Doesn't Want You To Hear

I choose this because there were three parties to the debate, and rather than focus on John Massaria's refusal to publish the debate as per his agreement, the spotlight needs to be on the party to that agreement who is most culpable for the failure to publish and who has thus far refused to address the issue at all. Generally, the more 'hidden' something appears to be the more attractive it is. This also shows Wigington's hypcrisy since he continually speaks about something being covered up yet is by silence actively participating in covering up what the debate revealed.

Still, I do have some things to say about the conduct before, after and within the debate itself. The 'set-up' for this debate seems designed to give Massaria control. He thought that if the debate went wrong for Wigington he would be able to control that. Likely that is the only way that Wigington would have ever taken the chance. He never has before, why would he ever put himself on an equal footing with any of his opponents if he did not believe he could manage the outcome to his favor?

Why did Dane appear superficially polite yet one week later publish a scurrilous attack on Mick and others at his website? What changed in one week or in one hour to transform Dane from polite and even complimentary debater to openly disparaging Mick West, the "Gentle Giant"?

There is a very good reason why John Massaria is 'crying crocodile tears' about the audio file being irretrievably lost when you recognize that this was actually a professionally hosted conference call through a free service that RECORDS the call. The recording is available for six months.

There is no possibility that Massaria has irretrievably lost the recorded audio file. It remains under his control within the archive for the next six months.

Now, consider the agreement that the three parties engaged in prior to the debate. Consider it a verbal contract:

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?

The main elements of a contract are a clear and mutual agreement for an exchange of value. I am not party to any negotiations prior to the debate,
but based on reading the transcript, Massaria did not participate in any agreement, only Mick and Dane verbally expressed assent. Without Massaria giving his clear assent to any terms, it doesn't appear that he was even a party to the agreement. All that I see occurring are Mick and Dane giving their assent to let the recording be in public domain without modification. That is one reason why Dane has not expressed any objection to publication, he knows that he is "in full agreement" on audio doing so.

This is where the exact terms of the contract come into play, and it becomes clear that the original public domain audio is not copyright protected any more than a public conversation on the street is subject to copyright protection.

What is the public domain?

The public domain is generally defined as consisting of works that are either ineligible for copyright protection or with expired copyrights. No permission whatsoever is needed to copy or use public domain works. Public domain works and information represent some of the most critical information that faculty members and students rely upon. Public domain works can serve as the foundation for new creative works and can be quoted extensively. They can also be copied and distributed to classes or digitized and placed on course Web pages without permission or paying royalties.

Thus, until Massaria artistically creates a "new creative derivative work" from the recording, his planned presentation of audio with images as he has done before, he has nothing to copyright since the recording was already agreed upon by Mick and Dane to be in the public domain. After Massaria creates the derivative, and only after that, has he created something eligible for copyright protection. The original audio recording remains in public domain, since that was the agreement mutually agreed upon by Dane and Mick, which Massaria had no part of other than asking Mick and Dane if they were in mutual agreement with each other.

Lastly, participants in a conference call are always notified that the call is being recorded. The automated service clearly notifies all of the participants that "This call is being recorded." Once that notification is made, the parties to the call have relinquished their rights to privacy if they decide to verbally participate.

Thus, Massaria, by his own participation after the clear notification by the conference call service, assented to the recording of his speech and has no expectation of privacy from that point on. The conference call was essentially a public conversation with proper notification given that a recording was being made. That satisfies even the legal requirements for telephone recording even in states that require two-party notification of recording.

Mick had every right to record the call just as Massaria Dane and the conference call service did. He should not hesitate to publish it, as Massaria has no copyright and all parties were clearly notified of the recording. How can any of them claim otherwise?
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Glenn Beck does the same thing "but dont believe ME do your own research." Knowing no one will.

Anyone who comes back after having done that research and says that they are wrong is immediately ushered out of approved status and told that they are a "shill". Seen it over and over again with Nancy Lieder's "Planet X" followers. They are told to check for themselves, but it is STRONGLY implied what they should find.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Still got another ten minutes to go, and the following is just an initial transcript, will have errors.


John: Hold on a second, Dane, are you taking the measurements yourself?

Dane: 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 or change your opinion, but the science is clear on particulates in the atmosphere, they do have an ozone diminishing effect, so people can look that up, again, the science that would say that from geoengineering source, or sources of study that if they did this, it [inaudible] diminishes the ozone layer erratically, so anyway, those dots do connect.

Anyway Mick, your suggestion filming is great, and we will definitely follow up on that.

John: ... anything else to add to that... I'm sorry, I'm not regulating you enough Mick, I want to you to have more conversation about that so just go ahead.

Mick: Oh, no, that's fine, I think that that probably covers it because, I personally think that the numbers are wrong and I think that doing this, I think that basically the guy you've got doing the tests is just putting the wrong numbers into a spreadsheet.

Dane: What would you say Mick, could burn the bark off trees on the south west side of native trees, all over....

Mick: ...I don't know, I would ask the local forestry department and see what's going on...

Dane: ... they are, they're investigating the issue now, as well....

Mick: I think you'd see a lot worse things than that with the levels you're talking about, you you see people with burnt...

Dane: pretty bad, when you have a tree, when you have a native oak tree for example, and we've just filmed this in the forest, and this can be seen on Skyder Alert, but it is bad. I agree, I mean it's hard to fathom it could be that bad. But it appears to be, the readings, and these meters are very straightforward...

Mick: ...Do you happen to know, excuse me, do you happen to know the model of the meter that's being used?

Dane: I believe it's Omega Instruments. It was one that was specifically preferred by this metering expert, who again continues to do it, he's still on the field right now, but he's a 40 year veteran, so I believe it's an Omega Instruments meter. And we're seeing native oak trees, with the bark literally cooked off the tree, down to bare wood, around half to three quarters of the tree where there's only a strip of cambrian layer left behind the tree, it's literally burning native vegetation like manzanitas, it's singing the leaves right off the bushes. I mean, we're seeing some absolutely profound things here, so. But your advice is well taken, on filming that, so that people can see that meter, I think it's an excellent suggestion, and I understand you skepticism on that I truly do [Mick: Okay], because we were shocked as well, but we will film that and we will put it out. So i think that that question, you know, we can maybe put to rest John? If Mick thinks so

Mick: Yeah,

John: You guys both good on that?

Mick: Yes.

John: For now

Dane: On the aluminum test, which I know has been a concern of Mick's for a long time...

Mick: ... Okay ...

John: ... I was just going to get into that...

Dane: ...yeah, go ahead...

John: ...a while back it's been a conversation on Metabunk that some of the test that were done in Why In The World Are You Spraying, what, sorry, I even said it wrong [laughs] What in the World Are They Spraying, those two movies, they basically brought out, they did some sludge testing, and there was some question about the validity of the results, so, am I right Mick, you have some problems with....

Mick: Yes, [crosstalk, inaudible], those test, the issue basically is that sludge contains dirt and dirt is 7% aluminum, and so you are going to get high aluminum rate in those tests. And yet those tests were used in the film as evidence of spraying.

Dane: Now at face value Mick, again, if those tests, if that material had any contact with dirt, any form of dirt, I would fully agree with you. But, this sample came from a pond that is lined with not one liner but two, this is Firestone EPDM pond liner. It's biologically safe for fish, there is no water source into this pond excpet rain water and well water. It has virtually no contact with dirt, soil or any type, kind, and that reading was high because it was taken near the bottom of the pond where there's some of the fish feces and so forth that are down at the bottom of the poind, but that was no less reassuring to us that that sort of fish sludge could contain that much aluminum, but, on that test there is abosolutely no contact with the earth in any way, shape, or form. [inaudible] this is the best...

Mick: ... sorry.. the pond is an open surface, it's a very large open surface, and the dust in the air just naturally settles on the pond. There's actually, if you look at the figures for big lakes, thouands of tons every year settle in the lakes, and that's how you get sediment, in...

Dane: ... that's a fair enough question to pose as well, this is a very unique location, in that this catchment basin was very meticulously placed on the top of a forested hill in the middle of a massively forested area. We simply do not have... it's considered a filtered location by the labs. It's ... it does not have blowing dust period.

Mick: What is it filtered though?

Dane: It's filtered through miles and miles of very very thick boreal forest, you don't have dust storms in the middle of a boreal forest. [inaudible] we have in every direction.

Mick: Yes, but you have dirt in the ground in a boreal forest. So the water flow through this forest and into your pond, it's flowing through dirt.

Dane: well, again mick, we don't have blowing dust, per se, I'm not saying there's not particles in the air, but [inaudible]...dust

Mick: ... you have soil...

Dane ... okay, let's take you argument further, let's say that somehow we have a dust storm up here, that we have not witnessed but, let's go back to strictly rain samples then that we've had up to 3,450 parts per billion, certainly if it's in the rain, we know it's going to be in the pond, it has to be in the pond if it's in the rain. So we've had tests as high as 3,450 ppb of aluminum, in a single rain event, now, what is your perspective on that much metal in rain in the pacific north west. ... not talking about a thunderstorm, you know, something in the Sahara desert where maybe some dust is whipped up or something, we're talking about rain over the Pacific North West.

Mick: I think there's two or three possible reasons why you'd be getting such large levels. One is that it could be that there was some dust in the air. The rain just fell through the dust. You will always get some aluminum in rain samples because there is dust in the air. And dust is basically dry soil and rock that has been blown into the air. The other is that you could get some kind of contamination of the sampling device. Dust could be blown directly into that device. ... The third is, user error, basically.

Dane: I think to blanket dismiss 60-70 lab tests, some taken by the state certified lab techs themselves, which we paid them to take, some taken by US Forest Service biologists....

Mick: ... I'm not dismissing them at all, I'm explaining the reasons why you would get those particular levels

John: I hate to interrupt, but wouldn't that be true of anything? ... There has to be a base, and these were done by qualified people who took the samples.

Dane: Mick has a legitimate question, it does but, it's a legitimate question so let me add a little bit to that, I want to clarify this. If this material had always been there, the soild pHs over the last ten years would not have just changed 12-14 times toward alkaline. The aquatic insect population would not have just declined some 90%, and according to ... biologists....

Mick...I think there's two different issues here though, like aluminum itself is not going to do anything to soil pH. So if you are finding aluminum in samples its...

Dane: Well Mick, the science doesn't hold up for that. Not at all. if you have acidic soils and and you have aluminum oxide, it absolutely raises pH. The chemistry on that is very clear. It raises pH, if you have acidic soil. If you have normal alkaline soils, you're not going to see that change. But out soils here, we have a solid baseline. We have a USDA soil study, very extensive, and this is testing done in the field with USDA soil scientists, and we've seen pH changes here 10 to 12 to even 14 times towards alkaline, and that's exactly what you would get with aluminum oxide saturation.

Mick: I think that there's a lot of factors that affect soil pH, and I think you're not really taking that many samples. You taking things like in Francis Mangels back yard, a test underneath a tree...

Dane: These tests were taken with a USDA soil scientist, it has nothing to do with Francis.

Mick: right, but how many test have you done, and what is the location?

[phone breaking up]

Mick: I was just wondering how many tests you have done of the soil pH? And whether they are actually statistically meaningful.

Dane: Well, basically meaningful...

John: ... repeat again for everybody so that they can hear it, and I'm not sure if everybody heard it. How many samples did you take?

Dane: We probably have two dozen. Something in that range. And the pH is again, they are so astoundingly high, so consistently high, they match the rain. Because the rain pH again, rain pH should be 5.4 5.5, when we get rain pH of 6.6, 6.8, which is 10-12 times higher than it shoudl be, that high pH rain contains aluminum, we know this from 3-4 dozen tests taken in Shasta county, about the same amount in Siskiyou county, so when the rain pH is high, almost towards neutral, there's a tremendous amount of aluminum in that rain. During the same period we'll hear probably aircraft traffic 10-15 fold normal, and we see the soild pH going up accordingly. When the rain pH is high the soil pHs have to follow at some point.

Mick: Well, again, I think what you've got there would be a correlation between aircraft traffic and soil pH. That's what you are claiming basically? So, I think there why....

Dane: ... I'm just pointing out an observations, I'm not

Mick: ...right, yeah, but...

Dane: ... pinning our argument, the metal is coming from somewhere, it's raining down in very copious quantities. It's definitely there, that part is really beyond dispute.

Mick: I don't... I think though that you've obviously convinced yourself of this, and some other people, but I think like the problem here is: why can't you convince the the broader population? I think like...

Dane: ... I think we are, I absolutely think we are Mick. I think we are gaining ground by the day. I truly do. I mean, I think the statistics show that, I mean we're, you know we have 20,000 people a day on Geoengineering Watch, something in that realm, and we have the whole Norther California population now is starting to connect these dots because they can't grow anything. One in 50 kids have autism now. A known ailment that's connected to aluminum. One in three seniors in the continental US now dies with Alzheimer's or dementia - also known to be connected with aluminum, we known the aluminum's in the rain, we know it's in the air, we know it's a primary geoengineering ingredient. It's been named on film, on record, by David Keith, and again, with people like David Keith, if that's the premise that geoengineering is not going on for you because David Keith says it's not. I mean, he's all over the board with everything he says. In 2000....

Mick:...well, no, I think David Keith is actually very consistent in what he says and I think you have very badly misrepresented what he actually says.

[38:40]

Dane: then, fair enough, I hear your statement, then let me have people compare two things he has said. FIrst he said in 2010 he proposed dumping 20 million tons of alumina into the atmosphere annually, and his latest statements says just just two provate aircraft could fix everything for us. So that a pretty big span. Going from proposing 20 million tons annually, to saying only two aircraft could do it, that's a huge span. And I personally saw emails between David Keith and a professor at Stanford, asking Keith if he knew anything about human microphages, the effects on these metals, you know he had no knowledge of that, he admitted on the record. This is on film for people to see in Michael Murphy's film What In the World Are They Spraying. He's been on the record that: have we studied the effects of these materials? No. Could terrible things happen tomorrow? We don't know. I just don't feel that's a responsible statement for a scientist that's proposing dumping 20 million tons of aluminum

Mick: The thing is, in those two statements, that you made, they're not incompatible. You could actually dump that amount of aluminum with just two aircraft if they made two or three flights a day, with a couple of hundred tons each.

Dane: How many flights a day?

Mick: Two or three, with a couple of hundred tons.

Dane: [pause] twenty million tons annually, you could be done with two aircraft? I..private

Mick:.. Yeah, that's twenty million divided by 365 by 2 is 27,000 tons, ...I just did the math....

Dane: ...People should do the math on that one... because mathematically that is not even remotely possible

Mick: It's in the same ballpark. But, the point is that these are just propsals, they are ideas for what might be done for geoengineering. These aren't things that he is actually proposing to do....it's what they might do.....

John: .... Mick, ... that's actually what I'm going to ask you the next question.

Mick: Okay

John: As far as government conspiracies, obviously, you know, there are a lot of people that have given, have been given confidential documents, after the fact. There are very many government programs such as MKULTRA, and the spray programs that went on with, where they sprayed innocent civilians with radiation. Over 280,000 people

Mick: They were not actually radioactive, that is just a theory.

John: I'm sorry, that is not a theory, I have the documentation on it.

Mick: Yes, I know, but the documentation is based on one number being the same for two types of chemicals. There's no actually evidence of it being radioactive. But it's kind of getting a bit off topic.

John: Wait, so you're saying that 280,000 did not get sprayed on, and die from cancer, from radiation that was sprayed from the...

Mick: ... they got sprayed on, but they didn't die of cancer because of that spraying.

Dane: I don't know what we are talking about, are we talking about geoengineering now John?...

John: No, we are talking about government conspiracy.

Mick: ...Zinc Cadmium Sulphide...

John ... and if they have done this in, my point is if they've done this in the past, on unsuspecting

citizens...

Mick: ... yes, but what you are claiming though is not what actually happened. You're claiming that they sprayed thousands of people with radiation and they died of cancer. That's not what happened. They sprayed some people with what they thought was a harmless substance.

John: ... tell me how these people got sprayed.

Mick: They sprayed Zinc Cadmium Sulphide, which basically it's a substance that fluoresces so it can be very easily detected, and they just sprayed it from planes, and from boats, and things, and they wanted to see how far it would blow in the wind. They chose Zinc Campinum Sulphte because it was detectable, but also because it was a safe substance. There's been tests done, research done now, because people got worried about it, and they found that the effects of it was perhaps the same as a bit of second hand smoking. Now, there a theory...

John: You seem to be [inaudible]

Dane: John?

John: Yeah, I know you wanted to stay on the subject there Dane.

Dane: I don't want Mick ...to.. [inaudible]

Mick: Yeah, but you can't make claims about something ... [inaudible]

John: No, I don't mean to steer this conversation one way or the other, but basically what you are saying is: that the goverment has performed tests on unsuspecting citizens.

Mick: No, they weren't performing tests on citizens. They were testing to see how far this stuff blew on the wind. It was harmless stuff. They were not testing it on ....

Dane: John, hey John, if I could suggest something you know, and I, and Mick, instead of it getting caught on a particular instance, I think if people Google that they could decide for themselves if there has....

John: ...Sure, that's a great idea....

Dane: ... documented cases of this. I don't want Mick to feel that you know, we're, that we're venturing off target here.

[crosstalk]

Mick: it is a theory, so let's, ... can go look it up

John: The point I just wanted to make was that the goverment has done scientific on the population.

Mick: Not like that though. They are not testing things on people, in fact there's laws to prevent it.

John: There are laws to protect it, you are correct.

Dane: I think if people look it up....

John: So what you are saying is that the government is doing nothing wrong. Ever?

Mick: No, that is absolutely not what I'm saying. The government does wrong things all the time.

Dane: on that one maybe people can look up government testing that has been disclosed. There's quite a long list there in fact. And I think maybe they could make up their own mind. With everything you're. You know I, Mick, what he cites for data does exist, even for example, let's got to the beginning of the conversation, global dimming, you can find data that says it isn't happening. He's right about that. But you can also find a mountain of data that says it is, in fact I'll read you an excerpt from just published from BBC Science and Nature: "we are all rather less of the sun, scienctists looking at five decades of sunshine measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface has been gradually falling, paradoxically the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought". Now, back to my own experience being in the renewable energy industry. When planes put something in the air, whatever that may be, that blocks, at times 70-80% of my solar uptake, the sun is being blocked most definitely. But, you know in Mick's defense, you can find things that say it's not happening, and people simply have to look at sources of data and decide which they feel is of substance, which they feel is true, what they feel might be causing this massive spike altzheimers, autism, ADD, why things won't grow, why the sun feels so hot, I think people need to decide for themselves. But you know there are sides to indicate, on any subject, be it global warming, you can find a lot of different opinions, but it's up to people to look and decide.

Mick: Yeah, just real quick on that one test you did, that was an article from 2005

Dane: ...which test? I'm sorry Mick...

Mick: The BBC article that you just quoted. That was published in 2005, and it was about research from 2001, between 2001 and 2006, but it's all based of studies of old data. So, more recently, recently in the last like seven or eight years better studies have been done that show that there isn't, actually, there's been a great increase in the transparency of the atmosphere, specifically because....

Dane: [inaudible] those studies are....

Mick: ... of clean air acts....

Dane: I think studies compare with agencies like, those that monitor the Nuclear situation, when the nuclear levels, for example Fukushima, got through the roof, and suddenly they can't hide that any more, the simply change the safe levels, they change the science around that, and again...

Mick: It's an actual level, it's not a safe level, it's like: is there more sun now, you know, and the fact is the studies that goes go back over the last 10-20 years do actually show a slight decrease. The reasons they showed an increase in the 90s was because of Mount Pinatubu, which, you know, you are familiar with that, was a big eruption, it put lots of particulates in the atmosphere, but because the clean-air acts came into effect in 90 or 91, the particulates over America in particular, have been decreased, the car emissions, and factory emissions have been going down. And it has actually started to go up a little bit now because of China.

[46:37]

Dane: Look, you said it's going down though, so, let's cite another article though Mick, NOAA, 2011, NOAA study, increase in particulates high in Earth's atmosphere has offset recent climate warming. This is July 21st, 2011. There's plenty of data out there to indicate the atmosphere's full of particulates. And they just can't figure out where they are coming from. And as a very first hand experience again, when plane grid patterns over our home, we pulled flight data. There are no east west fights, but yet we see them, and when these....

Mick: There are actually a couple of east-west flights over you area, I've looked them up.

Dane: Well, you should tell the pilots who we, we've just interviewed they're commercial pilots and military, because they've done the same, and we don't find it, but when these planes block...

Mick: ... I can find some for you, they are flying to Hawaii, I believe from Chicago, or somewhere like that.

Dane: Well let me finish the point then, because we have not found that data, but, when these flights block, 70-80% on some days, as much as 70-80% of my solar uptake. That's a very direct first-hand experience. That's an absolute fact. So, this is something that its hard to deny, and on the UK readings, again, when we see the bark being fried off the trees, all over the forest, native trees, that's a very alarming, very alarming sign...

Mick: You'd saying two separate things there, your saying there's like and increase in radiation, and a decrease

[some crosstalk]

Mick: You are saying the bark is fried off the trees because there's more radiation, and you are also saying that there's global dimming, which is reducing radiation. Wouldn't global dimming also reduce the UVB and UVA?

Dane: If it's a particular day, your question is valid, and yes it does in fact on a particular day when there's heavy spraying, yes. It does in fact decrease the overall, we're posting updated charts now, and we've just had a heavy spray day, and the total UV AB combination dropped about 25% with massive spraying. But, with that spraying, as geoengineering data shows, these particulates do shred ozone, there's no debate in the scientific community, so, on the days where there is not massive spraying overhead, the UV is incredibly intense, so it's not an all-this all-that equation, one you you damage or decimate the protective layers, when you have days when this particulate is not up there blocking anything, when the UV radiation is absolutely horrific, so.

Mick: Can I just go back to something you said earlier, the NOAA study that you just quoted, that's the one on sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere. That is showing a variability in the sulphate aerosols, it's not showing an increase, it's showing that it's gone up over the last ten year, but in the previous ten years, it actually went down.

Dane: Well, that's confusing, because in 2003 we just talked about that article, and you said the particulates were up but that was from Pinatubo, if it's gone down ... [inaudible]

Mick: ... they are talking about sulphate aerosols, which is a very different thing from what you you are talking about. You are talking about global dimming from particulates in, which would mostly be the troposphere, which would pollution, things like that. Sulphate aerosols are in the higher stratosphere.

Dane: I think we have an acronym, called SAG Stratospheric. Aerosol. Geoengineering. I mean this is the very proposal that were are talking about here, Stratospheric, not tropospheric geoengineering, but stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, SAG

Mick: Right, but

[crosstalk]

Dane: If I could ask one question to Mick, and I would ask this. Given that we have documents going back, even to the mid-60s, outlining massive weather modification programs by the US government, and people can look that up, given we have mountains of scientific data, proposals, not just cautious proposal, but very urgent proposals by scientific communities to geoengineer immediately because we are in a planetary catastrophe, we have governments setting up massive frameworks for global governance of geoengineering, we see in the sky exactly what the patents describe, te express goal of blocking the sun. I know it blocks the sun because it decreases solar uptake

[crosstalk]

Dane: I'll finish the question and you can answer. There are the same material showing up in the ground that these patents call for. Virtually, every... we have a shredded ozone layer, which scientific studies say would happen if they geoengineered, when every single dot connects, why wouldn't we believe this is going on Mick? Why wouldn't we believe, why shouldn't we believe, it's going, not going on. You know, why wouldn't we believe it?

Mick: Well, basically because I don't think you have that evidence. You're saying that you see things in the sky, now, the patents for stratospheric sulphate engineering, geoengineering of some kind in the stratosphere would not leave tails that are visible. The trails that people are pointing to...

Dane: What do you base that on?

Mick: They would be spraying a powder, or a gas basically, like sulphur dioxide.

Dane: I've never seen any geoengineering patents that say they spray a gas, they speak of nano particulates.

Mick: well, nano particulates basically it's almost a gas, it's very very small particulates, so, because they are nanosized, you can't actually see them. They are invisible to....

Dane: But water accretes on these particles. Water accretes on them and then you can see them. This is the whole premise of solar obscuration. You have Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering, Solar Radiation Management, and SAI - Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. I mean all these describe the same thing, spraying the particulates in the stratosphere to block the sun

Mick: the thing is but, all of the

[52:00]

John: Hold on, I just want to say one thing. I understand what both of you are saying, and I think I have found something here that maybe Mick could take a look at, it's called "Aircraft Technology and its Relation to Emissions" it clear states that jet engines emite metal particles, Ti, I don't know what that is, Cr, I guess that is, and Ni, Ba, and these are in parts per volume, which is at a level through the nozzle of the airplanes, and I'm looking at the document right now, so I'm not sure what the argument is there. It says that these are jet exhaust plumes, and chemtrails, right in the document.

Mick: They are just normal jet exhaust. It's no different from what you get out of the back of your car.

Dane: Okay, so if it's normal jet exhaust, so why do we have films of KC-10s and KC-135s spraying at altitude with the nozzles visible? And turning on and off, how can that be considered normal exhaust.

Mick: You don't have video of the them spraying. You have video of KC-10s leaving contrails. and they turn on and off because they are moving through areas of high and low humidity.

Dane: [laughs] Mick, you could chop this stuff with a knife, I mean, we have video of trails that look like they were cut with a knife. Absolutely...

Mick: ... yes, but, that's what contrails...

Dane: ... you think an air mass changes that meteorologically, you think an air mass changes, in the span of, ...

Mick: ... alright, let me ask you a question about that then, have you ever seen the edge of a cloud?

Dane: the edge of a...? Mick, a cloud is a different formation, than even the definition of a condensation trail, it's completely different. A cloud is, you're comparing an apple with an orange.

John: Hold on, let Mick go

Mick: alright, a clouds is an area of high humidity. A cloud is just an area, it's a volume the air made visible, as someone said a few hundred years ago, it's visible because because the humidity is such the the water vapor in it condenses out.

Dane: what is necessary for that cloud to form though Mick? Particulate matter. Right?

Mick: Yes particulate matter, but ...

Dane: ... it can't form without particulate matter can it?

Mick: ... the air is full of particulate matter. Everywhere, even in the clouds or not in the clouds, there's particulate matter everywhere, there's no shortage of particulate matter. The stuff that comes out of the black of the plane helps the contrails to form a litle bit, ut if it was perfectly clean, if it was just spraying water out of the back of the plane, you'd still get a contrail, because there's particulates in the atmosphere.

But the point we were talking about here is that there's a gap in a contrail, now, all the contrail is doing is revealing where in the sky the areas of humidity are. So if there are area of humidity that are shaped like clouds, which have very sharp edges, you've see cumulus clouds with incrediby sharp edges, why wouldn't a trail flying, a plane flying through area of humidity start and stop at exactly where those boundaries are? If it was flying through...

Dane: ... the turbulence alone around a passing aircraft could never make possible what you describe, it is absolutely impossible. And if you describe, what you described is true Mick, then how come as the same time we see an aircraft leaving a trail from horizon to horizon, we can spot, and we have on film, aircrafts flying at the same approximate altitude, leaving virtually nothing. Why is that? How is that explained?

Mick: because, it's the same approximate altitude, it only takes a few hundred feet in difference to be in a different layer of the atmosphere. And it can be very different humidity. There have been tests done in Germany where they have two planes flying side by side. One of them leaves a trail, and the other one doesn't leave a tail, because they have slightly different engines.

Dane: How come at the same time there's film of one the two shutting off, and leaving nothing, again, and starting up

[crosstalk]

Mick: because, they are flying out of a region of

[crosstalk]

Mick: it's basically the same answer as before, there's regions of humidity, they are like clouds, you can see, if you can see lots different shapes of clouds and that's how the regions of humidity are, they are exactly the same shapes as clouds, they come in layers, they come in holes...

John: ... so what I understand is that there are pockets of air, that are creating and not creating the the stratospheric [inaudible]

Mick: Pockets of air which are suitable for contrail formation....

Dane: ... let's take that to another level then, how come we see three-engined jet aircraft leaving a single trail. How come we have aircrafts that have have one, maybe they have a jet engine that is mounted crooked on the plane, because you can see the plume shoots far off to one side. And it really is not a jet engine....

Mick: Three engined lanes appear to leave one contrail because the engines are basically very close together, and they merge very quickly, after, like DC-8s, I think.

Dane: [laughs] Well, we have close-up video of nozzles on planes with these plumes coming out, how is that explained?...

Mick: ...I very much doubt that, but I would like to see it do you have the name of the....

Dane: ... there for everyone to see, and if Mick, if all this is natural, contrails that look like they were cut with a knife, X in the sky, grid patterns, aluminum falling on us in absolutely copious amounts, shredded ozone layer, patents, geoengineering global governance, if all this is simply normal, then, why do they need to, what's the purpose of geoengineering? Why have so many institutions tried to come up with a way to make these artificial trails if they just naturally form by themselves all the time. Why is David Keith discussing dumping aluminum in the atmosphere specifically to make these lingering expanding trails, and why is that when condensation, and again this is a very simple example, but it's accurate, if this condensation just spreads out for days and days, why doesn't this happen when we are walking around on extremely cold mornings, out breath should it hand in a trail behind us for ten miles, is that normal? Really? Do we see that?

[crosstalk]

Mick: ... why, why it' doesn't do that, it doesn't do it because you breath doesn't freeze. The reason .... it's a little complicated, it's a little complicated the science behind it, but basically the difference between a contrail and condensation from you breath is that the air isn't cold enough to freeze your breath in a way which is called homogeneously, which means without nuclei, ...

John: You know Mick, I want to ask you, you have one video on you web site where the guy is throwing cold water in a freezing cold environment, and it leaves sort of a contrail.

Mick: Yes

John: And obviously it seems like it's pretty cold there, why doesn't that just stay in the air?

Mick: Because, [laughs, pause], because it's falling, basically. You're looking at a very small thing. A jet plane's contrail is very very large, if you imagine it heats up that thing, and it wasn't just a simple cup of water, it was huge train load of water, and threw that up in the air, you would get cloud that would kind of hang around for a lot longer. There are also other reasons as well, the particles that form from....

John: as long as I've been around, I've been to the arctic region, I've been to Lapland, and Finland, I've never seen anything remotely close to anything like that

Mick: It's a problem of scale, it's a problem of scale then. You do actually see if you go to places like Fairbanks, you will see a thing called "ice fog", cars will actually leave a trail behind them, but because they are just tiny little things, compared to a jet plane, they just leave this very little faint trail, and a person, they are not really going to leave a trail, because that's even smaller than the car in terms of how much water they expire. But basically the difference is just because it's freezing, and it's -40 degrees is the temperature you need for a contrail to form, and you don't get that very often, and you don't get jet planes on the ground. Actually, jet planes on the ground do leave contrails sometimes, in Alaska.

Dane: Mick, you know, atmospherically, you describe for example that there's always an explanation that a few feet of difference in elevation would explain why one jet leaves no trail, and one leaves on from horizon to horizon...

Mick: ... a few hundred feet...

Dane:... even though they're [inaudible, change?] in altitude as well. You describe that this is all perfectly natural phenomenon, when we see, we have films of aircraft, you know, clear shutting on and off with dispersement that's coming from, we see rear engined jets with trails coming from the front wing. ... we see patterns

Mick: ... that can be explained completely...

[crosstalk]

John: I think he know, ..., you're going to say ice is on the wing? Right.

Mick: No. That's a, what's called an "aerodynamic" contrail. The decrease in pressure on the top of the wing causes water to condense. It's a well known phenomena.

Dane: So why would that shut on and off then? Because there's video of that shutting on and off...

Mick: ... same reason. It's going in and out of areas of high and low humidity...

Dane: ... why do they need nozzles? Why do they need nozzles on the wings?

Mick: They don't have nozzles on the wings. What you are looking at in that video is flap fairings. Which are, basically little pods on the wings which contain the mechanism, like it's a big hinge, which raises and lowers the flaps for landing. It looks a bit like a nozzle, but it's not. So, it's a flap fairing. Ask any pilot what it is. Show them that video, and they'll tell you what it is.

John: I've seen Evergreen airplanes with nozzles on them.

Dane: Wait a minute, yes,

[crosstalk]

Dane: If all this is the case, why is Evergreen openly advertising for their 747 supertanker for weather modification? Mick? ... again, if all this metal falling on the ground, if it was always there, the dust was always there. It's always been falling, and it's just normal, then why is everything dying, in the last...

Mick: I don't know why everything is dying. But you know things, local environments get messed up for all kinds of reasons. There's pollution, there's changes in the water supply..

Dane: why would all that metal suddenly be falling? That's my point....

Mick: ... it's not, it's not, the metal isn't falling. What you are seeing is, it's just dust.

Dane: No Mick, you know what, .... metal is falling....

[crosstalk]

John: I want to move on. I want to ask one more question.

[62:23]

Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It has been quite an interesting exercise, transcribing this. I recognize a lot of my own failing here. I'm not (yet) that adept at live discussions, having spent rather a lot of time online I'm used to having a bit more time to formulate my thoughts, and to having a backspace key. I could have done a better job at getting facts and science across. And I see sometimes I let my annoyance get in the way of things. I also made several factual mistakes, and there were many things I could have explained far better.

But it's also been an interesting perspective on the chemtrail belief system. You see Dane repeating the same litany of evidence over and over, and you know that individually each thing does not hold up - but to the believer this "weight" of evidence seems to have some significance. In orde to counter this bunk, we need a very clear, understandable, and verifiable answer to each of the things that Dane raises.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
So what's Madison Moonstar's place in all this? Wasn't this supposed to be her challenge? Doesn't she want to know how it turned out?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I sent her the audio, she said:
I thought it was one of the best interviews I have ever heard. John and Dane were amazing.
Content from External Source
but
You lied the entire time about everything. They wanted an HONEST debate and al you did was provide disinfo. If you had been honest then it would have been published and you know it. Dane and John treated you with respect and you did not do the same. It was really hard to listen to you to tell the truth. I mean I know what you are about and I knew what to expect but I was still shocked at the depths you went to mislead their audience. Where is your character Mr. West? Where are your ethics and morals?
Content from External Source
Madison has an extraordinary level of suspicion and distrust, more even than Massaria. She is utterly convinced that I am some kind of evil agent.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Wow. That's gobsmackingly ... just... wow.
There's absolutely no point in engaging or humouring her on any level.
 

captfitch

Senior Member.
I think you did an outstanding job since you didn't know the questions before hand. It takes someone with encyclopedic knowledge of this subject to handle that format.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
To me her comment "If you had been honest then it would have been published and you know it." is admitting that they chose to NOT publish it.
 

Sausalito

Active Member
To me her comment "If you had been honest then it would have been published and you know it." is admitting that they chose to NOT publish it.
This may well be true, but bear in mind that Madison is willing to make assertions about things of which she has no knowledge; perhaps this statement follows that pattern. That said, how ironic for her to make accusations of disingenuousness in the same breath, if she is indeed aware of a decision to withhold the debate recording.
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
You lied the entire time about everything. They wanted an HONEST debate and al you did was provide disinfo

I got the same response when I showed her the article I wrote for News Limited, as opposed the one the journalist actually published. The response was something along the lines of, "wow, you are the king of disinfo!" That remark came after about 4 seconds of reading.

I agree with others that we give Madison more attention than she is due. She is rather clueless, as is her fan base. I get the feeling that this is an ego trip for her, which is why she clings unquestioningly to her beliefs. She offers nothing of her own and recycles the idiocy of others. She is not an expert in anything but credulity.

At least people like Wigington have the intellect to form their own theories. You'll never see that with Madison.

Time to move on with Madison. Nothing to see here.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
  • Here is the exchange.


    Michael Glynn

    The Great Chemtrail Con

    By Michael Glynn

    Spidery white lines of vapour emitted from high flying aircraft have been seen in the world’s skies since the First World War. One of the byproducts of the combustion process in an aero engine, either jet or piston, is large amounts of water vapour; in the case of a jet, approximately 1.3 litres of water for every one litre of fuel burnt .

    The upper atmosphere is generally very dry but when conditions permit, such as before an approaching cold front which forces moisture high into the atmosphere, the relative humidity becomes so high that the water vapour in the jet exhaust condenses into ice crystals and a con(densation)-trail is formed.

    The altitudes that modern jets fly are always very cold, no matter what the temperature is on the ground. Contrails never evaporate because the temperatures are never even close to being above freezing. If the ice crystals are small then they generally sublimate quickly back to water vapour. Otherwise they may persist and even grow, creating a veil over the entire sky. These are called persistent contrails and this phenomenon is the cause of one of the most prevalent conspiracy theory hoaxes of modern time; Chemtrails.

    Chemtrails theory began some time in the mid 90’s and has developed along the lines that persistent contrails cannot exists and hence are laced with chemicals such as Aluminium, Barium and Strontium. Various theories have evolved, some more loopy than others, as to why these particulars chemicals are used. One of the less loopy cites that organisations around the world are involved in Geo-Engineering, and that chemtrails are being used to mitigate the effects of climate change. As with many conspiracy theories, a thin veneer of truth has been mixed with large dollops of bunk. Geo-engineering in the high stratosphere, well beyond the reach of airliners, has been postulated by various organisations. A US patent, now expired, that discusses the technique is widely cited as proof of an ongoing covert campaign.

    Despite denials of any program, covert or otherwise, chemtrail believers are adamant that the skies are being sprayed against the will of the population. Some believe it is being done by military or intelligence organisations, others believe that major airlines have been co-opted. Some believe the chemtrails are deadly and cause nebulous diseases such as “Morgellons disease.” These beliefs are being reflected in social media sites such as FaceBook and Youtube. Inevitably, some of these beliefs are beginning to cause consternation in pilot ranks.

    In December last year, a small group of chemtrail activists decided to confront an airline crew at Sydney airport. Spurred on by a misguided but prolific Youtube poster who regularly documents the passage of a particular long haul flight over Melbourne, one of the few that flies over there at contrail altitudes; it is unclear what the actual intentions of the group was before they were intercepted by the AFP, but the incident was enough to prompt concern amongst pilots.

    The website, Metabunk.org, started by Mick West, specialises in debunking conspiracy theories. Chemtrails debunking is currently its busiest forum. Mick also created the Contrailscience.com website to explain the complex science of contrails.

    Metabunk began to document threats against pilots and aircraft about a year ago. Threats to shoot down aircraft or harming pilots are becoming more prevalent, overt and alarming. While most can be discounted as empty, there remains the possibility that some unhinged individual or group may act.

    Pilots point out the extreme unlikeliness of a giant worldwide conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of pilots, mechanics, refuellers and flight planners surviving over 15 years without a single verifiable whistleblower coming forward. They also point out that putting large amounts of materials such as aluminium into an aircraft fuel system and then into an engine; the favored delivery theory, is certain to destroy the engine.

    Pilots also question why they would be party to any such scheme that would poison their own families. Pointing out that their aircraft are neither equipped with spraying gear nor have the excess weight margin to carry tonnes of aluminium does not sway activists. This is not surprising however; a defining characteristic of most chemtrail activists can be said to be zero knowledge of aviation or meteorology.

    The hoax however continues to flourish and the potential threat remains. A spokesman for the Australian and International Pilots Association has this to say. “It is ludicrous to suggest that the Chemtrail hoax espoused by some has any basis in fact. Pilots operating airliners are governed by many laws to which they are personally responsible and must adhere. We would invite anyone with doubts to view the voluminous science available that counteracts the hoax and not be swayed by the baseless hysteria of some deluded individuals.”



  • Michael Glynn

    this was what i wrote... it was never published. i sent it to peter when he accused me of writing the other one. i didn't



  • Madisonstar Moon

    wow

    you are the king of disinfo

    do you work for Mick West

    ?

    it was a great article for the bad guys



  • Michael Glynn

    no. ask him tomorrow.



  • Madisonstar Moon

    so you are a nad guy

    bad I mean..
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
This may well be true, but bear in mind that Mads is willing to make assertions about things which she has no knowledge; perhaps this statement follows that pattern. That said, how ironic for her to make accusations of disingenuousness in the same breath, if she is indeed aware of a decision to withhold the debate.

But that is just silly. It's as if she expected Mick to NOT have a different point of view to bring to the debate- as if the idea was for Mick to just acquiesce and AGREE with John and Dane. What she is saying is similar to what Peekay said- that there never was any intention to have a debate, with differing points of view, which would be released to the public, because no differing points of view are possible. Madison has a seriously warped view of reality, IMO. I think there is no way to understand it without acknowledging the cult-like factors involved. To Madison, Mick HAS to be lying. There IS no debate possible on the subject.
 

TomC

Member
I think you did a great job Mick.

Anyone listening or reading that who thinks rationally will recognise the many holes and contradictions in Dane's arguments.
Anyone with any understanding of meteorology will see that Dane does not understand the concepts involved.

Unfortunately as we have seen, this will not convince anyone who has already bought into the theory.

Madison's life I suspect revolves around this theory, all her friends are believers and she puts all her time into it. If she were to give it up her life would be pretty different. Change is hard.

As for why it has not been published, I suspect the uv claims... Most other claims, even when they have been debunked, they are not conclusively 100% disproven. E.g. "you say they are just persistent contrails, but you haven't proved it" etc.
But the uv. Dane very enthusiastically agrees to doing more tests and documenting them. I suspect in hindsight he has realised his claim is nonsense, but clearly does not want to be forced to publish a test that would prove conclusively and damage his credibility.

Not until he's been able to think of an excuse not to at least.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I agree that you did well, Mick. I think the simple fact that this is a (mostly) civil and substantive discussion which (mostly) focused on the topic is a huge win. I thought you caught them flat-footed on several points, which as you say, is somewhat surprising - these are not new arguments, other than the UV issue (and you sent Wigington your arguments for that beforehand).

Verbal debates like this are very difficult - it's nearly impossible to avoid missing things and making some mistakes. There isn't much opportunity to demonstrate which arguments are supported by verifiable facts, and which aren't. So unless the listener is willing to check on the claims him or herself, who "wins" often comes down to who sounds better - and Wigington is a good public speaker, accustomed to speaking on this topic. He has some lists of points that he falls back on, impossible to address them all on the spot.

But that aspect is nullified by making a transcript, so that each point can be examined and discussed. You can point out your own errors in addition to discussing their points. You can invite Dane and John to come and do the same. Seems like a good idea, all around.
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
Just 2 things:
1) On SAG. I think you should have made it clear that the stratosphere is not where most planes fly. You let them get by with claiming that SAG would effectively be where contrails are. Which is not correct.
2) More of an observation: in these kinds of talk, their aggregations of false and falsifiable evidence will for a lot of people trump a skeptical, questioning perspective. I think there were multiple instances where they were trying to show that they have the answers and have you answer "I don't know". A wrong explanation will trump no explanation in these kinds of talks. The rules of science don't apply.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
It was painful to read. Dane obviously things the longer he talks and the more times he says the same thing makes his words true. How many times is he going to ask why the trails start and stop? If it were some kind of chemical spray, why would THAT start and stop. When vector control sprays a mist for mosquitos, they just continually spray. When they stop spraying, the mist doesn't just STOP.

My advice would be try to avoid saying "yes", it sounds as if you're agreeing with what they just said.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I agree that you did well, Mick. I think the simple fact that this is a (mostly) civil and substantive discussion which (mostly) focused on the topic is a huge win. I thought you caught them flat-footed on several points, which as you say, is somewhat surprising - these are not new arguments, other than the UV issue (and you sent Wigington your arguments for that beforehand).

Verbal debates like this are very difficult - it's nearly impossible to avoid missing things and making some mistakes. There isn't much opportunity to demonstrate which arguments are supported by verifiable facts, and which aren't. So unless the listener is willing to check on the claims him or herself, who "wins" often comes down to who sounds better - and Wigington is a good public speaker, accustomed to speaking on this topic. He has some lists of points that he falls back on, impossible to address them all on the spot.

But that aspect is nullified by making a transcript, so that each point can be examined and discussed. You can point out your own errors in addition to discussing their points. You can invite Dane and John to come and do the same. Seems like a good idea, all around.


The format is they come with a ridiculous claim and parrot it over and over. Mick is expected to refute it. They are able to recite "thousands of scientists agree about. . . " and "I know what David Keith said" and they it is up to Mick know/explain they are quote mining, taking something out of context/flat out lying.

Here's another one, about taking the measurements: " 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," Of course, what's his name? What did he do for the gov't? What makes him qualified? Everything is an argument from authority.

I think what needs to happen is Metabunk hosts a debate and invites THEM to join in.
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
I think the cloud analogy is a very effective point when talking about humidity variation. This came over very well.

Generally, if chemtrailers are pointing to their own samples and measurements, it should be stressed again and again how important it is follow the basic rules during the sampling/measurement process and to document it thoroughfully.

If they make use of scientific methods, they need to follow the same strict process that was employed to obtain the 'official' and published values. Otherwise a comparison is not possible.

That said, the "dustless forest pond" came over as a pretty wide stretch. Not very plausible.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Time to move on with Madison. Nothing to see here.

Madison came on the scene with her impressive collection of mislabeled suspicious planes (ballast barrels, etc). I don't really think she's really interested in a discussion about any points of science - partly because that's not her thing, and mostly because her mind is made up. She often post audio of herself calling the EPA or FAA, and haranguing whoever answers the phone for half an hour. I think her impact is limited to a very small group. However there's the possibility that with things like here "whistleblower" that she could trigger an avalanche of bunk.

She also pushes the "the evil shills are stalking us!" meme. So it's entirely counterproductive trying to engage her directly, and wherever possible I'd try to address any serious claim of evidence she makes directly without mentioning her by name.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Madison came on the scene with her impressive collection of mislabeled suspicious planes (ballast barrels, etc). I don't really think she's really interested in a discussion about any points of science - partly because that's not her thing, and mostly because her mind is made up. She often post audio of herself calling the EPA or FAA, and haranguing whoever answers the phone for half an hour. I think her impact is limited to a very small group. However there's the possibility that with things like here "whistleblower" that she could trigger an avalanche of bunk.

She also pushes the "the evil shills are stalking us!" meme. So it's entirely counterproductive trying to engage her directly, and wherever possible I'd try to address any serious claim of evidence she makes directly without mentioning her by name.

Yeah, it seems to expand her feeling of importance to think that you and the "Metabunk goons" are reacting to her every move and maybe even having intense, late-night-smoke-filled meetings where plans are made to counter her latest expose of "TRVTH".
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The format is they come with a ridiculous claim and parrot it over and over. Mick is expected to refute it. They are able to recite "thousands of scientists agree about. . . " and "I know what David Keith said" and they it is up to Mick know/explain they are quote mining, taking something out of context/flat out lying.

Here's another one, about taking the measurements: " 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," Of course, what's his name? What did he do for the gov't? What makes him qualified? Everything is an argument from authority.

I think what needs to happen is Metabunk hosts a debate and invites THEM to join in.

Something that became clear from this "debate" was that Dane essentially has a very small set of claims of evidence, and the most effective technique for answering him would have been to have an answer for each one. Since pretty much all his claims have been debunked already, I should have been better able to answer things like the soil alkalinity - however it's not something I'd really paid that much attention to, as I'd seen other people here address in much more depth, so i'd not done much research myself.

Even in my areas of expertise, I did not always have good answers - like with what happens to a cup of hot water thrown into the air at -40C. I know exactly what is going on, but it was not something I'd put into words before, so it seemed like I had no idea.

Anyway, live and learn. I need to do more things like that to get better at it.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Something that became clear from this "debate" was that Dane essentially has a very small set of claims of evidence, and the most effective technique for answering him would have been to have an answer for each one. Since pretty much all his claims have been debunked already, I should have been better able to answer things like the soil alkalinity - however it's not something I'd really paid that much attention to, as I'd seen other people here address in much more depth, so i'd not done much research myself.

Even in my areas of expertise, I did not always have good answers - like with what happens to a cup of hot water thrown into the air at -40C. I know exactly what is going on, but it was not something I'd put into words before, so it seemed like I had no idea.

Anyway, live and learn. I need to do more things like that to get better at it.

You were in a difficult position to have to try to debunk, in real time, anything thrown at you. Dane's claims are well rehearsed and he has repeated them many times. They have stood the test of time(in HIS world) and been refined to the point where they SOUND quite realistic to the uninformed. It's like someone confidently stating that normal contrails always fade in less than 5 minutes. That claim is quick and easy to make but the countering science is lengthy and somewhat complex. I think part of the issue is the very nature of certain types of "information" media. People don't want to wade through dense science to see why something easily expressed in one sentence might be wrong. I don't see a good solution to the situation where maybe 75% of the general public is content to absorb "information" they can get from simplistic sound-bites.
 
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
T Claim: Jim Hoffman's "9/11 progressive collapse challenge" can't be met 9/11 353
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 43
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