Debate Challenge from Madisonstar Moon to Mick West

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
That said, the "dustless forest pond" came over as a pretty wide stretch. Not very plausible.
If you have a look at Dane's pond in Google earth, you will see that it is surrounded by an unpaved road that is his driveway and gets traffic from every car that arrives or departs from his house raising dust.

It is preposterous to expect that no dust from the encircling unpaved roadway would be deposited in the pond.

Here is a satellite view of the pond Wigington sampled:

pond.JPG

No wonder the sample contained sludge, part of which probably came from his roadway..

Careful observation will often let their own material debunk themselves.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If you have a look at Dane's pond in Google earth, you will see that it is surrounded by an unpaved road that is his driveway and gets traffic from every car that arrives or departs from his house raising dust. You can see Michael Murphy driving on this road past the pond in the WITWATS movie, and the pond is shown to be quite muddy, mud of the same color as the surrounding soil. No wonder the sample contained sludge. Careful observation will often let their own material debunk themselves.
In the debate, Dane claims the sludge was just "fish feces", as if that was a perfectly reasonable thing to test when determining the aluminum content of pond water.

It's sediment in the bottom of a pond that has been accumulating for years. Its going to have a very large component of mineral dust. Hence aluminum.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I also made a few mistakes in the debate. My math was off by a factor of about 20 with number of flights required. (although the primary issue there was if David Keith was "all over the map"). And the old document DID list more that just silver iodide cloud seeding (but wasn't actually a real program, just a proposal that never happened).
 

Steve Funk

Active Member
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,
This is hearsay. Not only that, he is referencing someone anonymous. Anonymous hearsay is not an acceptable method of determining a scientific fact. We need to call them on this.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
In the debate, Dane claims the sludge was just "fish feces", as if that was a perfectly reasonable thing to test when determining the aluminum content of pond water.

It's sediment in the bottom of a pond that has been accumulating for years. Its going to have a very large component of mineral dust. Hence aluminum.
Fish shit will have a high concentration of Al in it as well, certainly higher than the background levels in the water. Anything in the water is going to go through the fish after all. Al does accumulate in fish as well, at the gills and liver mainly.

Just a quick note. Dane talks rather glibbly about pH changes yet it is worth remembering that pH is a logarithmic scale and a shift is highly noticable. Which brings the issue of soil. Soil can have an incredible buffering ability and tolerate a lot. Yet the rainfall Dane notes us more to the neutral than at the higher end of the scale so it should tolerate that with ease. I think any soil scientist would know that.
 

TomC

Member
I think the cloud analogy is a very effective point when talking about humidity variation. This came over very well.
A word of caution on the cloud analogy....

As with many analogies, the science is not quite as simple as is made out.

Mick refers to cumulus clouds I think, and one of the infographics I have seen uses clouds that are cumulus too. These are the fluffy stereotypical heaped clouds people are used to. The issue is that these clouds are formed from convection, a rising column of air due to surface heating of the ground, as the air rises it cools and once it cools to the level that it is saturated the water vapor condenses into cloud droplets.

The gaps that appear between these clouds are often as much because of unequal heating of different ground surfaces (meaning convection starts in some places but not others) and more importantly, downdraughts forming around the outside of the cloud due to displacement of the cooler air aloft. Where air is descending it is warming so no condensation takes place.

Larger scale layered clouds are a better example of "gaps" in humidity, but nice photos of them are harder to find.

On the upside, any chemtrail believer that understood this process would also understand the meteorology behind contrails and therefore not accept the theory in the first place.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A word of caution on the cloud analogy....

As with many analogies, the science is not quite as simple as is made out.

Mick refers to cumulus clouds I think, and one of the infographics I have seen uses clouds that are cumulus too. These are the fluffy stereotypical heaped clouds people are used to. The issue is that these clouds are formed from convection, a rising column of air due to surface heating of the ground, as the air rises it cools and once it cools to the level that it is saturated the water vapor condenses into cloud droplets.

The gaps that appear between these clouds are often as much because of unequal heating of different ground surfaces (meaning convection starts in some places but not others) and more importantly, downdraughts forming around the outside of the cloud due to displacement of the cooler air aloft. Where air is descending it is warming so no condensation takes place.

Larger scale layered clouds are a better example of "gaps" in humidity, but nice photos of them are harder to find.

On the upside, any chemtrail believer that understood this process would also understand the meteorology behind contrails and therefore not accept the theory in the first place.
Yes, I've recognized this problem with my analogy. The problem here is that reality is a bit more complicated that can easily be conveyed. So my goal is to get people to understand that there can be different regions of air that can have very sharp boundaries. the real issue is relative humidity which is a function of temperature, pressure and water content. I pick the cumulus clouds because of their sharp edges and because people think of them as "normal" clouds. One can get similar edges in Cirrostratus clouds


And when contrails stop and start, they are rarely as sharply curtailed as Wigington suggests. And most of the time the on/off behaviour is after the fact, as part of the trail fades away.
 
Last edited:

TomC

Member
Yes, I've recognized this problem with my analogy. The problem here is that reality is a bit more complicated that can easily be conveyed. So my goal is to get people to understand that there can be different regions of air that can have very sharp boundaries. the real issue is relative humidity which is a function of temperature, pressure and water content. I pick the cumulus clouds because of their sharp edges and because people think of them as "normal" clouds. One can get similar edges in Cirrostratus clouds


And when contrails stop and start, they are rarely as sharply curtailed as Wigington suggests. And most of the time the on/off behaviour is after the fact, as part of the trail fades away.
Yes, I think the cirrostratus pics illustrate this better, since it is closer to the physical process going on. And also, is occurring at the same altitude that contrails form.

The problem, as you say, is that these clouds are not as immediately familiar to some people. In fact I see some people on Twitter posting photos of cirrostratus, with no contrails visible and comments such as "this isn't natural cloud #chemtrails" presumably because they have seen cirrostratus form from persistent contrails and now think they never saw that type of cloud before
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JFDee

Senior Member
A word of caution on the cloud analogy....
As with many analogies, the science is not quite as simple as is made out.
I am convinced that the simplification is legitimate here, particularly to visualize "pockets of air". I have not seen a specific rebuttal of that argument yet; it has the potential to convince people about atmospheric humidity variation (as have atmospheric sounding graphs, even with all their problems).
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
He should be sued, I think Jay needs that place of his in Cal.

The amount of libel on the internet is one of the major threats to it, in my opinion.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Yeah - looking through his 25 rules for disinfo it occurs to me that he's following most of them himself - especially any that include " You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics." - the expose of Jay is a classic - not a single testable or verifiable piece of information is presented showing that Jay is actually wrong or that chemtrails actually exist (or supporting any other aspect of het chemtrail/geoengineering conspiracy theory)!
 

TomC

Member
I am convinced that the simplification is legitimate here, particularly to visualize "pockets of air". I have not seen a specific rebuttal of that argument yet; it has the potential to convince people about atmospheric humidity variation (as have atmospheric sounding graphs, even with all their problems).
I agree, in any case ct believers don't seem to rebutt often (usually because they can't, and/or don't understand the argument) instead just switching the conversation to some other piece of bunk.

However, I think it's wise to fully understand an analogy when using it, and be prepared on how you will respond / expand on it if someone does point out it's flaws.

As for Dane's post, it's pathetic.

Makes me think, screw it, let them waste their lives and make fools of themselves stressing and worrying about something that doesn't exist.

I feel sorry for his kids.
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
...
And when contrails stop and start, they are rarely as sharply curtailed as Wigington suggests. And most of the time the on/off behaviour is after the fact, as part of the trail fades away.
...
Exactly! The start/stop in the trails appears well after the trail has been formed by the plane. It appears as part of the dissipation process.

There are several YouTube videos claiming to be "100% proof of chemtrails" and they show the formation of trails which eventually have gaps. I usually comment that these videos are very good to illustrate that the gaps are caused by the environment, not the action of the "spraying". The formation is shown in these videos to be continuous at the plane - there is no stop/start of the actual "spraying".

I don't have an example to link to; I'm sure you've all seen them.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Exactly! The start/stop in the trails appears well after the trail has been formed by the plane. It appears as part of the dissipation process.

There are several YouTube videos claiming to be "100% proof of chemtrails" and they show the formation of trails which eventually have gaps. I usually comment that these videos are very good to illustrate that the gaps are caused by the environment, not the action of the "spraying". The formation is shown in these videos to be continuous at the plane - there is no stop/start of the actual "spraying".

I don't have an example to link to; I'm sure you've all seen them.
Actually, some of them show start/stop in real time. One I've seen is pretty obviously fuel dumps by some fighters. @ about :30, I think.

 

TWCobra

Senior Member
My guess is that it is one of the US aerobatic teams on their way to a show and testing their smoke system enroute.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
Wow. That is quite a tirade. It's like he has tried to come up with something, ANYTHING, to counter the (unreleased) debate.

PS: Some of us said we thought there would be an escalation of the madness soon. This is it.

Absolutely no civility, just like on Madison's FB page.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Absolutely no civility, just like on Madison's FB page.
They think we are the enemy, and evil. You can justify damn near anything if you are fighting "evil".

PS: "They" are also going on about how it is supposedly "shills" or "agents" who are posing as chemmies, doing the threats of violence against pilots and aircraft. There is simply no defense against stuff like this. The followers just believe anything which supports the meme.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Finally finished typing it in. 12K words. Just checking it, then I'll post it in a new thread later. I think I'll make a sub-forum to discuss the various claims it contains, as it's a nice encapsulation of the totality of the evidence for a chemtrail promoter.
 
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
I don't think that's the pond they are discussing. The pond the samples came from had clearer water with dark sludge at the bottom.
The image I previously had for the pond was incorrect. I have edited my previous post at the op of this page to show a satellite view of the pond. The idea that the pond would not be subject to frequent windblown dust from the encircling unpaved road is impossible. Dane was really pushing the envelope in his story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Belfrey

Senior Member
The image I previously had for the pond was incorrect. I have edited my previous post at the op of this page to show a satellite view of the pond. The idea that the pond would not be subject to frequent windblown dust from the encircling unpaved road is impossible. Dane was really pushing the envelope in his story.
Not only that, but unless it's bordered with some sort of barrier around the edges, it's going to get soil coming in with rainwater runoff. Lined ponds are lined on the bottom, to keep water from draining into the soil below; they generally aren't constructed to keep water from coming in on the sides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member
I think that is an excellent idea.

I noticed the 'aluminum causes Alzheimer disease " was stuck in there.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Our thanks go out to Mick for this herculean task.

I suggest the next task for the debate sub-forum would be a listing of all the claims made by both parties to the debate so that anyone can create threads examining them.
As if all of that hasn't been covered already. The only way to progress would be if some chemtrail advocates would participate in an honest debate of those issues. Fat chance of that happening. I only see this whole debacle gaining even more momentum into an abyss of insanity, chaos and resolute action against the evil they perceive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
From the debate:
[43:24]

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, scientists 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 a 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 alzheimer's, 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.
Dane's quote on global dimming comes from 2006 at BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm

Later in 2006, BBC published another article about how global brightening had supplanted the dimming.

However, in 2004 other researchers had already stated that 2001-2003 had seen brightening:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3756751.stm

It was these articles that led me at that time to explore how geoengineering could be detected if it were happening.

The result of those thoughts led me to the information in this thread which covers the detection method:

Historical Aerosol Thickness Debunks "Chemtrails are Geoengineering"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Fraser

Senior Member
The actual transcript from the show the article is based on mentions global dimming is reduced (Narrators comment after Dr David Travis). Also the article notes 10% for the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml


 
Last edited by a moderator:

TEEJ

Senior Member
We actually covered a lot of the "classic" chemtrail topics as well, like the start/stop, and the KC-10 video of aerodynamic contrails, I was surprised that Dane was not familiar with the explanations for these things.
You did well, Mick. I'm not surprised that he was not familiar with the explanations surrounding the KC-10 video. Is he even aware that the KC-10 aircrew member that created the spoof has a YT Channel and will answer questions? Perhaps you can direct him to the channel?

https://www.youtube.com/user/USAFFEKC10A
 

TEEJ

Senior Member
Madison has little or no technical knowledge.

After being banned on FB for posting a picture of an Airbus A380 test aircraft and executives standing in front of the barrels; I think someone claimed breach of copyright, she appears to believe that Airbus is some sort of private spraying organisation with its own Air Force. This is based on YT spraying videos where even though the airline is named, all she saw was the "airbus" in the title.

She also showed me the photo of the prototype A400M with the various flags of air forces that have ordered it, apparently believing that the Airbus Military Division is the private Air Force.
Reference the A400M. Max Bliss and his poor aircraft recognition skills probably leads Madison along? The following link contains a video from Max filming a 'spraying A-400M'. The aircraft is an Illuyshin IL-76 Candid that are renowned for their smokey trails. I was blocked on Max's YT Channel after pointing out his poor aircraft recognition skills.

Video title 'Chemtrailing France Airbus A400M French Military'

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/are-the-french-military-chemtrailing-the-eu/
 

Mumbles

Active Member
Reference the A400M. Max Bliss and his poor aircraft recognition skills probably leads Madison along? The following link contains a video from Max filming a 'spraying A-400M'. The aircraft is an Illuyshin IL-76 Candid that are renowned for their smokey trails. I was blocked on Max's YT Channel after pointing out his poor aircraft recognition skills.

Video title 'Chemtrailing France Airbus A400M French Military'

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/are-the-french-military-chemtrailing-the-eu/
Quite a feat for the Armee de l'air, given they have only officially had an A400M on strength for three weeks as of today :). I see someone else is claiming it's a C-17, aircraft recognition clearly isn't a priority among this community.

ETA C-17 comment.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member
Quite a feat for the Armee de l'air, given they have only officially had an A400M on strength for three weeks as of today :). I see someone else is claiming it's a C-17, aircraft recognition clearly isn't a priority among this community.

ETA C-17 comment.
I agree. If you try and correct them they simply block and remove comments. Rosario Marcianò (Tanker Enemy) is another one that likes to spin stories. Here he is claiming that the aircraft is a C-17 Globemaster when it is in fact an Antonov 124 Condor. They just make it up as they go along!

 

Mumbles

Active Member
I agree. If you try and correct them they simply block and remove comments. Rosario Marcianò (Tanker Enemy) is another one that likes to spin stories. Here he is claiming that the aircraft is a C-17 Globemaster when it is in fact an Antonov 124 Condor. They just make it up as they go along!

Indeed. Do they just not care, or do they think no-one will notice? The aspect of recognition that interests me is that even when they look at resources they still get it wrong. Anyone who looks at the C-17 in the above preview image closely, and compares it with the aircraft videoed should see the difference. But they don't. Even without the planform I can tell the aircraft isn't a C-17, and An-124 would be my first call without checking some other images to confirm. I admit that the differences aren't as immediately obvious to some as they are to others, but they are still there. Going back to the "A400M" video, even a cursory glance at a few plan views would reveal that while the general configuration matches, the proportions of the A400M and C-17 do not match the "military plane" on screen. The proportions visible perfectly match an IL-76 though (the close paired engines close to the fuselage in particular).
It seems endemic, despite ample resources available to identify pretty much every white-world aircraft type ever built chemtrailers repeatedly fail to.
This is one of my favourite examples from a prominent NZ chemtrail activist:
http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress....mages-of-whenuapai-airport-show-white-planes/

Besides not recognising that Whenuapai is a military airbase rather than a civilian airport, the author doesn't even try to identify the aircraft (RNZAF B757s), which are very well known on the local aviation scene (not least for the regular and memorable airshow performances they put on every summer), and to an extent the general public. In addition to their military taskings, they also perform government VIP taskings, and routinely carry civilians and memebers of the press. Hardly secret or mysterious.

As a lifelong aviation enthusiast used to identifying many types at a glance I find it very intriguing, especially when I'm shown this stuff as 'evidence'.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member
Thanks for the reply, Mumbles. The comments on that link are just mind-numbing. There is a also a growing trend within the chemtrail community of 'fake/invisible spraying planes'. You Tube is full of these types of videos!
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Thanks for the reply, Mumbles. The comments on that link are just mind-numbing. There is a also a growing trend within the chemtrail community of 'fake/invisible spraying planes'. You Tube is full of these types of videos!
And, like the "Planet X" people, they will make wild claims about things like that and then bray: "YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT!"
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Don't do it. You are fighting the thinking behind the saying "The cleverest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he never existed".

This thinking is the purest poison of all. The "thinkers" of it will resort to the most desperate measures (short of murder, I expect) to counter every single thing you do and say.

And you aren't the canniest, yet, so DO NOT DO IT.

Examples? Thunderfoot vs Ray Comfort springs to mind. Mind you, dunderhead's not the brightest frog in the box.

One on one, your studio, and your editing would be OK, but "they" would never accept that.

So it shouldn't ever happen. But if you accept their terms we will all regret it, because they will lie, and cheat and steal. (They have right on their side, so may do no wrong).
 

Related Articles

Top