Debunked: Dane Wigington's Claims That UV is "Off The Charts"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Yeah, but during an active attempt at engaging in debate, we need to be polite.

How can one manage that when it's considered an insult to simply even mention this website? "There is no debate". Even suggesting there is room for discussion is considered offensive.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
And he has a lot of misinformation there. That whole bit about Shell drilling in the Arctic and losing a rig and 'breaking the Gulf Stream is nonsense. Shell did not even have an Arctic drilling program in the early 2000's. They tried last year and got the rig stuck after they gave up and as they were towing it back to port and it wasn't lost, they broke a tow cable. Their drilling was off the North Slope of Alaska, and the Gulf Stream comes our of the Caribbean up the East coast of the US and then it heads across the Atlantic toward Europe. What could possibly 'break it' would be the melting of a large amount of Greenland's ice cap quickly. I never did figure out how the methane clathrates figured into that rant.

And alumina is causing the trees to burn easier--HUH???
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.proaudiodesignforum.com/...sid=d871bbc31074d0315d162e6488d130ca&start=10 (Archive: http://archive.is/YdrQp)
Hi Stupid,
I know who you are, the guy who could not find Omega UV meters on the web and elaborated that the one I have was +/-10% when new... You didn't read my response????
Our UV instruments are +/-4% guaranteed and are brand new, not old and beat up as you espoused on metabunk.
I was laughing my ass off when you saviors of knowledge were further espousing "your" UV knowledge by implying that the UV meters you cut and pasted into your little thread were superior to mine, when in fact they are for reptile lamp verification and are +/-10% tolerance when NEW!!!

And, don't even think about the fact that they have a maximum power level limit of 1,999 uw/cm2... This equals 1.999mW/cm2 which CAN NOT be used for solar power measurements since you would never see power that low if used properly... If you knew the first thing about environmental monitoring, this would have jumped right out at you before you hit the submit button, what 5 times..

For example, a typical measurement in the UK in 2002 was at 45W/m2 or 4.5mW/cm2 of UVB AND UVA. Your reptile cage meter would only read half of that and UV has increased many times over since then.
As David Keith said in 1997, "Geo-engineering with stratospheric aerosol injection would destroy the ozone."
Content from External Source
Just a minor correction there, the SolarTech 6.2 meter does only go to 1.999 mw/cm2, but that is because it's a UVB only meter. UVB is only round 5% of the total UV, so that's fine. And since UVB in space is 2.07 mW/cm2, it would pretty much work there too. The only way it would be insufficient would be if we had no atmosphere at all.

Plus it actually costs more than his UVAB meter.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I think that when people realize how foolish they are being on this subject, they don't know how to get out of it. They can't retreat without admitting just how pathetically wrong they have been. I see this as a case of that.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Both forum co-owners Foote and the other owner, kept asking me for info (data). They both believe in a "spraying program".
They said I had no data, so I presented some for them. The thread was then deleted.
My last post.....(still in my computer's cache)

I believe what you are seeing.....make no mistake, I see it too.

I'm not dismissing what you see.
I'm saying there is a simple reason for it, well known in all atmospheric sciences.
....condensation from aircraft engines produces water. All engines do. They do.
At certain conditions the water vapor freezes and based on temp and RhI, and can act as a cloud, and persist just as any cirrus cloud.
If the conditions are not there, there will be no persistent trail.

You are not arguing with me, your debate is with the data.

search Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en
"persistent condensation trails"
"persistent contrails"
"condensation trails"
Content from External Source
(no link, thread was deleted)


It's a shame....they are both nice gentleman otherwise, and very knowledgeable about audio circuitry and it's application....verging on brilliance in that field.
Just when you think qualified technicians play by the rules of science.....they somehow still have the ability to throw-out reason, in favor of a web-based conspiracy.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
This is a great example of how intelligence and even general technical ability is not the determining factor in chemtrail (or conspiracy) belief.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Some of you might have noticed I changed my signature yesterday to reflect what we need to fight at this point in time. Pretty much everything about chemtrails has been debunked.
What remains is to let the rank and file and the marginally interested understand what has been hidden from them, and who has been responsible for burying the facts behind the matter.
Foote deleted the thread about 2 hours after I sent him this email via his webmaster account at his forum:
Dear Webmaster,
My name is Jay Reynolds. I am a chemtrails debunker. Judging by the rude way that recent conversation has gone in The Peabody Lounge I only wish to bring some factual information to light on the topic specifically related to Mr Foote's claims that there is almost no commercial flight traffic over his area. I would appreciate if you would pose this question to Mr. Foote in that thread and ask if he would respond publicly.
Sincerely,
Jay Reynolds Mr. Foote,
Over a year ago Dane Wigington was saying the same thing you are about no commercial flights over your area. I looked into that and found that his claim was totally false. I documented this and sent him and a number of his associates the following email. Francis Mangels had made the same claim but later he did address it within a few months and admitted that I was correct. The facts show that well over 100 planes pass within view of your location every day. Sometimes they will make contrails,and sometimes they will not, sometimes persistent and sometimes not. I even went further and suggested that Dane and the others undertake a campaign to photo-identify the planes he was seeing, showing him how aviation enthusiasts have been achieving images where the livery and tail numbers are clearly visible.
Please review what I sent them and tell me if you maintain your claim. Realize that Dane has known about this for over a year and I am quite surprised that he hasn't let you in on it. I have seen him do this before many times. He seems very resistant to re-evaluation even when presented with credible evidence. I know of many other items he has likely not told you about, and would be happy to inform you about those as well.
So, here is the email that I sent Dane over a year ago. Fact check what I present, let me know of any corrections you feel I should make and why. Ask yourself if you can truly say there isn't a great deal of ordinary traffic over your head which you didn't know about. Then ask yourself why Dane didn't tell you what he already knows about it.
Regards,
Jay
===============
Email sent 7/1/12:
Jay Reynolds <thechief762@gmail.com>
7/1/12
to admin, Dane, Francis, Edward, whtagft




Francis, Dane, Michael, Ed, and Mauro,

This puts to rest all of your people's contention that there is little
commercial traffic over Mt. Shasta. If you wanted to claim that what
you see are non-commercial flights, you should have done this first,
years ago obviously, and especially after I told you how to do so.
That you haven't, and especially after Ed Griffin asked you to do this
as Chairman of the C.A.G.E., tells me this sort practical research is
either beyond your comprehension or simply rejected for your own
personal reasons unknown to me.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/622-Debunked-Only-Four-Airliner-Flights-Day-over-Mt-Shasta-CA

Now, if you still insist that what you see couldn't possibly be
commercial flights, or if you wish independent confirmation of your own for the exact
identity of the planes you see, there is a way to do so. I have already previously shown you this as well.

Just develop some skill in contrailspotting like these folks have
done, and come up with high definition images of the planes
themselves. As you can see, the unique identifying tail numbers of the
planes can be recorded from the ground.

Examples of contrailspotting:
http://www.luchtzak.be/forums/viewforum.php?f=25
more examples and how-to-do-it:
http://www.skystef.be/contrail.htm

If you have any conscience, you will clear this up very quickly
because sooner or later your people will find out that you have had
this information for years and will begin asking you what you knew and
when, and wondering why you swept this under the rug. Some might even
see this as a cover up. To be mistaken is one thing, forgivable. But
to have others who trust and believe in you, then become aware that
you have hidden information from them, is quite a different
matter.....
It is a violation of trust, and a form of deception.
Jay
He was quite rude, boastful and adamant until confronted by facts he could not dispute.
Then he disintegrated into nothingness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Belfrey

Senior Member.
This is a great example of how intelligence and even general technical ability is not the determining factor in chemtrail (or conspiracy) belief.
I think it's arguably also an example of how one can place too much weight on one's own expertise. I'm sure he's generally very smart and great at his work. But when you're using an unfamiliar piece of equipment to measure something outside of your experience (I'm going to take a guess based on what we have seen that he has not done UV measurements as part of his professional "environmental metering" experience), you might get something wrong. It's remarkable that when it's pointed out that their analysis shows higher UVA than is measured in space, they don't stop and wonder if they did it wrong - instead, they apparently concluded that the figures about UVA in space must be wrong, because their measurements are higher. The whole thing is very similar to Francis Mangels and his errors.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I think he (Foote) has had some solar panel installation and monitoring experience in the past.
That then lends the question....if he had used the UV meters in the past, why wasn't the alarm sent out earlier, years ago ? Surely he would have noticed strange readings back then.
Him and Dane are not claiming this all happened "suddenly", are they ?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I think he (Foote) has had some solar panel installation and monitoring experience in the past.
That then lends the question....if he had used the UV meters in the past, why wasn't the alarm sent out earlier, years ago ? Surely he would have noticed strange readings back then.
Him and Dane are not claiming this all happened "suddenly", are they ?
Are UVA or UVB routinely measured for solar panel installations? I thought panels usually had a spectral response in higher wavelengths.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I think it's arguably also an example of how one can place too much weight on one's own expertise. I'm sure he's generally very smart and great at his work. But when you're using an unfamiliar piece of equipment to measure something outside of your experience (I'm going to take a guess based on what we have seen that he has not done UV measurements as part of his professional "environmental metering" experience), you might get something wrong. It's remarkable that when it's pointed out that their analysis shows higher UVA than is measured in space, they don't stop and wonder if they did it wrong - instead, they apparently concluded that the figures about UVA in space must be wrong, because their measurements are higher. The whole thing is very similar to Francis Mangels and his errors.

He did seem go go on about his stature in his business and how much trust people had in him. Maybe it went to his head.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Some of you might have noticed I changed my signature yesterday to reflect what we need to fight at this point in time. Pretty much everything about chemtrails has been debunked.
What remains is to let the rank and file and the marginally interested understand what has been hidden from them, and who has been responsible for burying the facts behind the matter.

I know you have been at this a long time. It's a big decision to do what you seem to be suggesting- laying the responsibility right at the feet of those people who have been in leadership positions. Not that I think they haven't been disingenuous- they have. It's just that calling direct attention to their actions will be a personal attack, by definition. It could get ugly.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I know you have been at this a long time. It's a big decision to do what you seem to be suggesting- laying the responsibility right at the feet of those people who have been in leadership positions. Not that I think they haven't been disingenuous- they have. It's just that calling direct attention to their actions will be a personal attack, by definition. It could get ugly.

I have been as honest as possible about this. When I have debunked elements of this hoax I have scrupulously made every attempt at direct contact with the originators of the claims to inform them of their errors and even made suggestions for various avenues they could take for correction and verification. This extends back to 1999 when I exchanged e-mails with Richard Finke who instigated the whole thing. It went on with William Thomas, Carnicom, Mark Steadham, and into this decade with the Shasta bunch, Murphy and Griffin, Lim and Bliss. I did this in an honest attempt to keep them informed. I asked for a Freedom of Information Agreement in a best attempt to bring about openness and full disclosure and to induce them into a conversation.

Besides judging people by their words, people are judged by their actions. If their actions are dishonest that is part of the problem. A hoax lives through dishonesty, it cannot be sustained otherwise. Denial is a form of dishonesty even if it is turning a blind eye towards facts which work against beliefs.

Yes, dishonesty is ugly but contrasted against an honest attempt honest people with integrity can recognize the difference. We can't expect to make gains with dishonest people, they have compromised themselves and are not of any use to us or anyone else. Just as the chemtrails promoters depend on recruitment of folks who are easily manipulated because they are not technically fluent they also depend on people not finding out their errors. That is why they bury their errors and try to silence debate. That is why Dane realized the debate could not be made public.

My signature has a provenance. It is a portion of JFK's speech which is often (mis)quoted by conspiracy theorists. It refers to a very real conspiracy called Communism, and the means it took power and maintained it. You can read more about it here.

The parallel I see here is that the Communist conspiracy was defeated when it became seen as morally bankrupt and when openness(Glasnost) came about. As the wall came down it was finally seen for what it was, and it all but evaporated as has Roger Foote's claims.

It is time to hold them responsible in an open and fair manner.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But if they don't know they are being essentially dishonest, is it useful to blanket characterize them as a bunch of liars?

I think we can demonstrate their inaccuracies, and their rejection of science, without adding "... therefore their pants are on fire!" to every post about them.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
OL 756 Portable UV-VIS Radiospectrometer
It sells for $36,000 to $40,000, according to their phone sales dept. Compare to $119 for the General UV-513 AB that Roger Foote is using.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
But if they don't know they are being essentially dishonest, is it useful to blanket characterize them as a bunch of liars?

I think we can demonstrate their inaccuracies, and their rejection of science, without adding "... therefore their pants are on fire!" to every post about them.
I have been though this with the "Planet X" people. It's seems that they couldn't possibly believe what they are saying, in the face of all reality, logic, blatant contrary evidence and critical thinking, yet they seem to believe it anyway. I never could explain it.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
But if they don't know they are being essentially dishonest, is it useful to blanket characterize them as a bunch of liars?

I think we can demonstrate their inaccuracies, and their rejection of science, without adding "... therefore their pants are on fire!" to every post about them.
I never said anyone should blanket a group of people as liars. When individuals can be documented as having knowledge of their errors, and burying those facts, the public should be made aware that individual actually does know about their errors and dishonestly carries on as if they didn't. Even if the individual is engaging in a form of self-deceiving or turning a blind eye to the facts of the matter, even if he/she is deluded in a psychological manner the public needs to know. We need to give that individual notification of their errors and an opportunity to correct them. If we remain quiet about some facts of the matter we willingly allow the deception of others to take place. I especially see a need for getting this out in regards to those who act as leaders who should be held to the highest standards.

I fully understand the impediments some of these individuals have in regards to change. If telling them how they are wrong hurts their feelings they are already offended, letting the public know they are burying their errors might offend them more but that is a state of affairs they brought on to themselves, we shouldn't be blamed for their lack of candor and reasonable people will see that.

Having watched the progression for years I know that time will take care of this more surely that we ever can. There is an expiration date on tales of apocalyptic mass destruction. We all know that change is possible, but its far more likely that most of today's chemtrail leaders will simply fade away like dozens I can name which most of you would't even have ever heard of.

Our real audience are the undecideds and the simply curious. They deserve to know what is being hidden as well as what is out there publicly. If we intend to fully inform the public there is no benefit to ignoring any of it, and that includes what the leaders don't want people to know as much as why they are wrong.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Speaking of what they don't want you to know, how about this video showing an hour's worth of Dane and his local followers getting the nice smile but the cold shoulder when trying to exhort their own neighbors into joining their collective. As Dane is sent away after his four minutes, the scene is unforgettable. He starts about 13:30. His retired pilot who believes is in there too. he sas he taught weather yet is mystified that "they usually spray before a front" @43:00.

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I never said anyone should blanket a group of people as liars. When individuals can be documented as having knowledge of their errors, and burying those facts, the public should be made aware that individual actually does know about their errors and dishonestly carries on as if they didn't. Even if the individual is engaging in a form of self-deceiving or turning a blind eye to the facts of the matter, even if he/she is deluded in a psychological manner the public needs to know. We need to give that individual notification of their errors and an opportunity to correct them. If we remain quiet about some facts of the matter we willingly allow the deception of others to take place. I especially see a need for getting this out in regards to those who act as leaders who should be held to the highest standards.

Okay. But I think think you need to be careful to be clear when you do this. Be clear about who you are referring to, and what exactly you are saying about them. I'd try to avoid blanket terms like "these people", or, as in your sig, "the Chemtrail Movement".

I think certain people need calling out. I have no qualms about describing Alex Jones as someone who lies to sell things. I have also describe MJM as something along the lines of "effectively lying" several times.

https://www.google.com/search?q="these+people"+site:metabunk.org
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
This is the recommendation from Kipp and Zonen representative Victor Casilla:

The UVS-B-T sensors from Kipp is a very accurate instrument to measure the UV – B radiation. The cost for this sensor is $6,780.50
If you are looking at the Brewer Spectrophotometer the cost is $237,544.00
So you are correct with your statement about the inexpensive unit sold through Amazon, which does not compare to the total output of a scientific instrument
Content from External Source
.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
Where have the "U.S. Forest Service biologists" Dane talks about weighed in on the issue?

Francis has mentioned declines in insect population on Wagon Ck in the "What we know," paper. Wagon Creek is a suburban/rural watershed going through cow pasture and residential areas. There are water diversions and at least one place where the channel is straightened. It would have its share of exposure to lawn chemicals, road oil, weed control and faulty septic systems. Where he is shown in videos taking samples, there is a dusty road paralleling the creek, 10 to 30 feet away. The only time I have done any good fishing there was when the hatchery had extra trout it needed to dump, and put a lot in this creek. I would like to see some sampling on the Sacramento River, South Fork, another tributary of Lake Siskiyou, which is nearly all on national forest. Insect sampling isn't my field, but on my favorite trout stream, about 12 miles southeast of Wagon Creek, it took me about 20 minutes to catch my two fish limit after an hour walk in.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Francis has mentioned declines in insect population on Wagon Ck in the "What we know," paper. Wagon Creek is a suburban/rural watershed going through cow pasture and residential areas. There are water diversions and at least one place where the channel is straightened. It would have its share of exposure to lawn chemicals, road oil, weed control and faulty septic systems. Where he is shown in videos taking samples, there is a dusty road paralleling the creek, 10 to 30 feet away. The only time I have done any good fishing there was when the hatchery had extra trout it needed to dump, and put a lot in this creek. I would like to see some sampling on the Sacramento River, South Fork, another tributary of Lake Siskiyou, which is nearly all on national forest. Insect sampling isn't my field, but on my favorite trout stream, about 12 miles southeast of Wagon Creek, it took me about 20 minutes to catch my two fish limit after an hour walk in.

Yes, but Dane said that actual U.S. Forest Service people had weighed in. I've seen him claim that before. Has Dane ever brought them forward or cited anything they have specifically said?
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
Has Dane ever brought them forward or cited anything they have specifically said?
Not that I know of. I retired eight years ago, but I doubt there are any current Forest Service biologists that agree with Francis. I saw some of the correspondence when they were figuring out how to respond to Francis.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Not that I know of. I retired eight years ago, but I doubt there are any current Forest Service biologists that agree with Francis. I saw some of the correspondence when they were figuring out how to respond to Francis.

My point being, that it is a significant claim Wigington throws around, but has never backed up, afaik. It's such a chronic habit for chemtrail proponents to spout important sounding "evidence", but when challenged to back it up, they can't. It was just hot air.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
My point being, that it is a significant claim Wigington throws around, but has never backed up, afaik. It's such a chronic habit for chemtrail proponents to spout important sounding "evidence", but when challenged to back it up, they can't. It was just hot air.

Just watching the video if I was a councilman I would not be dismissive and I would look at the costings for a small scale study. I would certainly be asking for a correctly formatted, and referenced, paper in which to work from. Essentially just call their bluff.
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Just watching the video if I was a councilman I would not be dismissive and I would look at the coatings for a small scale study. I would certainly be asking for a correctly formatted, and referenced, paper in which to work from. Essentially just call their bluff.

It makes me curious about what happened previously, when the councilman said they had sent docs to some higher agency.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Hama Neggs said:
My point being, that it is a significant claim Wigington throws around, but has never backed up, afaik. It's such a chronic habit for chemtrail proponents to spout important sounding "evidence", but when challenged to back it up, they can't. It was just hot air.
Just watching the video if I was a councilman I would not be dismissive and I would look at the costings for a small scale study. I would certainly be asking for a correctly formatted, and referenced, paper in which to work from. Essentially just call their bluff.
It makes me curious about what happened previously, when the councilman said they had sent docs to some higher agency.

These are all related questions. First of all, the reason why Wigington doesn't back it up is that he wants to present the appearance of strong support which he doesn't really have.

Dave, Dane has mentioned that he had a "closed door" meeting with the Air Board. He could give details but basically they told him that there was no documented particulate problem in his county, and that aluminum they were finding was a ubiquitous part of the environment. He didn't want to accept that, and so he didn't fully inform his people about it.

Instead, Michael Murphy two years later went down and did a "confrontation" type hit piece accusing the Board of being involved in a cover up:


Then they threatened to sue:
http://farmwars.info/?p=6101

The problem was that the believers brought in water tests to an Air Board. The Air Board's job is to monitor particulates, and they found no problems.

The same bunch then went to the water board and they did some tests and found no problems with the water supply, including area surface water:
Be sure to read all three pages where the water board fully explained where the aluminum came from:
http://www.mtshastanews.com/article/20090610/NEWS/306109966/0/SEARCH

Eventually, the believers had made such a nuisance of themselves, even after being given explanations which didn't agree with their ideas that the government has since given up any hope of placating them. They simply do the absolute minimum which is to allow them to make statements during the time allotted for public comment.

From the perspective of a public official, it is very hard. When they give an answer that is not fully accepting of the nonsense belief, they are insulted, blamed for a cover up, yet have to endure it all the while smiling. They get phone calls and letters with women crying, men threatening lawsuits, being blamed for death and crop failures, "hit piece" videos. As public servants, they get treated like crap. After all of that, the most they will do is the minimum, all the while forced to smile laugh and act nice lest they appear in another one of Michael Murphy's videos.

The whole community knows these people and their claims. They are fed up with it in Shasta County. Have a look at the comments the locals make:
http://www.redding.com/news/2008/aug/05/shasta-board-to-talk-about-jets-metal-dumping/

Over a year ago I spoke to Redding California Regional Water Quality Control Board Associate Engineering Geologist Guy Chetelat. He understands what the claims are all about, and responded to them. The chemtrails people have been told that the aluminum they are seeing is from soil, as stated in the article above. They haven't "stonewalled" anyone, they haven't "done nothing".

The rest is all positioning by the leadership of the chemtrails movement to allow them to manipulate public opinion into believing they are being ignored in an effort to build frustration culminating in a "critical mass" of angry people with pitchforks and laser pointers.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
These are all related questions. First of all, the reason why Wigington doesn't back it up is that he wants to present the appearance of strong support which he doesn't really have.

Dave, Dane has mentioned that he had a "closed door" meeting with the Air Board. He could give details but basically they told him that there was no documented particulate problem in his county, and that aluminum they were finding was a ubiquitous part of the environment. He didn't want to accept that, and so he didn't fully inform his people about it.

Instead, Michael Murphy two years later went down and did a "confrontation" type hit piece accusing the Board of being involved in a cover up:


Then they threatened to sue:
http://farmwars.info/?p=6101

The problem was that the believers brought in water tests to an Air Board. The Air Board's job is to monitor particulates, and they found no problems.

The same bunch then went to the water board and they did some tests and found no problems with the water supply, including area surface water:
Be sure to read all three pages where the water board fully explained where the aluminum came from:
http://www.mtshastanews.com/article/20090610/NEWS/306109966/0/SEARCH

Eventually, the believers had made such a nuisance of themselves, even after being given explanations which didn't agree with their ideas that the government has since given up any hope of placating them. They simply do the absolute minimum which is to allow them to make statements during the time allotted for public comment.

From the perspective of a public official, it is very hard. When they give an answer that is not fully accepting of the nonsense belief, they are insulted, blamed for a cover up, yet have to endure it all the while smiling. They get phone calls and letters with women crying, men threatening lawsuits, being blamed for death and crop failures, "hit piece" videos. As public servants, they get treated like crap. After all of that, the most they will do is the minimum, all the while forced to smile laugh and act nice lest they appear in another one of Michael Murphy's videos.

The whole community knows these people and their claims. They are fed up with it in Shasta County. Have a look at the comments the locals make:
http://www.redding.com/news/2008/aug/05/shasta-board-to-talk-about-jets-metal-dumping/

Over a year ago I spoke to Redding California Regional Water Quality Control Board Associate Engineering Geologist Guy Chetelat. He understands what the claims are all about, and responded to them. The chemtrails people have been told that the aluminum they are seeing is from soil, as stated in the article above. They haven't "stonewalled" anyone, they haven't "done nothing".

The rest is all positioning by the leadership of the chemtrails movement to allow them to manipulate public opinion into believing they are being ignored in an effort to build frustration culminating in a "critical mass" of angry people with pitchforks and laser pointers.


Murphy: "I'm not taking a side on this issue". That made me spit coffee. This is a great synopsis. Thanks, Jay!
 

TomC

Member
As with the soil and air tests, official govt agencies make measurements of ozone and UV, and publish the data..

UK site with info from DEFRA is here: http://ozone-uv.defra.gov.uk/index.php

I downloaded all the info available for daily max UV index (for Reading, UK) and stuck it in a google docs spreadsheet and charted it.
Looks like UV levels have been pretty flat over the last 9 years, if anything they have declined slightly recently
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoCPzwwWkPbqdFA2RFc2OUQ0SFM5T3Z4Z2FnTnpIckE&usp=sharing

If I was Dane I would contact the official agency responsible for monitoring UV in the states and ask them if they can explain to him why he is getting such high readings.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
As with the soil and air tests, official govt agencies make measurements of ozone and UV, and publish the data..

UK site with info from DEFRA is here: http://ozone-uv.defra.gov.uk/index.php

I downloaded all the info available for daily max UV index (for Reading, UK) and stuck it in a google docs spreadsheet and charted it.
Looks like UV levels have been pretty flat over the last 9 years, if anything they have declined slightly recently
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoCPzwwWkPbqdFA2RFc2OUQ0SFM5T3Z4Z2FnTnpIckE&usp=sharing

If I was Dane I would contact the official agency responsible for monitoring UV in the states and ask them if they can explain to him why he is getting such high readings.

No, if you were Dane you would avoid asking any such questions, the answers to which might embarrass you. Just sayin'... Dane didn't get to where he is now by seeking truly logical answers.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I have an uncle, former scientist at NASA......I emailed him asking for some contacts at NASA, who might be involved in UV and ozone measurements.
However my uncle was mostly involved with orbit and trajectory data. We'll see if it pans-out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top