U
Unregistered
Guest
Yeah, but there's no reading for aluminium!! Funny that....
DEBUNKED: David Lim - Public talks on geoengineering / chemtrails in the UK
- Thread starter HappyMonday
- Start date
Yeah, but there's no reading for aluminium!! Funny that....
F4Jock
Active Member
Mick forgive me! (Old ...joke... punch ...line ...about guy who drowns in vat of ale...keeps intruding on my consciousness....Can't help myself.....) How many times did he come up to pee?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Part of their problem is that the test methods they are using are unable to distinguish "metal particulates" from ordinary mineral particulates. For xample, aluminum is most commonly associated with silicon in its mineral form. Alumino-silicate minerals make up most of earth's crust. Just because you find aluminum in a rain or air sample does not mean that elemental aluminum existed in the air or water, it almost certainly did not.
The Defra site is very easy to use.
I went to the interactive map here:
http://pollutantdeposition.defra.gov.uk/networks
I chose Yarner Wood in the Dorset area:
At the Yarner Wood page, I clicked on
"Dwnload annual mean heavy metals concentrations 2004 - 2009 (verified data)"
The pop-up offered me a download option for the Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet data:
And the spreadsheet shows data for 2004-2009 at Yarner Wood with aluminum27 ranging from .06 to above 4 ug/L.
This is not beyond a PhD candidate engineer. There is something really wrong about this. Usually, someone like him gets approached by one of the chemtrail believers who selectively feeds them information, omitting anything which might "detract from understanding". In other words, Lim may have been deliberately steered away from information which he should have found on his own if he had begun a full literature search. They may have given him a "Gish Gallop", overwhelming him with their stuff and claiming that no other data existed. Unless you suspect their motives, and especially if you become invested, you may simply become satisfied with whatever they put out. Once enough of it seems to come so fast it might look like, hey, these folks have their case down.
The devil is in the details, the parts they omit, and the parts the believers simply don't bother with, especially if it doesn't support their case.
David needs to know these things. After his initial deletion spree on his youtube channel, he seems to have stopped going there. He likely was primed by Wigington, et.al. to expect blowback and has recoiled from going back. I have made several comments which were not deleted, but see no further response.
David needs to know what we found when we looked into the rain tests put forth by Murphy and Wigington, and why they got the results that they did.
Here it is:
Debunked: Shasta Snow and Water Aluminum Tests.
and:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/822-Natural-Abundance-Of-Strontium-And-Barium
and:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow
He needs to know that subsequent tests made by Steve Funk, perhaps more qualified than Francis Mangels, showed quite a different story. Once Lim gets a chance to see that he was not given full disclosure by those who have been advising him for a year, he should be able to begin understanding what has actually happened to him.
http://pollutantdeposition.defra.gov.uk/networksBiggerdave said:
The Defra site is very easy to use.
I went to the interactive map here:
http://pollutantdeposition.defra.gov.uk/networks
I chose Yarner Wood in the Dorset area:
At the Yarner Wood page, I clicked on
"Dwnload annual mean heavy metals concentrations 2004 - 2009 (verified data)"
The pop-up offered me a download option for the Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet data:
And the spreadsheet shows data for 2004-2009 at Yarner Wood with aluminum27 ranging from .06 to above 4 ug/L.
This is not beyond a PhD candidate engineer. There is something really wrong about this. Usually, someone like him gets approached by one of the chemtrail believers who selectively feeds them information, omitting anything which might "detract from understanding". In other words, Lim may have been deliberately steered away from information which he should have found on his own if he had begun a full literature search. They may have given him a "Gish Gallop", overwhelming him with their stuff and claiming that no other data existed. Unless you suspect their motives, and especially if you become invested, you may simply become satisfied with whatever they put out. Once enough of it seems to come so fast it might look like, hey, these folks have their case down.
The devil is in the details, the parts they omit, and the parts the believers simply don't bother with, especially if it doesn't support their case.
David needs to know these things. After his initial deletion spree on his youtube channel, he seems to have stopped going there. He likely was primed by Wigington, et.al. to expect blowback and has recoiled from going back. I have made several comments which were not deleted, but see no further response.
David needs to know what we found when we looked into the rain tests put forth by Murphy and Wigington, and why they got the results that they did.
Here it is:
Debunked: Shasta Snow and Water Aluminum Tests.
and:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/822-Natural-Abundance-Of-Strontium-And-Barium
and:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow
He needs to know that subsequent tests made by Steve Funk, perhaps more qualified than Francis Mangels, showed quite a different story. Once Lim gets a chance to see that he was not given full disclosure by those who have been advising him for a year, he should be able to begin understanding what has actually happened to him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Belfrey
Senior Member
Besides, which, there certainly is published literature about the abundance and composition of atmospheric aerosols, aluminum in rainwater, etc.
This raised my eyebrows:
External Quote:
Disparities between what? What does "double blind" mean in this context?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
There is aluminum, barium, and strontium plus a slew of others. Follow along I showed you exactly how to get to the excel files with the data.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
They have 2 samples. One goes to a DEFRA lab, the other to an "independent". First all kabs gave to be government accredited but they found it suspect that DEFRA filtered the sample. That is standard practice. They only need to tell both labs exactly how they want the sample treated.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Jay, I have provided many of them with absolutely shitloads of links to papers. All of the stations can be contacted for up to date data and they are operated by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. All the rain water samples are on storage (frozen) and are available for retesting for verification (the network is set up u der EU pollution control legislation). I have even provided links to the Air Quality Network do they can cross reference with that on the day they took ir take their sample. That is useful as it shows how much PM10 particulates are in the air.
I have even gone to lengths to describe that samples taken near the sea will have higher levels. At best I have been told they may read the stuff, at worse I have been accused of lies and in a case threatened. Usually I just get blocked.
I keep.on meaning to set up a webpage as a resource and this has given be more motivation to get my arse into gear
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
If this was a true "double blind" experiment, there would have been a third party administrator. Bet there wasn't. If their experimental design didn't take into account the exact procedure to be used by each lab and assure that the procedures were identical, someone needs to go back to school about designing experiments. If different procedures were used the experiment was a failure due to poor design.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
I gave the name of a couple of really good lab manuals that they could read but I was informed they were books of lies. As I have said I find incredulous that Mr Lim has not found any peer reviewed material. I wonder if his omissions are deliberate and he us enjoying the attention.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Jay, I have provided many of them with absolutely shitloads of links to papers. All of the stations can be contacted for up to date data and they are operated by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. All the rain water samples are on storage (frozen) and are available for retesting for verification (the network is set up u der EU pollution control legislation). I have even provided links to the Air Quality Network do they can cross reference with that on the day they took ir take their sample. That is useful as it shows how much PM10 particulates are in the air.
I have even gone to lengths to describe that samples taken near the sea will have higher levels. At best I have been told they may read the stuff, at worse I have been accused of lies and in a case threatened. Usually I just get blocked.
I keep.on meaning to set up a webpage as a resource and this has given be more motivation to get my arse into gear
Dave,
You need to inform David Lim of what you have done to help and how you were rebuffed. You need to do this publicly with a trail so that it can be seen how this has happened and when he was informed.
A message board thread here with a timeline should be sufficient to establish the facts of the matter, who knew what and when did they know it.
A person like Lim needs to know because once a timeline is established he is under pressure to respond or not. This will tell if he is indeed honest or has gone over to the dark side and has chosen to be a deceiver no matter the facts. Sorry to say there isn't much else that can be done unless you could confront these people personally or get them to participate in a public debate. If they are unsure of themselves or simply dishonest they will avoid either option.
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Thanks for the advice Jay and I will do. I have contacted Mr Lim but no reply so far.
I was not going to say publicly but I will probably be bumping into a few chemtrailers over the summer. I work at a few music festivals (up to 12), and I have noticed with some folk I have mutual friends, festivals and even employers. UK festivals are usually quite close nit and I know that for some people it will blow the myth that I am a paid shill etc.
I was not going to say publicly but I will probably be bumping into a few chemtrailers over the summer. I work at a few music festivals (up to 12), and I have noticed with some folk I have mutual friends, festivals and even employers. UK festivals are usually quite close nit and I know that for some people it will blow the myth that I am a paid shill etc.
HappyMonday
Moderator
Mainly because people like 'unregistered' exist, and will invest all sorts of energy in bunkum.
HappyMonday
Moderator
Provided something I have in the pipeline comes off, I'll be working a few of those too.
FuzzyUK
Active Member
Yes, but DEFRA hardly goes round sniffing the backsides of alleged chemtrail emitting aircraft. Why can't all these conspiracists club together and raise a bit of cash to do this by hiring a private craft?
Out of technical interest, what sort of nose probe would be used to collect 38,000 ft farts in a jar?
F4Jock
Active Member
Bunkum that will possibly convince people used to believing any semi-plausible load of same that conspiracy theories are true because they read them on the Internet, heard them on radio or saw them on TV and we ALL know that anything presented there is true!
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
All airplanes that fly in rarefied atmosphere are pressurized. That pressurization comes from air compressed by the engines and bled off into the cabin. Outside air, same air as encountered by all planes flying through the airspace. David Lim shows some examples of what he calls "normal" contrails formed coincidental with persistent contrails he calls "chemtrails". The planes are essentially in the same airspace, each drawing in the same air, pressurizing the cabin for breathing of the passengers and crews.
see:
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/cabinair/facts.page
In other words, all airplane cabin air is a medium which could be sampled to get a representative of air at altitude. There is a large a range of handheld sample collectors which could do the job. This one does a complete analysis, others just collect for later professional analysis.
Of course, passengers and especially air crews who are contantly exposed already form a statistical group for examining health effects. They receive health care at high rates and the pilots especially receive routine and extensive physical exams.
The irony of a dedicated sampling flight operated for chemtrail believers would be that as they approached an aircraft leaving persistent "chemtrails", they would most likely be making the same sort of trail themselves!
U
Unregistered
Guest
where is meta inks defense that Monsanto just bought former black water now called Xe and has been involved with perception management since early 2000? Metabunk is a public perception front and covering the facts of Monsantos dirty secret that they were hired by USAF Medical to test mixture aerosols from jet engines. Your site is covering up crimes against humanity and target individuals who know better. The truth is revealed by each word you utter to protect Monsanto. Your site is covering up illegal acts against humanity.
Covering up? How can your claims be covered up if they are right there in your post?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
The ordinary jet engine exhaust sampled by Monsanto chemical company 35 years ago hasn't been "covered up". That study should have been included in every one of Michael J. Murphy's "chemtrail" movies, but to do so would have shown folks that this unclassified study has never been secret ever since it was created.
Last edited by a moderator:
F4Jock
Active Member
isn't it obvious Mick? You didn't REALLY allow him to post. His posts only occur on the forum HE can read. The real forum in which we all defend Monsanto and their "crimes against humanity" doesn't contain them.
Forgive me!
http://www.logoeps.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/looney-tunes-eps-vector-logo.png
solrey
Senior Member
Problem is, Monsanto did NOT buy Blackwater/Xe. Monsanto might have HIRED Blackwater/Xe or a subsidiary like Total Intelligence Solutions, but hiring is not the same as owning.
A translation mistake started an information whiplash; the nation's most deadly company, Monsanto, is not buying XE.
Too Much of a Bad Thing: Monsanto Did NOT Buy Blackwater
Even the Activist Post sets the record straight: Monsanto did NOT buy Blackwater.
And the article written by Jeremy Scahill describing documents obtained by "The Nation" that started the rumor. Note that nowhere in the article is there mention of Monsanto buying Blackwater/Xe or a subsidiary.
Blackwater's Black Ops
I'm no fan of Monsanto, but I'm even less of a fan of bullshit.
Cairenn
Senior Member
Reminds me of the oft repeated story that is used to promote the theory that the BP blow out was a conspiracy. The story is that 'Haliburton bought 'Boots and Coots', a oil spill clean up company, just before the spill" . The fact is, is that Boots and Coots is a WILD well control company (like Red Adair in 'Hellfighters') not an oil spill clean up company. Not only that, but Haliburton had had major shares in it for years.
HappyMonday
Moderator
Really? A major company with a PR department?
U
Unregistered
Guest
http://www.finfisher.com/FinFisher/en/index.php
Ever hear of finfisher? gamainternational? "Government IT intrusion and remote monitoring solutions" or "Riotsoftware"
blackwater/Xe/Academi= war criminals hired by another war criminal. Monsanto. You guys work the PR. If you don't know, ask Micheal West in private.
You work for soulless criminals who think they are above the law and use programs to spyder answers designed by the same soulless people.
Monsanto hires these criminals for counter intelligence against environmentalist and animal activists. If the PR doesn't work, they can put boots on the ground. Blackwater: shot at Iraqi civilians killing 17 and injuring 20... 14 counts of manslaughter, 20 counts of attempted manslaughter. Blackwater: Trading secrets with the enemy (treason), including illegal exports and unauthorized possession of automatic weapons. All these charges were slaps on the wrist and still today the company exists, and even after changing it's name twice, Xe then, and now ACADEMI. They are hired for counter intelligence and Monsanto- the chemical people who modify the jet fuel- the ones who brought us Agent Orange and DDT and Roundup and have ties to Hitler's IG Farben in Nazi Germany - hires a criminal company Blackwater Subsidiary to Spy on Animal Rights and Environmental Activists. That leads right to metabunk. Soulless people usually find each other company. Congrats on being on the wrong side of right.
U
Unregistered
Guest
"A related, more promising idea is to adjust the fuel mixture in commercial airplanes to generate the needed aerosols in their ex¬haust (rather than flying a cargo hold full of aerosols)."
BUSTED AGAIN-
http://intellectualventureslab.com/?p=474
HappyMonday
Moderator
Claim,claim,claim.Let's just concentrate on that last one.
Please show evidence that Metabunk is involved with a subsidiary of Blackwater.
MikeC
Closed Account
What modification of jet fuel?
Godwins Law!! and Reducto ad Hitlerum all at once!
and since you used it therefore you are wrong!
In what way does this leade "right to metabunk"??
did you mean to actually provide some evidence of anything other than a stream of consciousness ramble??
Critical Thinker
Senior Member.
This is an interesting debate online between a chemmie and a debunker (one of our fellow meta-de-bunkers?). There may be a more appropriate thread for this post, but for the time being.....
http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/80078-official-chemtrail-debate.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/80078-official-chemtrail-debate.html
David Fraser
Senior Member.
Mr Lims latest presentation. I think we get a mention at the end He is starting to sound a little desperate me thinks.
He is starting to sound a little desperate me thinks.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Lim indeed does sound desperate, especially since he has already had no success proselytizing "academics" into the cult of chemtrails belief. Surely this has shaken him and he is already in denial of it. We've seen this before but it is visual.
I replied this way:
His comment:
This seems to most likely be coming from the hard core promoters, and it is sad that they have inculcated this into him. As I've directed him to this thread, I'll address him personally here.
David, we define bunk this way. Read it carefully, hold us to it's precepts, and refine your own assertions when they become debunked. It is not us, however, which fully debunks anything. Time does that far better than anything else, and there is a certain finality to that which no human can accomplish. I give you one year. If you honestly pursue the facts about chemtrails, and are not simply maintaining your position for egotistical reasons, it will be all over for you and you will move on. I encourage you to fully engage on this subject, and that will include not only establishing communications with us, but maintaining a steady dialogue here.
I also warn you that many in the chemtrails believer world are neither honest nor reliable. This will soon become apparent to you. They will tell half-truths, spread rumor as fact, and will usually offer very little evidentiary support for their claims. They will show a lack of logical and critical thought. You can find examples of their behaviors here at metabunk on a daily basis.
That is what we do.
Even if you truly believe we are part of a secretive cabal of disinformation operatives, it benefits you to carefully monitor what we do and say, because the arguments set forth here will eventually and inescapably come up wherever you go. We think. We speak. We offer up sound reasoning based on facts surrounding this subject which you will find nowhere else. We will help you to see through some of the people you may currently be trusting, but who would mislead you if they can. Likely they have already told you to never come here, to avoid discussion with us, to not know what we are saying. That would be a big mistake, because they want you to make the same mistake they did, to not know. Do you understand? They actually want you to not know. I cannot stress that enough. They have already hidden themselves away in a bubble, they want to put you in there too!
I'll leave you with a little question as a starting point for future dialogue.
What is the best, the single-most irrefutable scientifically provable piece of evidence that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?
Boil it down. Pare it to the minimum. No opinions, no long list of dubiously connected suspicions, no history. Present to us here what you would present in your one minute before Parliament which is indisputable. Think carefully, and good luck. Hope to see your response soon.
I replied this way:
His comment:
This seems to most likely be coming from the hard core promoters, and it is sad that they have inculcated this into him. As I've directed him to this thread, I'll address him personally here.
David, we define bunk this way. Read it carefully, hold us to it's precepts, and refine your own assertions when they become debunked. It is not us, however, which fully debunks anything. Time does that far better than anything else, and there is a certain finality to that which no human can accomplish. I give you one year. If you honestly pursue the facts about chemtrails, and are not simply maintaining your position for egotistical reasons, it will be all over for you and you will move on. I encourage you to fully engage on this subject, and that will include not only establishing communications with us, but maintaining a steady dialogue here.
I also warn you that many in the chemtrails believer world are neither honest nor reliable. This will soon become apparent to you. They will tell half-truths, spread rumor as fact, and will usually offer very little evidentiary support for their claims. They will show a lack of logical and critical thought. You can find examples of their behaviors here at metabunk on a daily basis.
That is what we do.
Even if you truly believe we are part of a secretive cabal of disinformation operatives, it benefits you to carefully monitor what we do and say, because the arguments set forth here will eventually and inescapably come up wherever you go. We think. We speak. We offer up sound reasoning based on facts surrounding this subject which you will find nowhere else. We will help you to see through some of the people you may currently be trusting, but who would mislead you if they can. Likely they have already told you to never come here, to avoid discussion with us, to not know what we are saying. That would be a big mistake, because they want you to make the same mistake they did, to not know. Do you understand? They actually want you to not know. I cannot stress that enough. They have already hidden themselves away in a bubble, they want to put you in there too!
I'll leave you with a little question as a starting point for future dialogue.
What is the best, the single-most irrefutable scientifically provable piece of evidence that "chemtrails" are anything other than ordinary contrails?
Boil it down. Pare it to the minimum. No opinions, no long list of dubiously connected suspicions, no history. Present to us here what you would present in your one minute before Parliament which is indisputable. Think carefully, and good luck. Hope to see your response soon.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
In the description of his video, David Lim writes:
David, when your doctoral thesis is examined at Reading University, you will be required to Defend your thesis in a Viva Voce manner, a Disputation will commence in which 2-3 Examiners will act as a Jury, questioning you about your ideas for about 3 Hours. At the end there will be a Verdict which could be Accepted, Needs Revision, or Unacceptable.
I strongly advise you to not begin your Viva Voce by declaring that an "attack" on your Thesis is confirmation of its validity.
Actually, I think that someone has set you up in this, in a form of psychological manipulation. They told you to expect "attacks" and that you should interpret disagreement as evidence of geoengineering. At least I hope that is how it went. If this was your own idea, you need to think again and ask yourself just how logical you are behaving with this subject, eh?
David, when your doctoral thesis is examined at Reading University, you will be required to Defend your thesis in a Viva Voce manner, a Disputation will commence in which 2-3 Examiners will act as a Jury, questioning you about your ideas for about 3 Hours. At the end there will be a Verdict which could be Accepted, Needs Revision, or Unacceptable.
I strongly advise you to not begin your Viva Voce by declaring that an "attack" on your Thesis is confirmation of its validity.
Actually, I think that someone has set you up in this, in a form of psychological manipulation. They told you to expect "attacks" and that you should interpret disagreement as evidence of geoengineering. At least I hope that is how it went. If this was your own idea, you need to think again and ask yourself just how logical you are behaving with this subject, eh?
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Here are the resource links to Lim's original speech:
View attachment Geoengineering_talk_Full_References_and_Resources_David_Lim_27.03.13.pdf
View attachment Geoengineering_talk_Full_References_and_Resources_David_Lim_27.03.13.pdf
David Fraser
Senior Member.
I must admit to being confused by the statement
Does he want us to do all his research for him??External Quote:
eyeinthesky
New Member
David Lim just did a presentation at a recent anti-smart meter presentation for StopSmartMeters, talking about chemtrails
Earl Bramley-Howard
New Member
Help!! David Lim is coming to Glastonbury Town, Somerset, England to spread nonsense about chemtrails geoengineering and climate change denial... is there a list of his worst lies which we can throw at him on the night? Or a video which I can spread around Glastonbury before he gets here?? This sort of lie travels around the world a hundred times before I can even get my shoes on ;-)
M Bornong
Senior Member.
Earl, have you read through this thread? It covers the bunk very well
Earl Bramley-Howard
New Member
I have and it is an excellent source for debunking his nonsense, but most of the folks that will go to his talk wouldn't take the time to sift through this as I have... I was just wondering if there was a list of salient points which I could throw at him... or a video which I could promote before he even comes here, so that folks going to his roadshow can throw some hardball questions at him. From what I can tell, most conspiracy theories use lots of verifiable facts and a few bits of deliberate misinfo to slant the results of any critical thinking... I was just thinking if those deliberate bits of bunk were answered before he says them, then he'll be in for a hard time.
I would try to focus on a very limited number of claims he makes, otherwise you are just throwing lists of points at each other. Pick one if possible, and hammer away at it. It depends on what he's currently talking about though, as chemtrailers tend to modify their theory when parts of it are undeniably debunked.
Similar threads
