Debunked: Geoengineering Terminated Worldwide at Worldwide Geoengineering Conference

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The following fake story claims that world governments have agreed to halt their ongoing geoengineering programs:

http://intellihub.com/2013/06/05/geoengineering-terminated-worldwide/
It's a fake story, and they admit to this down the page:
The problem with fake stories, as seen by The Onion, is that people often think they are real. Many people don't read past the headline, or the first paragraph. The text is a little dense with lots of links and scientific words, so 90% of readers are not going to make it to the admission of fakery. Even if they get that far, they might still not even realize it's a fake, as it's phrased rather vaguely.



Even with the admissions of fakery, the article is still grossly inaccurate, confusing weather modification (normal cloud seeding) with geoengineering, and claiming geoengineering is ongoing. Cloud seeding is just spraying very small amounts of silver-iodide into clouds to make them rain a bit more. There's no evidence at all of any active geoengineering projects that involve spraying things out of planes.
 
Last edited:

electrojet

New Member
The intellihubs literary device is a lousy way of garnering attention. What sells? Fear ! How do we create traffic? Lie !
Where does there not exist an embracing of deception? Relative morality is a slipppery slope. The ends justify the means... except that the message that lodges is deceive. What is the message that is being taught by the deceit of institutions, leadership, banking ? Not good.


I'd like the intellihub piece to say 'we can't be honest about anything, because that's not how things get accomplished'


So much of what is bandied about on the www mimics political tactics in communication. Perception is massaged above reality. I don't think the intellihub author realizes how he is embracing destructive tactics.


Bryan
 

electrojet

New Member
That is the intent of here. The evidence for contrails here is outstanding.

Some of the debunking tactics mimic unethical argumentation. It may be unintentional or not. Perception of reality is argued quite often here, with reality relegated to the back seat. The Eastlund debunked is an example. Some guy writes a sloppy non scientific piece on Eastlund, confuses the issue even more and that is embraced as a debunking because 'people make bunk statements and atribute them to Eastlund.' In this instance metabunk embraces deception or a type of relative morality. It may be just a rush or push, but it puts the actual physics and nuts and bolts behind the pursuit of winning.

Just can't leap-frog over the specific claims in order to divide and conquer.

It is difficult to not mimic how the World operates. Humans are exceptional at incorporating tactics that win.

Slippery slope.

Bryan
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
That is the intent of here. The evidence for contrails here is outstanding.

Some of the debunking tactics mimic unethical argumentation. It may be unintentional or not. Perception of reality is argued quite often here, with reality relegated to the back seat. The Eastlund debunked is an example. Some guy writes a sloppy non scientific piece on Eastlund, confuses the issue even more and that is embraced as a debunking because 'people make bunk statements and atribute them to Eastlund.' In this instance metabunk embraces deception or a type of relative morality. It may be just a rush or push, but it puts the actual physics and nuts and bolts behind the pursuit of winning.

It is difficult to not mimic how the World operates. Humans are exceptional at incorporating tactics that win.

Slippery slope.

Bryan

Could you provide some of evidence that metabunk embraces deception or a type of relative morality? Because I don't see it.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Some of the debunking tactics mimic unethical argumentation. It may be unintentional or not. Perception of reality is argued quite often here, with reality relegated to the back seat. The Eastlund debunked is an example. Some guy writes a sloppy non scientific piece on Eastlund, confuses the issue even more and that is embraced as a debunking because 'people make bunk statements and atribute them to Eastlund.''
The false statements attributed to Eastlund were, in your example, debunked. That's what that thread is debunking, the claims connecting Eastlund to HAARP. How is that in any way deceptive or unethical?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I see the debunkers here backing up their statements with lots of FACTS and understandable explanations.
 

electrojet

New Member
The false statements attributed to Eastlund were, in your example, debunked. That's what that thread is debunking, the claims connecting Eastlund to HAARP. How is that in any way deceptive or unethical?

Hi Belfrey,

The skeptoid piece is wrong in at least 3 ways off the top of my head. Nothing has been debunked there, because the foundation piece from the Skeptoid is not factual. Bernard was contracted with Arco to help design HAARP. The evidence for this is available from multiple sources. Designed capabilities and features Eastlund patented are seen in HAARP such as a phased array and ability to increase capability as Eastlund designed. It does many of the things that Eastlund said it would do in the way that he described. There exists more than one example of visible airglow contrary to the Skeptoid 'article'. It's rubbish, yet considered here as a debunking.

I may have to show those errors and document them all. Some here will deny strong evidence that the foundation for the debunking has been destroyed ... why is that? Human nature.... (truncated)

Bryan

Bryan
 
J

Joe

Guest
I see the debunkers here backing up their statements with lots of FACTS and understandable explanations.
yea Like Richard Reed being a American ? Facts LOL ! Guess thats what happens when you get your news from a comedian and a RINO Newt Gingrich said that Richard Reid was an American citizen. Reid is a British citizen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

electrojet

New Member
Could you provide some of evidence that metabunk embraces deception or a type of relative morality? Because I don't see it.

Hi Landru,

No I don't think that I actually can. If you haven't seen glimmers of it here and there already, I do not suspect that I can show anything that will convince you.

Bryan
 

justanairlinepilot

Senior Member.
Hi Landru,

No I don't think that I actually can. If you haven't seen glimmers of it here and there already, I do not suspect that I can show anything that will convince you.

Bryan

Electrojet, it appears to me that you are trying to manipulate your intelligence or your point of interest by means of confabulation of grammar. You intermingle words to interject your point in hopes to confuse the general audience. Yet, you're leaving us all confused with your point and you're degrading your reputation in attempts to make yourself appear smarter than you really are. I call bullshit....I've seen you avoid legit questions to the point it causes distractions with your original claims. Get to the point dude!!!
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
So you accuse us and then don't offer why you are accusing us. There is problem with that.
To me that is ad Hominum attack on many of the posters.

Please either offer some support or retract your statement.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Considering that global brightening over the last 30 some odd years has been documented, how can a group of people terminate something that has not even been occurring?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013GPC...100..343S
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
Hi Belfrey,

The skeptoid piece is wrong in at least 3 ways off the top of my head. Nothing has been debunked there, because the foundation piece from the Skeptoid is not factual. Bernard was contracted with Arco to help design HAARP. The evidence for this is available from multiple sources. Designed capabilities and features Eastlund patented are seen in HAARP such as a phased array and ability to increase capability as Eastlund designed. It does many of the things that Eastlund said it would do in the way that he described. There exists more than one example of visible airglow contrary to the Skeptoid 'article'. It's rubbish, yet considered here as a debunking.

Bryan

Bryan

Cool, let's have a new thread where you submit this evidence from multiple sources and debunk the skeptoid and Metabunk debunks of Eastlund.

METADEBUNK!
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Electrojet, it appears to me that you are trying to manipulate your intelligence or your point of interest by means of confabulation of grammar. You intermingle words to interject your point in hopes to confuse the general audience. Yet, you're leaving us all confused with your point and you're degrading your reputation in attempts to make yourself appear smarter than you really are. I call bullshit....I've seen you avoid legit questions to the point it causes distractions with your original claims. Get to the point dude!!!

There is a phrase in the British Army that sums your post up.

"Bullshit baffles brains"
 
J

Joe

Guest
So you accuse us and then don't offer why you are accusing us. There is problem with that.
To me that is ad Hominum attack on many of the posters.

Please either offer some support or retract your statement.
You really need to learn how to reply with quote so we can tell what statement you are referring to ?
 

FuzzyUK

Active Member
Bernard was contracted with Arco to help design HAARP. The evidence for this is available from multiple sources. Designed capabilities and features Eastlund patented are seen in HAARP such as a phased array and ability to increase capability as Eastlund designed. It does many of the things that Eastlund said it would do in the way that he described.

Wrong. Mick has already dealt with the myth that Bertland designed HAARP in September 2011:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/248-Debunked-Bernard-Eastlund-and-HAARP
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
I came across my first instance of someone sharing the intellihub article on Facebook this evening. I couldn't reply but the poster was hoping it was true.:rolleyes:
 

electrojet

New Member
Electrojet, it appears to me that you are trying to manipulate your intelligence or your point of interest by means of confabulation of grammar. You intermingle words to interject your point in hopes to confuse the general audience. Yet, you're leaving us all confused with your point and you're degrading your reputation in attempts to make yourself appear smarter than you really are. I call bullshit....I've seen you avoid legit questions to the point it causes distractions with your original claims. Get to the point dude!!!

Hi justanairlinepilot,

You are right.

Here is the direct way. People utilize tactics that are dishonest. Why? Human nature. Pride.

The Eastlund debunked is an example of dishonest tactics. Patent claims match actual
real world previously demonstrated capabilities. The skeptoid is riddled with errors and is not a scientific based examination.

Maybe I will return there with documentation showing the fallacies of the debunking.

As to your questions over at the gravity wave forum. You are asking me questions and/or making statements about what I stated. I am working to let the research answer those questions. There is much stronger evidence yet to be posted.
because by your own admission 'You are not convinced' nor are the other skeptics. Dusty plasma physics is not a fast food topic.

Bryan
 

electrojet

New Member
Wrong. Mick has already dealt with the myth that Bertland designed HAARP in September 2011:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/248-Debunked-Bernard-Eastlund-and-HAARP

Hi Fuzzy,

Bernard Eastlund was contracted as a consultant with Arco. His work was towards the development of HAARP.

Many of the features and capabilities of HAARP are as a result of his
work for them.

The skeptoid article is rubbish. It makes numerous false claims and is not a scientific examination of the
rf transmitter in Gakona, Alaska known as HAARP.

Take Eastlund's patent claims and line them up next to Haarp demonstrated capabilities.
They pair up well. Eastlund was not a light weight. He knew the science involved.

Peace,

Bryan
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JFDee

Senior Member.
People utilize tactics that are dishonest. Why? Human nature. Pride.
I won't claim that we debunkers around here are free of faults, particularly in discussions that are heating up.
And even if that claim of electrojet ("glimmers of it here and there") were entirely false - I think we have shaken off far worse accusations.

So - back to the issues:
The Eastlund debunked is an example of dishonest tactics. Patent claims match actual
real world previously demonstrated capabilities. The skeptoid is riddled with errors
You certainly know that you are required to point out these errors if you want your opinion to be considered.

Patent claims are hardly convincing evidence as has been shown in many discussions and articles around here.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
The skeptoid is riddled with errors and is not a scientific based examination.

Please debunk it then, as I suggested earlier. Here's a quote from you in the Eastlund thread referred to above -

The skeptoid is trash and not something to stand behind and proclaim as a debunking. Brian gets a lot wrong in a very short amount of writing. Standing in that wake and proclaiming that he has debunked something is not wise and it is not science. Dunning has no clue about vertical coupling processes and Eastlund is associated with HAARP. Dunning is alternately correct and then incorrect with regards to Eastlunds involvement. Dunning neglects to mention that many of Eastlund claims are already demonstrated as real in numerous scientific papers. In effect patent claims match actual modification. If Dunning misses this, then his skeptoid piece is complete junk. It is junk, standing on junk is a precarious place to perch.

You should show us where these claims are demonstrated as real, with specifics, and answer some of the many questions posed to you about this elsewhere.

For instance, you stated -

I will link 3 scientific examples of energy changes and modification that are all much more significant than Dunning or you seem to embrace. The net effects are very significant. This is not my claim, it is in the documented peer reviewed public documents.

You didn't appear to follow this up that thread, perhaps you could do so?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
MikeG Debunked: Geoengineering Killing Great Barrier Reef Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Debunked: A Snow Test for Signs of Geoengineering, Portland Oregon Contrails and Chemtrails 7
skephu Debunked: Geoengineering And The Ozone Layer Recovery Lie Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Trailblazer Debunked: "Top climate scientist Tim Lenton admits to ongoing geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 23
Mick West Debunked: Strontium as Footprint of Geoengineering Proposals or Patents [There is none] Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Mick West Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH Contrails and Chemtrails 355
3 Debunked: Fort Lauderdale Passes Resolution Banning Aerial Aerosol Dispersement General Discussion 6
derrick06 Debunked: HAARP ELF waves causing a earthquake Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Debunked: Geoengineering Watch's confirmation of "Record Shattering UV Levels" Contrails and Chemtrails 73
mrfintoil Debunked: SKYSCRATCH - The Geoengineering/Chemtrail Cover Up Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Debunked: Aerosol Geoengineering Film Footage Reality [Fuel Dumps] Contrails and Chemtrails 54
Mick West Debunked: Ice Boulders on Great Lakes Caused by Geoengineering [Natural but Rare Ball Ice] General Discussion 11
Mick West Debunked: Patents. As Evidence of Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Existence, Operability, or Intent Contrails and Chemtrails 62
Mick West Debunked: Rosalind Peterson "Leaker" Addressing UN about Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 85
Mick West Debunked: Obama Geoengineering April Fools Joke on Huffington Post Contrails and Chemtrails 2
solrey Debunked: Weatherwar101-Geoengineering ice storm Cleon HAARP 10
Mick West Debunked: Shade, The Motion Picture - Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Mick West Debunked: Global Dimming vs. Global Brightening, as evidence for Geoengineering or Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 66
Mick West Debunked: CIA studying Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, Weather Warfare Contrails and Chemtrails 67
HappyMonday DEBUNKED: David Lim - Public talks on geoengineering / chemtrails in the UK Contrails and Chemtrails 159
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Ship Trails Over the Pacific are Geoengineering "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 37
Jay Reynolds Debunked- Dane Wigington's 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 34
Mick West Debunked: Geoengineering Map by ETC Group General Discussion 9
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Geoengineering over Maui, Hawaii Contrails and Chemtrails 25
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Suffolk County, NY Geoengineering Law Contrails and Chemtrails 68
Mick West Debunked: Holdren admits Obama Administration is performing Geoengineering Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Alex Jones, PJ Watson, Geoengineering: Our Environment Under Attack Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Mick West Debunked: CFR Admits "Millions Spent to Confuse Public About Geoengineering" Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: "Geoengineering is like free-riding on our Grandkids" Quotes Debunked 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 8
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top