The HBTF thing is indeed a "Big Lie", and yes as they repeat it this becomes gospel to the church since it comes from the High Priests. It is a great vulnerability to them as well because it is such a "Big Lie" that exposing it properly will lower the credibility of those who have been repeating it.
And as anyone who reads Chemtrails Global can attest
It's worth pointing out that the group specifically bans "debunkers and debators [sic]".Chemtrails Global SkyWatch is the full name of Tanner's Facebook group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalskywatch/
![]()
Jack Baran's LinkedIn page. He has no educational background, and he works at the "Web" as "self-employed". His skills are in "creative solutions" and "problem solving". I guess he produced the "HBTF engines can't make contrails" video as a creative solution to the problem that "chemtrails" can be explained as contrails.
Guys, something is wrong here. It wasn't Jack Baran who invented the "high-bypass turbofan engines don't make contrails" idea. His first video about this is from February 2014. But the idea was introduced on the Global Skywatch page by Russ Tanner (I guess he is the admin there) in August 2013:
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6859&an=317#Post6859
Jack Baran produced a video on the basis of Russ Tanner's article.
russ' video link there does sayGuys, something is wrong here. It wasn't Jack Baran who invented the "high-bypass turbofan engines don't make contrails" idea. His first video about this is from February 2014. But the idea was introduced on the Global Skywatch page by Russ Tanner (I guess he is the admin there) in August 2013:
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6859&an=317#Post6859
Jack Baran produced a video on the basis of Russ Tanner's article.
It's interesting thought that Dane Wigington repeats so many of Tanner's claims.
I'd say extreme unscientific. His article even contradicts itself:Unfortunately I think Tanner takes such extreme scientific position
Not to mention the claim that you should be able to see the water vapour on takeoff. You can't see water vapour.I'd say extreme unscientific. His article even contradicts itself:
vs.
Also interesting that Dane is using graphics from Friends of Science.
Yes, the same organisation that boldly proclaims that they believe that "the Sun is responsible for all climate change?"
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=1
Surely that is a basic conflict of belief?
That's... Quite intentionally misleading.From the Mass Action Demand page. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChemtrailHypernetwork/permalink/1037165706294259/ (https://archive.is/IAtgF)
![]()
From the Mass Action Demand page. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChemtrailHypernetwork/permalink/1037165706294259/ (https://archive.is/IAtgF)
![]()
Well theirs are usually much longer. What can you say? Possibly one could produce a edited down version which could reference the longer one.Is half an hour rather long, though? I'm a bit daunted at the prospect and I am "on side"!
Well theirs are usually much longer.
Here's a detailed, in-depth debunking of the high-bypass turbofan claim in a half-hour video.
Surely if reflective materials were being sprayed from airplanes they would be immediately visible as it come out of the jet, probably even more so as the material would be the most concentrated at the release point
Very good video. Easy to follow and makes logical sense (much more so than other Youtube videos I've seen on high-bypass turbofan jet engines I've had forwarded to me..). A point that is explained very well in that video, that I've never seen addressed by a Chemtrail promotion video is why there is a gap between the engine and the beginning of the contrail formation. Has Dane Wigington or Russel Tanner addressed this anywhere? Or do they just ignore this little inconvenient fact? Surely if reflective materials were being sprayed from airplanes they would be immediately visible as it come out of the jet, probably even more so as the material would be the most concentrated at the release point
Thanks - that's interesting, so he does acknowledge that there is a gap with actual contrails, and that there is even such a thing as "normal condensation trails" (I thought he lectured that contrails are extremely rare - but maybe I'm recalling that from another source). At 1:29 of the full video he shows a photo of a front view of a jet leaving behind large plumes, which he suggests are being immediately emitted from the back of the aircraft and thus aren't normal condensation trails. Maybe I'm getting a bit OT, but what is a logical explanation for that image? Is it the angle (front view, so you can't see if there is a gap)? Or is it fuel dumping? It seems that many of the more impressive images of so-called chemtrails are a front view of the aircraft.
Is half an hour rather long, though? I'm a bit daunted at the prospect and I am "on side"!
It's a regular set of contrails. See: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-l...-geoengineeringwatch-video-perspective.t4370/
![]()
In his "smoking gun" videos, he usually shows aerodynamic contrails. And those have no gap, unfortunately.Dane has said this:
Interesting. I think the strong suction creates a low-pressure zone in front of the fan, which causes condensation.I just found a video showing condensation forming inside the GE90 engines of a Boeing 777 on takeoff. Which gives some idea of just how much air these engines can move, more to the point it also shows that heat is not the only cause of condensation.
Indeed, it's quite watchable at 2x playback speed. Of course that is only recommended to people who are already experts at the topicYeah it is rather long. I watched it at 2x.