# Debunked: WHY in the World are They Spraying

Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Mick West, Nov 10, 2011.

1. ### Mick WestAdministratorStaff Member

The maker of "What in the World are They Spraying", Michael J. Murphy, is coming out with a sequel.

The basic problem with the video is that it assumes the first video is true, and that clear signs of "geoengineering" have been found with chemical tests. Unfortunately that's blatantly false. The WITWATS tests have been show several times to have no scientific basis. See the following for a full debunking (by me):

http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/

And more detailed debunkings of various aspects of the the film and related theories of the people involved (by me and other contributors).

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/247-What-are-the-normal-levels-of-Barium-in-Soil-and-Water
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/154-The-Claims-of-Francis-Mangels-a-Factual-Examination
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/14...m-Barium-Strontium-Manganese-and-Varium-tests
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/24...quot-What-In-The-World-Are-They-Spraying-quot
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/128-High-barium-levels-in-blood-(-Mohave-AZ-)

Time after time WITWATS has show to use tests that, when examined, actually show perfectly normal level of the various element they claim are being sprayed.

So, if the original film was so flawed, then do we even need to debunk this follow up. Probably not - you could just say "sure you could make money by controlling the weather, but there's no evidence of this actually happening".

However, one could debunk the weather derivatives claim fairly easily by noting that the cost of controlling the global weather is significantly more than the size of the derivatives market. And the real problem is that the natural variance in the weather is still going to outweigh any little nudges we can give it.

The vast majority of the $12 Billion yearly weather derivative market has to be plausible hedges against the negative impacts of the weather in other investments, such as energy. Realistically you are only going to get$1B or so as a possible insider trade on the weather, and the profit is likely to be pretty low.

Consider that geoengineering proposals costing tens billions per year only alter the temperature in the range of half a degree, and natural yearly random variation is ten times that, then you'd have to spend tens of billions of dollars a year, for at least 20 year, to have an above average chance of making any money.

Plus, if there WAS any effect from geoengineering that pushed the average away from actuarial norms, then they would be statistically visible.

The only way you could do it would be to have a sure-fire and cheap method of totally controlling the entire years's weather that you could then use to affect each individual year's weather in a way where the average remain the same, but you make money betting on individual years.

Persistent contrails are not that. Natural variations in the weather still vastly outweigh anything come from the back of planes.

And of course, there's no evidence that any of this is actually going on.
Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
2. ### Mick WestAdministratorStaff Member

Official Trailer

Sounds like they are going rather more "out there" with the inclusion of former TV weather reporter Scott Stevens. At one point Stevens says "The weather engineering, whether it's scalar, ionic, orgone, or the qi of the atmosphere, all of those can be used and leverage to create weather events"

All those things refer to extremely dubious pseudoscientific concepts. "qi" in particular is a mystical life force in eastern mythology. Orgone is a similar force, just more modern.

Then we have

Request for funds:

http://whyangels.info/

4. ### StupidSenior Member

The first 30 seconds could be a lead-in for any number of conspiracies.
(OP video)
Notice that the word(s) "could be (used)" is mentioned.....but the rest of the video narration implies a certainty.
5. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

So, Michael J. Murphy has learned that he can easily find at least 100 suckers out there.

We can also see that Michael J. Murphy's personal credibility is worth about $25,000. That's a pretty cheap sell-out! 6. ### NighthawkNew Member To be an Angel and credit in the video along with a 'special edition' copy signed it will only cost a mere$200 donation through pay pal.

Go here

http://www.whyangels.info/

and click the angel donation button at the top. It is preset to $200 and can't be changed 7. ### tryblinkingSenior Member 8. ### Mick WestAdministratorStaff Member 9. ### NighthawkNew Member The only good thing is that right now they only have$24 of $40,000 in their 'campaign' with 41 days left. 10. ### tryblinkingSenior Member I've made an alarm, reminding me to log on to his page, and replace the links each day, as they get deleted: Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013 11. ### tryblinkingSenior Member The character limit is 500, so I feel it might be useful if people here sum up their most direct address of the issue, and post it to his comments page, whenever you are passing. That way some people might get a chance to see through the hoax before he parts them from their money. http://www.indiegogo.com/why-in-the-world-are-they-spraying?c=comments • Like x 1 12. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member I'm finding that writing comments to Michael directly at that site is very satisfying. I know he is receiving the message because he deletes them within a minute or two. He doesn't respond, but he is there, and he sees them. We are having a one-sided conversation, but at least he doesn't 'talk-back"! 13. ### Mick WestAdministratorStaff Member Of course, by continually peppering him with facts, you might end up inoculating him against them. 14. ### tryblinkingSenior Member Great Jay, me too! I know he reads them, so I made it clear that everyday he refuses to address the disproofs of his position, gives more people the chance to see through the hoax, to what he's really 'selling'. It's really quite satisfying. 15. ### Danny55Senior Member The donation page is not available now. "The page you are looking for is currently in "DRAFT" mode and hidden from the public. Please contact the campaign owner if you feel this is in error!" 16. ### tryblinkingSenior Member Worry not Danny, if he sends out a new link to his 'friends', I'll let you all know over on 'MJM's most recent' . 17. ### MikeCSenior Member Looks like the whole site is "...currently in "DRAFT" mode and hidden from the public." 18. ### SpongebobActive Member The Great Culling - a hard-hitting film about water, fluoride, food, vaccines and more - needs your support to be completed(NaturalNews) The Great Culling is a film trilogy that's already in production. The film's creators -- who also helped produce What In the World Are They Spraying(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA) -- have already wrapped up numerous interviews for the film including one with myself, the Health Ranger. See the powerful, hard-hitting trailer about the first chapter of this trilogy, calledThe Great Culling: Our Water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxCjdcKyrwY This first film includes interviews with: • Dr. Paul Connett, PhD • Dr. Charlie Goetschel, PhD • Mike Adams • Gary O. Pittman • Dr. James E. Rota, DDS • Dr. Laura Pressley, PhD • Dr. Doris Rapp, MD • Jeff Green • Former Senator Karen Johnson • Luca Zanna Here's an update from the filmmakers about work on the water segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaz60_6dY8A (This includes some footage of my meeting with the filmmakers in my Austin studio.) Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035430_The_Great_Culling_film_fluoride.html#ixzz1qo7ZB6ZG The Health Ranger... ?? 19. ### MikeCSenior Member It gets worse - from http://thegreatculling.org/index2.php#/multi-text_5/1/ : There's a pandemic? And the 10% of the brain myth.......well I guess they're relying upon that to boost sales and exposure!! 20. ### Mick WestAdministratorStaff Member The 10% things does not even make sense - it suggests people used 100% of their brains before this great culling got started. So when were people super smart exactly? 21. ### santafeumberGuest okay, I was going at this with an open mind to sift through all the facts put out there on your blog and I Just couldn't get beyond the first link you posted to some hucksters' website that believes himself to be an authority on so many topics. obviously this guy believes everything he reads on the net to support his own opinions/perspectives on the whole chem-trail issue. well, anyone can do that with little effort. from his own site(http://contrailscience.com), this is what he writes about himself: and can I ask administrator why you believe this guys' analysis and obviously extensive internet research is valid or true? Did you take the time to fact check (I mean really fact check) all of his sources that he is using? I mean, I couldn't even get beyond this and I had to laugh. Here this guy is a private pilot and he is going to tell it like it is.. flying Cessna 150's really gives him the credentials - yeah right. this guy come at this (the whole premise of his website info) from the premise that chem-trails are merely condensation trails and he has gone to great lengths to find articles all over the internet (many of which are put intentionally out there by dis-info agents for people like this to pick up on and spread) to support his own theory. ANYONE CAN DO THIS, as long as they have a strong opinion - it doesn't mean a thing! Just so all your viewers know, what is being emitted from these planes, is not coming out of the turbines (such as contrails)but is being sprayed out of holding tanks attached to the planes. This has nothing at all to do with exhaust vapors. what a bunch of dis-info agents or you are just completely ignorant as hell. I wonder what you have against M. Murphy? you comment about him having a nominal cable bill each month as his only expense, was laughable as well! the mentality.. sheesh! wait until you or someone you know is afflicted with the toxins from the chem-trails.. you may change your mind about what you are spewing all over the internet. But oh wait, your government is benign and would never ever do a thing to harm anyone.. I forgot! why, they never have... have they?!! wake up people! 22. ### Mick WestAdministratorStaff Member I believe him because he is me. But you should not be trusting someone just based on their authority or credentials. Check the facts that they present. See if they are correct. I'm just some guy. Don't believe what I say, check the references I give and decide for yourself. If you find something I said that is wrong, then let me know, and I'll address it. 23. ### MikeCSenior Member What evidence do you have that supports this claim? 24. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member santafeumber, I think you got shocked and didn't read the first posting by Mick on this page, and followed the links he gave. Michael J. Murphy has been caught out in many many deceptions in his first film. The links to exposes of these deceptins are all there above. Even when confronted with these, Murphy doesn't address the issues and hides them from his followers, then he asks for more money to make another movie. Youare wrong if you say that Mick claimed Murphy only has a cable bill. You need to read more closely. Murphy is asking for$25,000. Murphy doesn't have a real job so he probably doesn't have cable unless it is paid for by someone else. He does have money to fly off to stay in Hawaii for a month a couple of times a year, and made his way to New York this week. Funny how a guy that doesn't have a job is able to do that, but begs for $25,000. Must be some kind of life, eh? Do you fly off to Hawaii and then panhandle for 25 grand? So, it was Murphy who mentioned that what he was asking for was 100 suckers, er, I mean people, to 'donate' an amount equal to 2 months cable so he could raise the$25 G's.

Now, after you answer Mike's question above, try this one on.
1. What is the singlemost irrefutable piece of evidence that the persistent contrails people see in the sky coming from ordinary commercial jets are some sort of "spraying". If you had 10 minutes on Oprah, what would you show the people that has actually been proven to be a fact. Mind you, not a bunch of connect-the-dots speculation, not could be maybe, but real evidence that would stand up to any scrutiny. If you can't give a distillation in this way, then probably Michael J. Murphy has sent you out unprepared, and you had better get over to Hawaii and ask him why.....
25. ### UnregisteredGuest

Your an typical skeptic idiot and a sheep. Wake the hell up dumbass ad quit trying to debunk the only people trying to take a stand in this issue. Why do you think they are spraying??? Obviously it's a multi million dollar program I not billion and they haven't told the public anything about it. Sheez
26. ### tryblinkingSenior Member

I think the technical term is nonissue.
27. ### Jay ReynoldsSenior Member

'Unregistered', why would you ask us to "qut trying to debunk" anything? I certainly hope you would want usto get the bunk out of something you believe in!

Look at it this way, if someone is making a claim which includes bunk, the first person who should be interested in removing the bunk should be the people who profess a belief in the claim.

For, if your belief holds elements which are found to be rdebunkable, you should thank each and every one of us for finding it so you can remove it from your belief, change your belief, or at least modify your belief to account for the new information which debunked the bunk. That is how life works, how progress is made, and how old ideas are found false when new ideas are learned. Heck, you might even try to reverse the debunking and tell us what YOU think is bunk being said here. I certainly would like to see you try because IMHO I don't want to spread bunk, so bring it on...

Sorry if this upsets your apple cart, but over time you would generally stop accepting the bunk anyways, wouldn't you?

If not, just go on ignoring what we say here and keep right on believing whatever you like. I'm free to debunk, you are free to go on believing in it.
Don't blame me or anyone else if you or anyone else winds up thinking our way, at that point real progress will have been made!
• Like x 1
28. ### BelfreySenior Member

Hi Unregistered,

You ask, "Why do you think they are spraying???", and I would put question back to you with a slightly different emphasis - in other words, "What makes you think they're spraying something?" Where is the evidence that what appear to be ordinary persistent contrails are actually planes intentionally spraying something?
29. ### MikeCSenior Member

Yeah - the title of the film begs the question that "they" are "spraying" anything in the first place.
30. ### Tim TheToolman ColesSenior Member

Well it is on to the Why...Full Length.... YAY!

I just watched it and it is laughable. I am going to watch it again now this time taking notes. Time to get on it so it can also be added to the project. It is full of the normal logical fallacies and generalized and unproven correlations again. They seem to have used of course some of the old material but that is common in follow up films. They also seem to be making a false (imagine that) correlation between the altitudes that their presumed chemtrails(actually contrails) that we all see and the current proposals for large scale geoengineering as being the the same. They say many times that what we have and are seeing matches these plans exactly. That is of course an out and out lie. All of the proposals and plans that I have read are to be implemented at a far higher altitude than current contrails and planes are present. Much higher, in the Stratosphere, and not down in the Troposphere where contrails have always and are being produced.

This fly's in the face of reality completely. The scientist have known for a very long time that these contrail cirrus in the Tropospheric layer of the atmosphere have a overall effect of warming or trapping in heat. The plans are therefore to implement these in the higher levels far above the contrail and cirrus layers so as to avoid this effect. Now there is no way, that if they are being honest and read fully the current proposals and researched to any extent atmospheric science that they can make this correlation. It is an outrages and purely purposeful LIE! I am going to watch it again for preparations and notes... Not sure if you want to move this to a new thread Mick or not. Enjoy it....LOL

Full Length:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfJO0-cTis&feature=player_embedded
• Like x 1
31. ### Mick WestAdministratorStaff Member

I just watched it at the premier, it was very well received by the audience.

It spins a good tale, but when you get down to it it's very light on evidence. Of course you could make money by manipulating the weather, but there's no direct evidence people are doing it. Of course stress resistent crops are something Monsanto would want, regardless of if there was more or less stress. Of course climate engineers talk about geoengineering, but there's no evidence they are doing it.

But it's a seductive tale.
32. ### Tim TheToolman ColesSenior Member

That is as succinct and accurate of a review as you can get. And indeed it is. Seems they are stretching the boundaries of mythology even further with layer upon layer of wild and, as you commented, meaningless and unfounded story telling.
33. ### BelfreySenior Member

Just started watching it... I notice that "solar expert" Dane Wigington has returned, and has now added "climate researcher" to his qualifications.
34. ### AlexxJacobsonNew Member

Hi guys!

In the Youtube video comments I just asked the single and simple question:

"Why does the lab report at 05:38 show zero Aluminium and only 26 parts per billion (micro-grams per litre) Barium (more than 1000 could still be occurring naturally)? Why does the 2nd lab report at 08:50 show only 740 parts per billion of Aluminium (again 1000 were considered normal in 1960's literature), only 37 parts per billion of Barium and even zero Strontium?
If we were being sprayed with "mountains of metal" (1:02:46) shouldn't the measurements be elevated over the natural background?"

The comment, which I think we can agree didn't violate even the strictest netiquette, was deleted and I was blocked in less than 1 hour.

Truthmedia, you really gotta love that name!
35. ### Mick WestAdministratorStaff Member

I tried to talk to them at the conference about the tests, and they were not really too receptive.

They seem to be thinking there should be ZERO aluminum in rain water. This seems to have started with Francis Mangels. Of course it's wrong as windblown dust contains aluminum, so rain will contain random amounts from none to lots.
• Like x 2
36. ### AlexxJacobsonNew Member

Yes, the really funny (or sad) thing this time around is that they actually show a lab report with zero Aluminium (not detectable) and Mangels spins it in his commentary as proof that the samples are not contaminated by dust and points to "lots of" Barium and Strontium instead. Which both of course aren't high at all on that shown report.
37. ### Mick WestAdministratorStaff Member

Indeed, and for their argument to be consistent, does this test not then show that they are NOT doing geoengineering, as it'd does not match the "footprint" of Aluminum, Barium, and Strontium?
Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
38. ### Mick WestAdministratorStaff Member

Another test showing perfectly normal levels, and no "footprint":

Compare with 1967 figures, the Aluminum in the test above (740ugL) is below the average levels of 800 ug/L, Iron is slightly elevated (1270 ug/L) , but not unexpected, with a high in 1967 of 1180 ug/L (Iron is "Fe"). Where is the footprint?
Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
39. ### BelfreySenior Member

This is what Harold Saive, a chemtrails activist in my town, has been saying at county commission meetings, etc. - that the expected amount of Al in rainwater is zero, and therefore any amount is extraordinary. I just had a little exchange of messages through YouTube with him, and pointed out that this was provably false (as shown in that 1967 Canadian paper - all of his results are below that range). I invited him to meet to discuss his sampling and analysis over coffee. I haven't heard back.
40. ### UnregisteredGuest

Hello, I'm also unreg, but not the same unreg as above (I cannot provide evidence, guess you'll have to take my word for it, apologies =]) I'm Joe from England.

I was initially convinced by the video, however I appreciate a balanced view and agree that debunking is most important for the proponents of a claim. You guys have instilled a reasonable doubt in me as far as soil tests etc go. There are, however, some important moments you've overlooked, or as yet have not discussed. Take, for example, the various screenshots of media articles in the film. An interesting one appears at 15.07, one I took the trouble of finding and reading myself, it's here
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/china/2012-03/05/content_14752291.htm
In it, the head of the China Meteorological Administration states its happening, further it asserts the use of it in the US private sector at the bottom. It even says Russia had it in 1958, which is plausible as the patent shown in the film at 24.58, "Process for controlling weather" is dated May 7th, 1948. This also brings some of your earlier debunking into question as some of your tests from presumably "pre-spraying" days are from 1967, and as such, are from potentially not a pre-spraying date.