"EPA Rep Has Loose Lips About Geoengineering"

A.G.

Senior Member.
I think someone just mistook May 1st for April 1st:

Here's someone getting active, calling the EPA to ask about all the spraying going on. She's immediately informed that there will be information coming out this year, but the EPA is not involved. Um...
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/epa-rep-has-loose-lips-about-geoengineering/


Somehow this doesn't really worry me the way I suppose it's meant to do. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Unfortunately for Dane Wigington's attempts at conflating this issue, it appears simply that some woman hired to answer calls at the EPA, who is certainly no "expert" (but might be a closeted "chem"trail believer), is a bit poor at communicating.
 

A.G.

Senior Member.
I find it hard to believe that this is a real call. Well, at least to the EPA, that is. Unless they have a policy to hire really unprofessional staff?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's either:
  • A fake - in that she called an accomplice
  • A conversation with a receptionist, who does not really understand what she's talking about
 

A.G.

Senior Member.
I lean towards the first alternative. I'd like to think that a receptionist at the EPA would be a little more professional.
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
  • A conversation with a receptionist, who does not really understand what she's talking about

If this is the case, feels like it might be "just" a receptionists who might have had input from previous callers. The way the woman at the other end doesn't seem to make a clear distinction between "geoengineering" and "chemtrails" makes me wonder...
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
They sure should know, if that is a real call, what crap their receptionist is putting out. I just posted on the vid, challenging the veracity of the whole thing. I'm just that way on Youtube...:cool:
 

Tim TheToolman Coles

Senior Member.
I find this extremely fishy, from the tones dialed to the answer, and continued conversation. If this was an actual call, the EPA needs to hire a bit better people.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
The repeated mention of "solar experts" was telling. I'm also leaning towards the hypothesis that she called an accomplice. Has anyone tried calling? I'd be a little surprised if there wasn't a phone menu (rather than a live human picking up all calls) during business hours.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
The repeated mention of "solar experts" was telling. I'm also leaning towards the hypothesis that she called an accomplice. Has anyone tried calling? I'd be a little surprised if there wasn't a phone menu (rather than a live human picking up all calls) during business hours.

You're elected. GO for it!
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I just tried calling (404) 562-9000 from one cellphone that I still have from the 202 Area Code.

The offices are closed after 5 PM (1700) Mon-Fri, Eastern time. It is currently 1736 EDT.
 

A.G.

Senior Member.
Not that I'm a fan of recording people when they're not prepared for it (unless it's for uncovering dark secrets, ahem), but it WOULD be interesting to have the call recorded... because I have a hunch that it would sound pretty different to the call in that video.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Not that I'm a fan of recording people when they're not prepared for it (unless it's for uncovering dark secrets, ahem), but it WOULD be interesting to have the call recorded... because I have a hunch that it would sound pretty different to the call in that video.

Legal issues that surround recording of conversations:

http://www.dmlp.org/book/export/html/1246

Requires careful treading.....

ETA: The law in the State of Georgia in the USA

But then, the EPA is a Federal Agency. Dicey (??)


ETA(2): In reply to post below - whilst I won't be recording, I shall call the number again, just to ascertain the level of professionalism that I encounter when the phone is answered, at the (404) number, at the EPA in Atlanta.

Might prompt me to post on the YT video in response, depending on the results.
 
Last edited:

A.G.

Senior Member.
I really wouldn't want to do it. I just find it extremely difficult to believe that the call in the video is authentic – and if this isn't obvious (especially to CT believers thinking this is convincing evidence), then a comparison to the real deal would be interesting. (Although not convincing to them, certainly...)
 

ralph Leo

Member
I was going to post this earlier, my thought for debunking was to analyze the frequency response of the EPA call, I think phone lines limits the frequency response to a very narrow frequency, if this proves to be too hi-fi it was recorded on a computer, not through the phone system. It would be a very easy analysis for the audio expert.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I find it hard to believe that this is a real call. Well, at least to the EPA, that is. Unless they have a policy to hire really unprofessional staff?

Agree. She didn't even have to press 1 for English! A dead giveaway!
 

ralph Leo

Member
I tried the website, after downloading the mp3 from the youtube video I recieved this answer from analyzing the file: Oops: not a supported audio file format: Audio file with ID3 version 2.4.0, contains: MPEG ADTS, layer III, v1, 56 kbps, 44.1 kHz, Stereo. I tried an audio analyzer called Spek, I got this analysis, don't understand it exactly:
Sorry, it didn't upload! I am not totally sure, but based on the analysis it looks like she is talking to someone on a telephone. Don't understand why the online detector didn't detect a signal.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I was going to post this earlier, my thought for debunking was to analyze the frequency response of the EPA call, I think phone lines limits the frequency response to a very narrow frequency, if this proves to be too hi-fi it was recorded on a computer, not through the phone system. It would be a very easy analysis for the audio expert.
yea but if she recorded it and then used like "movie maker" to put it in the right format wouldn't that wipe out any signals?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I have to say the receptionist sounded to be speaking authentically, but just was saying things that a simple receptionist wouldn't know or say. It's an odd combination.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Mmmm interesting. Why does she mention a documentary of Who is spraying?

Surely this is just a plug for the latest Michael Murphy endeavour?
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
It seems she does indeed dial the number indicated on the website. Cleaned up the audio a bit, converted it to .wav and bunged it through the DTMF detector at http://www.dialabc.com/sound/detect/ which provided the attached report.

To summarise, the DTMF tones detected corresponded to 4045629900.

Conclusion, the EPA need to sharpen up their recruitment practices.
 

Attachments

  • DTMF detection report.tiff
    182.4 KB · Views: 718

NoParty

Senior Member.
It seems she does indeed dial the number indicated on the website. Cleaned up the audio a bit, converted it to .wav and bunged it through the DTMF detector at http://www.dialabc.com/sound/detect/ which provided the attached report.

To summarise, the DTMF tones detected corresponded to 4045629900.

Conclusion, the EPA need to sharpen up their recruitment practices.

Or teach their receptionists not to speculate about things they know nothing about (when in the role of receptionist)
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
It seems she does indeed dial the number indicated on the website. Cleaned up the audio a bit, converted it to .wav and bunged it through the DTMF detector at http://www.dialabc.com/sound/detect/ which provided the attached report.

To summarise, the DTMF tones detected corresponded to 4045629900.

Conclusion, the EPA need to sharpen up their recruitment practices.
I called this morning, just to check to see whether the phone was answered by a live person (it was). I didn't feel like trying to ask about the issue, though (trying to talk about conspiracy theories often makes you sound crazy, even when you explain that you don't believe in the idea). Then I sent an email to their office, linked them to the recording on YouTube, and asked if it was genuine.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I called this morning, just to check to see whether the phone was answered by a live person (it was). I didn't feel like trying to ask about the issue, though (trying to talk about conspiracy theories often makes you sound crazy, even when you explain that you don't believe in the idea). Then I sent an email to their office, linked them to the recording on YouTube, and asked if it was genuine.

At the end, the Youtube vid-maker told the receptionist that she was recording it for her own use. Nothing about putting it out on the internet. I see that CTers like this woman and Madison Moon have no problem making recordings without FIRST notifying the other person and then doing whatever they want with them.
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
Or teach their receptionists not to speculate about things they know nothing about (when in the role of receptionist)

Yes, agreed. I reread what I wrote just after posting and very nearly edited it to include "training."
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I called this morning, just to check to see whether the phone was answered by a live person (it was). I didn't feel like trying to ask about the issue, though (trying to talk about conspiracy theories often makes you sound crazy, even when you explain that you don't believe in the idea). Then I sent an email to their office, linked them to the recording on YouTube, and asked if it was genuine.
I wonder if they are getting flooded. I keep getting a recording. 'please call back at a later time'
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
I think phone lines limits the frequency response to a very narrow frequency,

You are correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceband

if this proves to be too hi-fi it was recorded on a computer, not through the phone system. It would be a very easy analysis for the audio expert.

Now I'm no expert, but putting the beginning of the call into GarageBand and watching the visual EQ analyser indicates that the receptionist's voice covers the range between approximately 300Hz to 3400Hz, i.e. the voice band, whereas the caller's voice covers a much larger range from below 100Hz to over 10kHz. This suggests that the receptionist is on the end of a phone.

That said, with a bit of mucking about you could edit a recording to filter out the right frequencies using GarageBand or similar. I don't think thats likely here though.
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
Nothing says this recording had to have been made in one take..?

It could be a cut and shut job, there is plenty of scope for a discreet edit. I can't find anything conclusive in the audio though. I ought to stress that I'm hardly using state of the art audio analysis, I'm just fiddling around with some music production software that came free with my computer.
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
OK, after repeated listening to the beginning of this call I began to think that the pause between the end of the ring and the sound of the receiver being lifted was too long, this gap is filled with ambient noise but if you listen carefully, there is a near imperceptible digital click which could indicate where two calls have been spliced together and the waveforms do not meet exactly (tip for budding music producers: always clip your samples at the zero line). Sadly, what I'm using does not have the capability to resolve the waveform visually to the extent required to prove this.

The click can be heard 1 second after the ring tone ends, you may have to turn the volume up.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I note that the sound made when the woman answers the call is a bit odd and "crackly". Not sure what that might mean.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
OK, after repeated listening to the beginning of this call I began to think that the pause between the end of the ring and the sound of the receiver being lifted was too long, this gap is filled with ambient noise but if you listen carefully, there is a near imperceptible digital click which could indicate where two calls have been spliced together and the waveforms do not meet exactly (tip for budding music producers: always clip your samples at the zero line). Sadly, what I'm using does not have the capability to resolve the waveform visually to the extent required to prove this.

The click can be heard 1 second after the ring tone ends, you may have to turn the volume up.
I may be wrong but I would expect there would be no receiver to lift and it be a standard switchboard arrangement.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I may be wrong but I would expect there would be no receiver to lift and it be a standard switchboard arrangement.
I got crackly and I think the phone being picked up. the tone of the epa worker seems pretty authentic, so I'm leaning towards she is just really confused about what she is talking about. If youre not familiar with the conspiracy world it would be easy to make the mistakes in the convo, I think. We'll know Monday if when you call we hear "this call is being recorded for quality control" ; )

 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
I got crackly and I think the phone being picked up. the tone of the epa worker seems pretty authentic, so I'm leaning towards she is just really confused about what she is talking about.

Maybe she knows exactly what she's talking about. Perhaps she's had many such calls and has learnt that if she gives them a bit of what they want to hear they stop pestering her and she doesn't get called a shill or asked how she can sleep at night. ;)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West Dylan Avery - Director of the 9/11 Conspiracy Film "Loose Change" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Temecula: Former "Loose Change" forum mod posts on randi.org Escaping The Rabbit Hole 1
Agent K Earthquake at China Lake Current Events 1
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
MikeG Geoengineering in Southeastern Pennsylvania Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Geoengineering Watch and the Wagon Wheel Effect Contrails and Chemtrails 20
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Magic77 What is this Dark Mysterious Line in the Sky Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West Banff Chemtrails Billboard Worries David Keith Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
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
Van Wigington Debate Mentioned in this radio segment, Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, January 30, 2016 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Mick West Debunked: A Snow Test for Signs of Geoengineering, Portland Oregon Contrails and Chemtrails 7
MikeG Accidental Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 7
cmnit Patrick Roddie and the Saudi princess Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Ray Von Geezer Ian Simpson / Look-up.org.uk debunks chemtrails & geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Dan Page Scott Stevens Unique Geoengineering Ideas Contrails and Chemtrails 7
MikeG Common Core and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 2
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
Jay Reynolds Claim: Did Geoengineering Just Kill Almost 200,000 Alpacas In Peru? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
CeruleanBlu CBS San Fransico local news story about Marine Cloud Brightening Project. Contrails and Chemtrails 1
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
3 Rhode Island Bill H5480 - Relating to the Health and Safety of Geoengineering General Discussion 51
deirdre Madison Moonstar's Fake clouds Contrails and Chemtrails 2
MikeC Warning over aerosol climate fix from Vienna Contrails and Chemtrails 0
derrick06 Debunked: HAARP ELF waves causing a earthquake Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Tunnelvisionary Geoengineering would be 'irrational and irresponsible' - Article on New Scientist Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Comments not showing up on Geoengineering Watch's UVB Radiation Video? Contrails and Chemtrails 30
H Bill Gates is helping fund geoengineering (chemtrails) ... so why are you denying it? Contrails and Chemtrails 77
Gabriel Incertis Claim: MOREGELLON'S Is Patent US 6245531 And It Is Not A Disease Health and Quackery 6
Steve Funk Geoengineering illustration [From New Scientist, 2009] Contrails and Chemtrails 11
H2meloen Clouds formed when they should not? Contrails and Chemtrails 52
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
Jason Geoengineering with Rockets? Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Debunked: Ice Boulders on Great Lakes Caused by Geoengineering [Natural but Rare Ball Ice] General Discussion 11
Mick West Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives & the int'l politics of geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 182
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
FuzzyUK "Geoengineering And The Collapse Of Earth 2014", a Dane Wigington presentation Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top