"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/


"You can go on the internet and you can key in 'chemtrails slash sprayin''"
Content from External Source
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

If you plan to record telephone calls or in-person conversations (including by recording video that captures sound), you should be aware that there are federal and state wiretapping laws that may limit your ability to do so. These laws not only expose you to the risk of criminal prosecution, but also potentially give an injured party a civil claim for money damages against you.
Content from External Source
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: 829

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


A voice frequency (VF) or voice band is one of the frequencies, within part of the audio range, that is used for the transmission of speech. In telephony, the usable voice frequency band ranges from approximately 300 Hz to 3400 Hz...

...The voiced speech of a typical adult male will have a fundamental frequency from 85 to 180 Hz, and that of a typical adult female from 165 to 255 Hz. Thus, the fundamental frequency of most speech falls below the bottom of the "voice frequency" band as defined above

Content from External Source
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. ;)
 
Top