Francis Mangels Video for CBC conference

[Steve Funk]

["Official" version:]
​

[originally here, but removed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVkhYfW-BFA



This was filmed at his home. Around 26 minutes, he is repeating the argument that geoengineering is causing rainfall to be transferred from the west coast to the midwest.
Then they put a graphic on the screen showing drought conditions for the week of August 12. This is only a single point in time, but it contradicts his point because it shows normal to moist conditions for Oregon, moderate drought for northern CA, and severe drought for most of the midwest. And the west coast should be drier than the midwest in August due to our rainfall patterns. I would like to see some real evidence for this argument. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have been looking for annual rainfall totals from 1995 to 2010 in the west coast and the midwest, but not finding them so far.

Around 39 minutes, he makes a units error, saying that he got 13,000 of aluminum below his house, but they got 61,000 from snow on the mountain. The 13,000 was mg/kg. The 61,000 was micrograms/liter.

 

[Steve Funk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhpG5Ilmquk

It was removed from first link, but is still here.

 

[Steve Funk]

Around 1:15 he says when he was a kid the skies were brighter and contrails were only about 30 plane lengths long. The first commercial jet plane was not launched until Dec. 1958, when Francis was about 13. For serving smaller regional airports, prop plances were not replaced for another 20 years. (Francis grew up in Montana.) I suspect the military was smaller then, although I can't find any numbers. Military planes are more likely to fly at lower elevations, producing fewer contrails.

 

[Mick West]

Around 1:15 he says when he was a kid the skies were brighter and contrails were only about 30 plane lengths long. The first commercial jet plane was not launched until Dec. 1958, when Francis was about 13. For serving smaller regional airports, prop plances were not replaced for another 20 years. (Francis grew up in Montana.) I suspect the military was smaller then, although I can't find any numbers. Military planes are more likely to fly at lower elevations, producing fewer contrails.

More to the point, what does he remember from his 60s?

The thing is, a good percentage of the people who answered my survey said they only noticed contrails in 2011 or 2012. This memory thing is a big red herring, and yet it's impossible to convince anyone that their own personal recollection might not be a good indication of the nature of persistent contrails for the last 40 years.

 

[Belfrey]

More to the point, what does he remember from his 60s?

The thing is, a good percentage of the people who answered my survey said they only noticed contrails in 2011 or 2012. This memory thing is a big red herring, and yet it's impossible to convince anyone that their own personal recollection might not be a good indication of the nature of persistent contrails for the last 40 years.

Chemtrailers are well aware that most of the time people don't notice or pay attention to contrails - thus their common admonishment to "look at the sky!"

I was thinking about this recently when I ran into a reposting of an article that has been showing up in blogs since at least 2009: Chemtrail Whistleblower Allan Buckmann: Some Thoughts on Weather Modification, by Allan R. Buckmann. Buckmann presents himself as something of an "expert witness", because he used to be an Air Force weather satellite observer in the early 60s. Resting on those credentials, he assures us that the persistent contrails are new (all bolds mine): "Jet clouds made their major appearance for weather observers in the early 1990s, after many years of jet traffic without such clouds."

However, if you look at Buckmann's bio for the CBC conference, it says that "In 2002 after introduction to a video (Cox) about 'Chemtrails,' Allan finally recognized and verified the cloud creation program by jets which were creating cirriform clouds almost daily." In other words, according to Buckmann's own narrative, chemtrails were around for nearly a decade before he took notice of them, and only then because he was shown a chemtrails video. From that, it seems to me to be quite plausible that this trained weather observer had failed to notice persistent contrails in the 70s and 80s, as well.

 

[Mick West]

It's quite amazing how many people first see "chemtrails" the day after they were told about them. The theorists say this is simply because they person was not "awake" beforehand.

See here. Note how many 2011 and 2012 dates there are:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AthfJKf0ArdPdEx0MXJSN2R5eHlqX1B0RzhRczFUMnc&output=html

 

[Jay Reynolds]

It's quite amazing how many people first see "chemtrails" the day after they were told about them. The theorists say this is simply because they person was not "awake" beforehand.

See here. Note how many 2011 and 2012 dates there are:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AthfJKf0ArdPdEx0MXJSN2R5eHlqX1B0RzhRczFUMnc&output=html

It's true. Anyone who cares to peruse the archives on the forum called chemtrailcentral.com which goes back to 2001 will see that practically every area of the US had people claiming they were being "hammered daily". These 'veteran skywatchers' didn't see it until much later, after the idea was put into their heads.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhpG5Ilmquk

It was removed from first link, but is still here.

Anyone have this, or know a secret link that hasn't been taken down? Just email or PM me. The promoters of this seem to be very stingy with their "fundraiser".

Commercial potential, or are they already embarrassed about it?

Ah, I see, John Whyte is selling the fake bunk for real money:
http://www.consciousnessbeyondchemtrails.com/buy-dvd/

 

[Mick West]

I think John Whyte financed the conference largely himself, and attendance was not quite as high as he hoped (I'm guessing 300 people tops, and less than that online). He paid for airfare for people to attend, so he lost quite a bit. It's not surprising he's trying to recoup a little.

Maybe someone will email you the video.

 

[brent_brent]

Hi guys this was sent to me by a chemtrail believer http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-o_8Dp0OoXI

 

[Mick West]

brent_brent, that's just the Case Orange thing. There are no whistleblowers there.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/95...e-Orange-quot-conclusions-amp-recommendations

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I think John Whyte financed the conference largely himself, and attendance was not quite as high as he hoped (I'm guessing 300 people tops, and less than that online). He paid for airfare for people to attend, so he lost quite a bit. It's not surprising he's trying to recoup a little.

Man, did he ever get taken. Talk about learning the hard way. This thing was supposed to benefit Carnicom, turns out it would have been more effective if Whyte had just handed him a few G's, but instead it was a chemtrail celebrity jaunt with John Whyte footing the bills.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Around 39 minutes, he makes a units error, saying that he got 13,000 of aluminum below his house, but they got 61,000 from snow on the mountain. The 13,000 was mg/kg. The 61,000 was micrograms/liter.

This is not the sort of mistake which a person of the "99th percentile of intelligence" would make. Francis Mangels' mental capacity seems to be going downhill very fast. Almost a shame to debunk a person so diminished, but someone will have to do it as many people will otherwise get bamboozled.

 

[Mick West]

There's a huge appeal to authority going on there.






And yet he can't even take pH tests correctly:

 

[Jay Reynolds]

This is not the sort of mistake which a person of the "99th percentile of intelligence" would make. Francis Mangels' mental capacity seems to be going downhill very fast. Almost a shame to debunk a person so diminished, but someone will have to do it as many people will otherwise get bamboozled.

Ok, will begin dissecting his spiel.

Mangels is asked by John Whyte @ 8:00:

I think it is pretty important for people to understand these heavy metals, especially aluminum, are naturally occurring in earth, in soil.

The soil underneath us, I tested it underneath the house, 13,000. Another area in town tested it there 11,000, another place, somewhere around 12,000, so, around here, apparently, our normal soil has about 13,000 ppb. But, since the chemtrails started, this garden area out here, and the lawn, 20,000 plus...

Yeah, you know, I think its...

So, its going up and the stuff coming down in the rain its gradually building up the level of aluminum, barium, and strontium here in my garden.

These are interesting claims which deserve looking at.

First of all, Mangels makes yet another unit error. He claims to have a lab analysis showing 13,000 ppb, or parts per billion, of naturally occurring aluminum in soil under his house. Previously, he claimed that the level was 13,000 mg/kg, which was parts per million, one thousand times more!

In order to sort this out, I asked him to publicly show the lab report for this, but he refused. This is documented HERE.

Now, besides being confused about the actual units he had claimed before, he claims to have other tests from locations around town which show less aluminum than he previously claimed was under his house, down to 11,000. He doesn't even attempt to explain why he has found lower levels in other parts of town than what was under his house, while at the same time claiming that, in his backyard, aluminum levels are rising because of aluminum falling from the sky. The only way that could happen was if only his own backyard were being sprayed. How does that happen from jets flying six miles overhead? The town of Mt. Shasta is only a few miles wide.

Six months ago, Mangels was claiming that soil in his garden measured 16,000, but now that claim has escalated to 20,000, again, with no data to back it up.

I previously did some calculations to see if just the increase from supposedly "likely natural" levels under his house of 13,000, to his previous claim of an open-air backyard level of 16,000 was even sensible. I found that, in order to allegedly enrich his county's soil aluminum levels from 13,000 to 16,000, such an effort would require 1/2 of total world aluminum production!

So far as I know, though he claims that three elements, aluminum, barium, and strontium, are being sprayed in massive quantities over his backyard, he has never offered any claims about the second and third elements in regards to his soil. I find that lack of data very interesting. Why hasn't he bothered testing for the other elements, and made a claim about those increasing?

So, here we have Mangels getting the basic units of soil concentration wrong again, inflating his claim from 16,000 to 20,000 in the space of six months, when even his original claim was not close to being plausible. That increase, a mere 3,000 mg/kg, would have taken 1/2 of the world's aluminum production. This new increase, 4,000 over the space of six months, would have used up in excess of 1/2 of world production, just on his own county!

Rather than the authoritative genius scientist, Francis Mangels is a man who isn't familiar with the basic units he is talking about, who is liable to change his figures whenever he likes, who doesn't even check his claims for plausibility, and who avoids documenting them so that he can change them as quickly as the wind changes direction.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

And yet he can't even take pH tests correctly:

Let me amplify that with a short video to explain this sleight of hand from the movie "What In The World Are They Spraying" :

​

 

[solrey]

I'm a gardener so this is quite interesting. He said when he started the garden the soil pH was around 5.5 - 5.6 then he says the county soil survey shows the soil on his property should be between 4.5 and 6.0. So when he started his garden his soil pH was where it should be according to the county. Then after however many years of gardening his soil tests up to 6.8 in the mud, which looks like it's pretty rich like it's been amended with compost so it's not surprising that the pH would be closer to neutral. Does he even know how to garden? Adjusting soil pH is a fundamental aspect of gardening as different plants like different pH levels.

http://www.thegardenhelper.com/soilPH.htm

If he's amended the soil with fertilizers, nutrients, compost, etc. the pH is going to change. I think this guy is utterly incompetent.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I think this guy is utterly incompetent.

Mangels seems to believe that he can add compost and expect to not get a buffering effect. IO tried to explain that to him in my first phone call but he thought that since the leaves making the compost were acidic that the end result would be, too. He's wrong, compost made of leaves does not remain acidic forever. LINK
There is a lot worse:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/154-The-Claims-of-Francis-Mangels-a-Factual-Examination

 

[Belfrey]

Mangels seems to believe that he can add compost and expect to not get a buffering effect. IO tried to explain that to him in my first phone call but he thought that since the leaves making the compost were acidic that the end result would be, too. He's wrong, compost made of leaves does not remain acidic forever. LINK

There's also the point that unless I'm mistaken, I saw parts of an irrigation system in the footage of his garden. It's very common for irrigation water to be alkaline, and to raise the pH of soil over time. He should know this, with his background as a soil scientist and master gardener.

As an aside, I thought that the film's mention of Mangel's membership in "high IQ" societies was pretty tacky.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

At 8:45 in the video, there is the following conversation:

I think its important for people to understand that it is not naturally occurring, these heavy metals are not naturally occurring in our atmosphere.

No, its not naturally ocurring in the atmosphere, there's always a little bit of dust, and, for instance, Scientific American (holds up magazine) February, 2012, they have an interesting article in here about dust from Africa going into Florida and that's true, but we're not getting dust from asia coming all the way across the Pacific into the west coast of America. That doesn't happen, but it does come out of Africa and hit Florida and the Caribbean somewhat. We know that's south of the equator so it makes its way from Africa over to South America, Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico, it can do that, but its not coming from asia all the way to California.

Yeah, you know its really important with all the tests we do with the Chemtrails Project, and you advise on, people say, OK, so I have a thousand parts per billion of aluminum in my rainwater, should that be in our air, should that be in our atmosphere, and I always have to tell people, no, that's not naturally occurring, you could have an instance, the only instance could be soil contamination or, as you always tell me, coal burning or some other type of thing, so if you could rule those out, you could reasonably say it should be zero.

That's true, reasonably it should be zero. Or maybe if its just odds and ends of 'silly' contamination, the jar wasn't clean, then, maybe single digits might show up, and that's just what I call background chatter, not the thousands. Even something 40 or 50, that's extraordinarily high

First of all, it looks to me like either Mangels didn't read the Scientific American article, or he omitted parts which didn't support his claim. The article clearly says:

The earth emits an estimated two billion metric tons of dust a year, and more than half of it comes from African deserts and drylands. China emits dust that travels to Hawaii and western North America; Patagonia sends dust to Antarctica. Most of the dust that settles on Greenland comes from Asia, but when drought produced the American Dust Bowl of the 1930s, that dust also seems to have made its way to Greenland’s glaciers.

This is not the first time that Mangels has been informed of the fact that dust travels across the Pacific from Asia, and for him to claim otherwise is an outright lie.
Mangels has been sent this information more than once, and he very well knows that the California Air Resources Board has studied asian dust.
Mangels even mentions "china dust" as having been identified at Mt. Rainier as recently as 2/22/12, so he is either having severe memory problems or is deliberately lying to John Whyte and the public.

As far as his claim that aluminum should be "zero", and that 40-50 ug/L in rainfall is "extremely high", he is also lying. Months ago, I sent him a copy of the 1967 and 1973 studies showing aluminum in rainfall and snow was found to be 350-1120 ug/L, on average.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/135-Chemical-Composition-of-rain-and-snow

 

[solrey]

If he's worried about aluminum toxicity he should be happy with more alkaline soil in his garden than the 5.5 acidic soil he started with and most gardeners would want to systematically add lime to raise that pH by around 1.0 over time anyway, except for acid loving crops like tomatoes or garlic. As a master gardener and soil scientist he should at least know how to do a simple pH paper strip test, like mixing the soil in distilled water and dipping the end of the strip into the water after the solids have settled, maybe even have access to a lab that can do a more accurate test. Now if he was using an electronic probe he would be correct in dunking that into the mud.

 

[Mick West]

And dust in the rain at Shasta is not at all reliant on "China dust". There are plenty of local sources of dust, especially in summer.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

And dust in the rain at Shasta is not at all reliant on "China dust". There are plenty of local sources of dust, especially in summer.

I agree that local sources could easily explain the levels being found. Some new research has been published this month on the subject, news that the Shasta Group would rather not deal with, so I'll bring it up anyways!

It turns out that asian aerosols travel to North America at a much higher level than previously thought, a whopping 56 million tons/year.

​

NASA and university scientists have made the first measurement-based estimate of the tiny airborne particles—aerosols—that arrive by air in North America each year. According to the analysis, 64 million tons of dust, pollutants, and other particles cross the oceans and mix into the air over North America each year. That's nearly as much as the estimated 69 million tons of aerosols produced domestically by natural processes, transportation, and industrial sources.

With the three-dimensional view of the atmosphere provided by satellites, scientists were able to distinguish dust from pollution from combustion. They estimated that dust crossing the Pacific Ocean from Asia accounts for 88 percent (56 million tons) of the total particle import to North America. The results were published in the journal Science on August 2, 2012.

The visualization above shows dust transport from Asia to North America in April 2010 based on a run of the Goddard Earth Observing System Model, Version 5 (GEOS-5). The study included aerosol data from instruments on NASA's Terra satellite and from the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO) satellite, a joint effort between NASA and France's Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales.

More video and an interview with the scientist:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/dust-imports_prt.htm

 

[Steve Funk]

Around 12:15, Mangels is discussing samples with no aluminum as proof that other samples aren't "contaminated." First, the logic is not apparent, in extrapolating from two or three such samples to all other samples.
Second, the geoengineering calculations in the scientific literature are based on the particles staying in the stratosphere for up to several years, an achievable goal if they are placed high enough, in locations where air tends to rise, and the particles are small enough. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/jour.../nclimate1528.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureClimate. Suppose there were a large scale geoengineering program and they switched from an aluminum oxide formula to a strotium titanate formula. This would not result in increased strontium results for one or more years. You would expect a gradual decline in average aluminum concentration over several years; a couple of tests with zero aluminum is more likely attributable to local anomalies. You can't spot geoengineer an isolated location from 10 miles up.

 

[Steve Funk]

Re: the china dust clouds
The research Jay mentions in post 23 was probably published after Mangels' interview, but here is a paper on Dust Storms from China from 2001 that he should have been aware of.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/06/0601_chinadust.html

 

[Jay Reynolds]

First of all, it looks to me like either Mangels didn't read the Scientific American article, or he omitted parts which didn't support his claim. The article clearly says:

Scientifc American February 2012

The earth emits an estimated two billion metric tons of dust a year, and more than half of it comes from African deserts and drylands. China emits dust that travels to Hawaii and western North America; Patagonia sends dust to Antarctica. Most of the dust that settles on Greenland comes from Asia, but when drought produced the American Dust Bowl of the 1930s, that dust also seems to have made its way to Greenland’s glaciers.

Here is a link to the Scientific American article Mangels seems to have read.

http://bibliotecaearth.net/2012/01/26/swept-from-africa-to-the-amazon-2/

While Mangels and cohorts know that 20 million tons of materials are being proposed for geoengineering, Mangels should have noted that the article he references explains that 2 billion metric tons of natural aluminum containing dust enters the atmosphere each year. Of those 2 billion tons, 40 million tons from Africa alone falls on the Amazon basin each year, which scientists believe to be a major contributor to soil fertility of that area.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Around 12:15, Mangels is discussing samples with no aluminum as proof that other samples aren't "contaminated."

here is a transcript:

@11:30 Something very interesting that's come up in Chemtrails Project testing, and I know your own testing, is that is that a lot of people who are not believeing these results we are getting from our rainwater, they like to say, "These heavy metals are there because of soil contamination." and that's the repeated debunk over and over again. However, a lot of the testing that we had in the Chemtrails Project over several months, and I know your own testing has been showing high levels of strontium and barium with no aluminum. I'll give you a few examples and we'll talk about what that means.

Redding, California, which is not far from here, we had a test where we had 820 parts/billion of strontium, 150 parts per billion of barium, and no aluminum whatsoever.

That's proof right there that there's no dirt contamination, cause if there was dirt in there, you should get some aluminum. And 800 strontium, holy cow, that's astoundingly high

.

McCook, Nebraska, 209 parts/billion of strontium zero aluminum.

Hey, you know, if it's dirt contamination, you should get some kind of a registration for aluminum. This is from the sky, this is not from ground dirt, this is not soil getting in. Absolutely, there is no question about that.
END TRANSCRIPT

First, the logic is not apparent, in extrapolating from two or three such samples to all other samples.

Exactly, Steve. In fact though, the logical fallacy which has pervaded the whole Shasta Group's lab testing has been carried on with John Whyte's Chemtrails Project.
This fallacy is known as "Cherry Picking".

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.[1]

The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the fruit is in such good condition.

Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to an argument, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available.

In this case, the cherry picking is a partial form of a false dichotomy, wherein Mangels makes an either/or proposition:
Either:
A. Rain water containing crustal material will always contain aluminum, since aluminum is common in earth's crust.
OR
B. Rain water not containing aluminum indicates no contamination with crustal material.

This leads Mangels to conclude that:
Since there was no aluminum in two samples, this rules out all contamination and any elements found must be from geoengineering.

There are several fallacies here which demonstrate the false dichotomy.

A. Even if crustal material is not present in rain water, there are other sources of barium such as man-made pollution by power plants or even car brake pads.
B. Even if crustal material and pollutants are not present in rain water, a major aerosol source is sea salt, which contains considerable strontium.
C. The particular samples could have been taken after most crustal particulates were rained out during an earlier part of the rain event, and the portion of rain collected was less influenced by crustal elements yet still strongly influenced by marine salt or pollution aerosols.
D. The sampling and analysis methodology is not described. If the sample were filtered, non-soluble aluminum could have been filtered out, leaving behind more soluble barium and strontium which could have passed through the filtration process.

The facts are that there is insufficient data for the alleged lab results supplied to analyze these results. There is, for instance, no date or time associated with the lab report. If there were, one could examine meteorological data (ie.. what sort of rain event transpired, wind speed, amount of precipitation, pH which might influence solubility, etc.)

In the video Mangels says:

@10:15 Reasonably, it[aluminum] should be zero, or maybe if it's just odds and ends of 'silly' contamination, the jar wasn't clean, then, maybe single digits might show up, and that's just what I call "background chatter", not the thousands, that's way too high, even something 40 or 50 is extraordinarily high. These should be in single digits, if any number

However, looking at the alleged lab report shows this:



As you can see, the test does not show "ZERO" aluminum. it shows "ND", which National Testing Laboratories defines HERE:



So, in one statement Mangels claims that an aluminum level of 40 would be "EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH", yet at the same time
he wants to claim that a lab analysis which can barely detect 40 shows zero aluminum.

Such sophistry might make it past the average listener, but when explained, easily shows yet another absurd claim by a chemtrails 'scientist'.

In this post I have demonstrated:
- an example of Mangels "cherry picking" in the form of a false dichotomy.
-either being unaware of or purposefully omitting mention of known sources of contamination besides soil such as sea salt and ordinary pollutants
-not documenting the date, the sampling method, or the sampling conditions of the lab test underlying his claims
-making an absurd claim of "zero aluminum" in a lab test when the lab method used was not sensitive enough to detect less than 40 parts/billion.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

B. Even if crustal material and pollutants are not present in rain water, a major aerosol source is sea salt, which contains considerable strontium.
C. The particular samples could have been taken after most crustal particulates were rained out during an earlier part of the rain event, and the portion of rain collected was less influenced by crustal elements yet still strongly influenced by marine salt or pollution aerosols.

Here is what I am trying to explain:
Looking at the two bar charts, you will see that the abundance of aluminum, barium, and strontium is quite different in earth's crust compared to sea water.

Elements in Earth's Crust:
In the crust, aluminum is most abundant, with barium and strontium being similar to each other, but far less than aluminum.

Aluminum- 82,000 parts per million
Barium- 340 parts per million
Strontium- 360 parts per million



Elements in Sea Water
In sea water, strontium is most abundant, with barium much less, and aluminum being the least abundant.

Aluminum- .005 parts per million
Barium- .03 parts per million
Strontium- 8.1 parts per million



In water containing crustal aerosols, you would expect aluminum to doinate, followed by barium and strontium.
In water containing sea salt aerosols, you would expect strontium to dominate, followed by barium, with low levels of aluminum.

 

[Mick West]

John Whyte has posted an "Official" version. Seems to be identical to the streamed version.

​

Seems like he plans to release them one at a time - possibly with extra editing.

 

[Miss VocalCord]

I must say I'm not a native English speaker so I might have gotten something wrong, so if there are any errors below please correct me (also about the claims I make ofcourse )

At 32.25 Francis Mangels claims:

"The ones that leave persistent contrails, we've put a big telescope on them, the contrails are almost always military KC-135 and 434's , it is a double engined cargo jet, and usually the got a belly nozzle on them."

- First of all I am not aware of any airplane type called KC-434, even 434 doesn't really ring a bell for me. However there is the 434th Operations Group:

"It is the flying component of the Fourth Air Force 434th Air Refueling Wing, stationed at Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/434th_Operations_Group
Indeed the airforce department flying with KC-135 refuelling planes, did he really mix this up?

- Second, he speaks of a "double engined cargo jet", where obviously the KC-135 is a four engine plane.

- Most KC-135's flying around are, as far as I know, used as refuelling planes (although there are some other types), but I don't think the main purpose of the KC-135 is 'cargo'.

- It shouldn't be a suprise these all have a belly nozzle, not sure how he expects to refuel planes in flight otherwise. What purpose serves this belly nozzle for chemtrails anyway, if the only image of a 'chemtrail' plane at 31.00 shows 'chemtrails' coming out of the engines.

- And all this has been identified by "a fellow from the military" through a telescope????


The even more funny thing is that the only image of an airplane in the interview is at around 31.00. Although it has an all white/grey surface, its hard to tell anything from the bad quality youtube frame. However in my opinion this can't really be a KC-135. If you look at the "upper" wing, a winglet is clearly visible on this wing, while on the wing below in the image has a sharp edge where the winglet starts. I don't know any version of the KC-135 which has a winglet. Also looking at the shape of the back of the wing it looks much more like a A340:
http://images.extremespotting.com/PHOTOS/2574/M

These don't seem to be used that much as a military plane, especially not in the USA, since its an European build plane:
"Besides the -8000, some A340-200s are used for VIP or military use. Examples of these users are Royal Brunei Airlines, Qatar Amiri Flight, Arab Republic of Egypt Government, Saudi Arabia Air Force, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the French Air Force.
"Two A340-300 were acquired by the Flugbereitschaft of the German Air Force to serve as VIP transports for the leaders of the German government and the German President. Service entry will be 2011."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A340

So he just making all kind of wild guesses regarding planes in my humble opinion.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

- And all this has been identified by "a fellow from the military" through a telescope????


The even more funny thing is that the only image of an airplane in the interview is at around 31.00. Although it has an all white/grey surface, its hard to tell anything from the bad quality youtube frame. However in my opinion this can't really be a KC-135. If you look at the "upper" wing, a winglet is clearly visible on this wing, while on the wing below in the image has a sharp edge where the winglet starts. I don't know any version of the KC-135 which has a winglet. Also looking at the shape of the back of the wing it looks much more like a A340:
http://images.extremespotting.com/PHOTOS/2574/M.

here is the image from Mangels' interview:


here is the A340 you referenced above:


I looks like you are correct to me.
Mangels says this:

"The ones that leave persistent contrails, we've put a big telescope on them, the contrails are almost always military KC-135 and 434's , it is a double engined cargo jet, and usually the got a belly nozzle on them."

He is saying that for many years, hundreds of planes leaving persistent contrails are "almost always" four engine military KC-135's with a "belly nozzle on them" have been flying overhead, but when he gets his "BIG CHANCE" to show one which he has photographed by telescope, he shows us an Airbus 340?

To quote Francis Mangels:

"Something is REALLY wrong here!"

The A340 shown above does have a wing number on it, and I can see a faint sign that the video capture plane has a number at the same place.
Too bad the film maker didn't make the same mistake here that he did in the WHYWATS video here: LINK, where you can clearly tell that the plane shown is just a CARGOLUX jet. I actually expect that if you pressed the producer of the Mangels video for the provenance of the jet they show, you will get no answer. Most likely, they lifted the image from a planespotter website, because any true researcher would have noticed that it was an Airbus, not a KC-135 as claimed.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I just sent this email to Francis Mangels, Barry Kolski, John Whyte, Michael J. Murphy, Dane Wigington, Mauro Oliviera, G. Edward Griffin, and others:

Francis,

I have challenged you before to show one of the hundreds of KC-135's spraying from the belly that you have been claiming for years.

I see that in your video, however, you show an ordinary Airbus 340. This has come to the public's attention and I would like an answer to the exact provenance of the image you have accompanying your video.

see the discussion:

https://www.metabunk.org/posts/14350

 

[Miss VocalCord]

Good on you you really send them emails!

The post in #30 was mine, and only decided shortly after to register, mainly to say thanks, like many others have done also!

...almost always" four engine military KC-135's...

Yes, but in the interview he states they are 'double engine' ones, I mean this still means 'two engines' right?

To continue a little bit on the nitpicking of the single bad quality picture in the interview:
I tried to find the original photo they used for the interview without luck. I do think however it is possible to pinpoint which airline it is. Mangels says that most commercial airlines have some kind of stripes or a colored belly which makes them distinctive, however this is not at all true for all airlines. E.g. Swiss Air, Lufthansa or Olympic Airline (although I think those have gone broke) all have white/grey belly Airbus A340's. Most of the time only the winglet, tail or the upper part of the plane has some lines/text on them.

But when we look at the Airbus A340 in servcie for Air France, only the tail has some noticable stripes on them (and the text "air france" on the top of the plane):


However if you take a picture of it from the right angle (so there is no tail visible) you get something what looks like this:




Almost precisely matching the picture in the interview, no colors, no visible windows, the exact same gray wings/white belly etc etc.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Yes, indeed, Mick. The average aluminum content of rain in the 1967 study you quote above was 800 ug/L and for snow 460 ug/L.

I went to the "Test Data" link at Michael J. Murphy's Coalition Against Geoengineering website, went through all of his samples of snow and rain,
from 2007 through 2011, then found the average.
http://geoengineeringwatch.org/library/testing/

Michael J. Murphy constantly claims that his samples show abnormally high levels of aluminum in rainwater.

An analysis of his own results proves his claim to be false. The average aluminum concentration in his samples was 484 ug/L.
His samples show that average levels of aluminum in rain & snow are currently LOWER than they were over 40 years ago.

He needs to retract that claim.


Sample Date Location Aluminum Level (µg/L)
12/27/2007 Italy 13
3/1/2007 East Lake Shasta, CA (snow) 7.2
4/14/2007 East Lake Shasta, CA 88
4/21/2007 East Lake Shasta, CA 27.2
5/4/2007 East Lake Shasta, CA 33.2
1/31/2008 East Lake Shasta, CA (snow) 368
2/23/2008 East Lake Shasta, CA 262
3/18/2008 East Lake Shasta, CA 2190
4/21/2008 East Lake Shasta, CA 650
5/22/2008 East Lake Shasta, CA 188
5/29/2008 East Lake Shasta, CA 881
10/4/2008 East Lake Shasta, CA 84
11/1/2008 East Lake Shasta, CA 815
11/11/2008 East Lake Shasta, CA (lightning storm)3450
3/21/2009 Mt. Shasta, CA 1540
3/22/2009 Mt. Shasta, CA 41
3/28/2009 Mt. Shasta, CA 853
10/14/2009 Mt. Shasta, CA 611
7/10/2010 Maui, HI 400
7/26/2010 Maui, HI 219
1/14/2011 Long Island, NY (snow) 15
1/14/2011 Long Island, NY (snow) 82
1/14/2011 Long Island, NY (snow) 13
1/14/2011 Long Island, NY (snow) 20
2/21/2011 Big Bear, CA (snow) 38.8
5/17/2011 Orinda, CA 118
5/17/2011 Orinda, CA 66.9
Average 484.2333333

You might notice that the Long Island samples represent four samples from the same rain event, but have vastly different aluminum concentrations, up to 4 times higher in this case.
The significance of this is that a single sample taken might have vastly different results. This is another possible reason why Mangels lab results could have shown less than 40 micrograms/L, or below the detection limit. The test Mangels refers to in his interview is also questionable, because the Long Island samples were tested using a far more accurate method allowing detection of levels 4 times less than the one in which aluminum was "not detectable".