Hoax: Climate Engineering Pilot Disclosure?

[Mick West]

This article on Geoengineeringwatch.org shows two "letters" that claim to be from a "chemtrail pilot". These letters appear to be an obvious hoax, and yet they are being treated as potentially genuine. Yet the letters contain ludicrous descriptions that make no sense at all.

I should not be telling you this. But nearly one-third of all flights, are being orchestrated from small un-named islands. Where newly constructed bases, are being built, at a rate of eight per year. On these extremely remote islands, there are HAARP arrays of every possible design. With many arrays surrounding these islands, within the depths of the ocean itself. The Navy has developed sophisticated underwater construction technology. That allows fully autonomous robot submersibles, to travel great distances, and even manufacture parts for these massive under water arrays, as they progress across the open sea floor. Every time that you see or hear about military excercises at sea. They are basically there to give support and resupply, their army of underwater robotic minions. There is possibly, one aquatic robot per plane, and will soon be double that.

Some people interested in debunking chemtrails think that doing a hoax like this is a good way of illustrating to people that they should not believe everything they read. I disagree, and I think that, when the hoax is revealed, it simply makes people think their theories are more correct, as why else would people be trying to discredit them?

So I'd like to state for the record that:

1) This looks exactly like a hoax
2) I don't know who is responsible for it
3) I think such hoaxes are a bad idea, and they do not help debunking, which should be open and honest.

I've posted a comment under the story, so Wigington is aware of this:

 

[Auldy]

To quote Shaggy, "It wasn't me"

 

[Hama Neggs]

it simply makes people think their theories are more correct, as why else would people be trying to discredit them?

Unfortunately, ALL debunking is taken as evidence that their various theories are correct.

 

[Rico]

I had a look at the article. Sounds completely like a Sci-Fi sketch. And really, it's not the first time pilots have been intentionally doing this. There are people out there who do find enjoyment when others unknowingly flock to their stories. Also, if this were true, and there was a pilot trying to "whistle blow" some chemtrail operation out there, he needs only state the lat and long coordinates of those "unnamed" islands, and then the coverup would be over.

I also can't find your comment Mick. I guess they are quick to delete words from supershills such as yourself .

 

[WeedWhacker]

Agree...with this particular topic (the non-existent so-called "chem"trails) it seems that while possibly well-intentioned as a "spoof" of the believers, it is counter-productive since they ('believers') will latch on to, and spread it.

It's also a bit 'rude', poking fun...and that rarely is productive in educating.

 

[Rico]

I read an article recently about a meteorologist who got so fed up talking to chemtrail believers that he started to have a little fun by posting hoaxes on his facebook page just so conspiracy theorists would fall for it. I probably shouldn't post the article, since it's a tad impolite, but I suspect that people who do this have really gone past their well-intentions, and are doing it just for the purpose of trolling for personal amusement.

 

[MikeC]

Your reply & mine aren't there yet.....

 

[Hama Neggs]

I read an article recently about a meteorologist who got so fed up talking to chemtrail believers that he started to have a little fun by posting hoaxes on his facebook page just so conspiracy theorists would fall for it. I probably shouldn't post the article, since it's a tad impolite, but I suspect that people who do this have really gone past their well-intentions, and are doing it just for the purpose of trolling for personal amusement.

At some point, it's easy to conclude that the CTers are either terminally gullible idiots or trolling themselves, so anything goes.

 

[Balance]

So I'd like to state for the record that:

1) This looks exactly like a hoax
2) I don't know who is responsible for it
3) I think such hoaxes are a bad idea, and they do not help debunking, which should be open and honest.

I've posted a comment under the story, so Wignington is aware of this:

Ya think it'll work this time?

 

[Lisa P]

Ya think it'll work this time?

It worked for me in the past in that I would come to Metabunk to see what they had to say about a new CT post, to see if it was real or not. I would see that CT admins would delete stuff as the original comment would be posted here. I hate dishonesty and closed convo's. I left a lot of chemtrail groups because of the false stuff some posted, when I questioned the admins in PM's they would say 'they mean well'. No sorry a lie is a lie. So for people undecided or fence sitters that come here to see this side of the story it helps.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I left a lot of chemtrail groups because of the false stuff some posted, when I questioned the admins in PM's they would say 'they mean well'. No sorry a lie is a lie. So for people undecided or fence sitters that come here to see this side of the story it helps.

This is great!! Seems it's possible for intelligent people to realize when they are being 'lied to'....YOU took that leap!!!

Congrats!!!!

 

[Hama Neggs]

This is in the comments section:

JudyAnne says:
December 9, 2014 at 8:30 pm
Thanks Dane, I have several times appealed to various pilot oriented websites and have been ignored or threatened for suggesting that Geoengineering is real…I will never give up and Thank you Dane for all that you do….

There is no way to combat the continuing skewed comments like this. I'm quite sure this person did't just receive "threats" as the only responses on pilot forums. In fact, I doubt she was threatened at all. This sort of person is SO convinced of the dastardly nature of the "spraying program" that they either just make up stories from whole cloth or vastly exaggerate them in order to 'fit in' with the believer crowd and make what they consider to be a "positive contribution". I daresay if that person was challenged to cite links to any supposed "threats", she wouldn't even respond because it didn't actually happen at ALL the way she says.

 

[MikeC]

My comment has gone from "awaiting moderation" to not appearing at all - presumably deleted.

@Mick West - yours hasn't appeared yet - is it still awaiting moderation?

 

[Mick West]

My comment has gone from "awaiting moderation" to not appearing at all - presumably deleted.

@Mick West - yours hasn't appeared yet - is it still awaiting moderation?

No, looks like it was deleted. Meanwhile, we have comments approved like:

they are MURDERERS – imagine being a pilot who can fly these jets and being a complete BRAIN DEAD MURDERING ZOMBIE-these morons arnt brain surgeons, but they do have to learn to fly intricate flying machines, so you would think they have SOME brain cells that work. they are nothing more or less then MURDERERS – OATH BREAKING AMERICAN KILLING MURDERERS & should be treated as such , NO SYMPATHY, these are NOT ILLITERATES we are talking about who didnt graduate 1st grade, they are HIGHLY TRAINED individuals ,pilots are supposed to be 'smarter then the average bears' so PLEASE, NO EXCUSES for these MURDERERS, they should all be executed just like they are doing to US ALL & our planet -

Clearly not a good forum for discussing such things.

 

[cloudspotter]

I was reading this last night and wondered if Indigo Skyfold was meant to be some sort of clue that this is a hoax

 

[Strawman]

Clearly not a good forum for discussing such things.

So Dane is creating an atmosphere in which people get so worked up about chemtrails that they consider pilots murderers, which are up for execution. And anything questioning the narrative behind it will be deleted. Good thing when someone finally follows up and kills a pilot (or a scientist), they can always claim it's a government attempt to discredit their movement. They will never stand up to what they're doing. On the other hand, with comments like the above, their responsibility will be patently obvious.

 

[Efftup]

I was reading this last night and wondered if Indigo Skyfold was meant to be some sort of clue that this is a hoax

Well maybe you understand the TRUTH about folding the sky if you are an indigo child.

Strawman is right. If anyone does go and kill a pilot, it will be on the heads of people like Dane Wiggington. but they will NEVER take responsibility for their own actions

 

[Trailblazer]

So Dane is creating an atmosphere in which people get so worked up about chemtrails that they consider pilots murderers, which are up for execution. And anything questioning the narrative behind it will be deleted. Good thing when someone finally follows up and kills a pilot (or a scientist), they can always claim it's a government attempt to discredit their movement. They will never stand up to what they're doing. On the other hand, with comments like the above, their responsibility will be patently obvious.

Surely there must be some legal action that can be taken against Dane and his website? I know there is no law against lying, but he talks about named individuals (eg David Keith) and blatantly spreads misinformation about them. If this isn't libel then I don't know what is:

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/confronting-geoengineer-david-keith/

[bunk] There is extreme arrogance without a shred of oversight or accountability. In so many cases there is absolutely no regard for the consequences of the experiments that the "scientists" carry out on us all in one form or another. In the 5 minute video below, David Keith's completely cavalier approach to experimenting with life on Earth is clearly visible when I confronted him at an AAAS conference.[/bunk]

From the "open letter", which originates from James Hodgkiss but is reproduced on Dane's site:

[bunk]Dear Dr. Keith,

I have seen your Colbert Report interview where you appear to publicise and promote the idea of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) – namely, the spraying of thousands of tonnes of toxic substances into our atmosphere as an attempt to fight global warming.

SAG, by your own admission, is expected to kill 10,000 people in the first year alone.[/bunk]

The bolded part is a complete fabrication. It comes from what Stephen Colbert said in an interview, conflating low-altitude sulphuric acid emissions with stratospheric aerosol spraying:

>> David Keith: Right question but we put 50 million tons of sulfuric acid in the air now as pollution. It kills a million people a year worldwide.

>> Stephen: that's good or bad?

>> David Keith: It's terrible

>> Stephen: but it will be better if we put more in.

>> David Keith: we're talking about 1% of that. A tiny fraction of that. So we should reduce that sulphuric acid emission

>> Stephen: but if it kills a million people ..

>> David Keith: It's bad

>> Stephen: we only do 1% more we're just killing 10,000 more people.

>> David Keith: you can do math, okay. But that's-- so killing people is not the objective here.

 

[Hama Neggs]

The bolded part is a complete fabrication. It comes from what Stephen Colbert said in an interview, conflating low-altitude sulphuric acid emissions with stratospheric aerosol spraying:

I'm confused. Isn't Keith saying that implementing his proposal would kill 10,000 MORE people than die now? He is comparing it with existing emissions, but not conflating them? Isn't it part of his REAL proposal that people would die, due to the "spraying" he proposes?

 

[deirdre]

I'm confused. Isn't Keith saying that implementing his proposal would kill 10,000 MORE people than die now? He is comparing it with existing emissions, but not conflating them? Isn't it part of his REAL proposal that people would die, due to the "spraying" he proposes?

yes. he is saying people will die. which is why he really doesnt want to do it.

It's not really fair to judge based on a TV interview like that. They wouldnt begin spraying unless global warming was killing (going to kill ) alot more than 10k a year. Or at least that's how i took the colbert interview.

 

[Rico]

Surely there must be some legal action that can be taken against Dane and his website? I know there is no law against lying, but he talks about named individuals (eg David Keith) and blatantly spreads misinformation about them. If this isn't libel then I don't know what is:

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/confronting-geoengineer-david-keith/

Probably the individuals themselves (i.e., David Keith) are in the best position to take legal action. Since Keith is Canadian, it might be an expensive lawsuit though, but he would probably win regardless, since burden of proof would be a non-issue. I'm actually kind of curious now as to whether or not Mr. Keith is aware of how much defamation he gets behind his back. It would probably be a good idea to write him a letter.

 

[Hevach]

He does say there are better ways, like "stop burning stuff for fuel" and that this kind of option is really only to punt it down the field - we'll still have to stop burning, we just might be able to put it off a few more years.

The irony there, really, even taking that bit in the context the CTs want us to, it still hurts their claim. What chemicals is he talking about using? No alluminum, no barium, none of the usual suspects. None of the ones they claim are being sprayed, nor any of the ones in their much touted tests. Just plain old fashioned acid rain pollution.

Probably the individuals themselves (i.e., David Keith) are in the best position to take legal action. Since Keith is Canadian, it might be an expensive lawsuit though, but he would probably win regardless. I'm actually kind of curious now as to whether or not Mr. Keith is aware of how much defamation he gets behind his back.

Academics in general, particularly scientists, seem to frown on taking legal action for defamation. Maybe because it's so often by crackpots to either silence them (see the whole thing a few years ago with chiropractors suing a UK scientist who suggested that maybe spinal adjustment isn't a valid alternative to chemotherapy), or to claim they are silencing crackpots (see basically every over-unity or cold fusion claim that jumps to "mainstream science is trying to silence me!" when the question, "so how does it work?" comes up).

 

[MikeC]

Yes - "serious" scientists tend to avoid giving any sort of platform to kooks - hence Dawkins won't debate with creationists - much to their chagrin!

 

[Mick West]

yes. he is saying people will die. which is why he really doesnt want to do it.

It's not really fair to judge based on a TV interview like that. They wouldnt begin spraying unless global warming was killing (going to kill ) alot more than 10k a year. Or at least that's how i took the colbert interview.

From his book:

There are other risks. The roughly 50 million tons per year of sulfur pollution we presently dump into the lower atmosphere kills about one million people per year through asthma, heart disease, and lung cancer. 25 Air pollution deaths per ton of sulfur used for geoengineering will likely be substantially less, since it would be distributed world-wide (air pollution from industries is concentrated near population centers). But, if we begin putting a million tons of sulfur into the stratosphere each year, it will probably contribute to thousands of air pollution deaths a year. Geoengineering would presumably save more lives than it takes by reducing climate risks that kill by heat stress, floods or famine. But this ratio does not settle the moral concerns as different people will die and the actions that cause deaths are organized in fundamentally different ways: deaths from air pollution that are caused by a myriad sources from cars to power plants whereas fatalities from geoengineering would be attributable to single (presumably) centrally organized program.

Keith, David (2013-09-20). A Case for Climate Engineering (Boston Review Books) (pp. 68-69). The MIT Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[Hama Neggs]

From his book:

There are other risks. The roughly 50 million tons per year of sulfur pollution we presently dump into the lower atmosphere kills about one million people per year through asthma, heart disease, and lung cancer. 25 Air pollution deaths per ton of sulfur used for geoengineering will likely be substantially less, since it would be distributed world-wide (air pollution from industries is concentrated near population centers). But, if we begin putting a million tons of sulfur into the stratosphere each year, it will probably contribute to thousands of air pollution deaths a year. Geoengineering would presumably save more lives than it takes by reducing climate risks that kill by heat stress, floods or famine. But this ratio does not settle the moral concerns as different people will die and the actions that cause deaths are organized in fundamentally different ways: deaths from air pollution that are caused by a myriad sources from cars to power plants whereas fatalities from geoengineering would be attributable to single (presumably) centrally organized program.

Keith, David (2013-09-20). A Case for Climate Engineering (Boston Review Books) (pp. 68-69). The MIT Press. Kindle Edition.

Right. Good to know. Colbert, of course, is interested in creating comedy and/or drama and/or sensationalism, so the "kill 10,000 people" was what he emphasized.

 

[hiilikeyourbird]

At some point, it's easy to conclude that the CTers are either terminally gullible idiots or trolling themselves, so anything goes.

Classy site you guys run here.

 

[NoParty]

Classy site you guys run here.

...says the guy that passes out red Xs to everyone who doesn't immediately swallow whatever Bird's peddling...

 

[hiilikeyourbird]

I disagree with a lot of things on this site. Isn't that okay?

 

[hiilikeyourbird]

Is there any proof this is a hoax?

 

[WeedWhacker]

Is there any proof this is a hoax?

If by "hoax" you mean a belief in so-called "chem"trails? Yes. Science that explains contrails is the proof.

 

[hiilikeyourbird]

Surely there must be some legal action that can be taken against Dane and his website? I know there is no law against lying, but he talks about named individuals (eg David Keith) and blatantly spreads misinformation about them. If this isn't libel then I don't know what is:

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/confronting-geoengineer-david-keith/

[bunk] There is extreme arrogance without a shred of oversight or accountability. In so many cases there is absolutely no regard for the consequences of the experiments that the "scientists" carry out on us all in one form or another. In the 5 minute video below, David Keith's completely cavalier approach to experimenting with life on Earth is clearly visible when I confronted him at an AAAS conference.[/bunk]

From the "open letter", which originates from James Hodgkiss but is reproduced on Dane's site:

[bunk]Dear Dr. Keith,

I have seen your Colbert Report interview where you appear to publicise and promote the idea of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) – namely, the spraying of thousands of tonnes of toxic substances into our atmosphere as an attempt to fight global warming.

SAG, by your own admission, is expected to kill 10,000 people in the first year alone.[/bunk]

The bolded part is a complete fabrication. It comes from what Stephen Colbert said in an interview, conflating low-altitude sulphuric acid emissions with stratospheric aerosol spraying:

>> David Keith: Right question but we put 50 million tons of sulfuric acid in the air now as pollution. It kills a million people a year worldwide.

>> Stephen: that's good or bad?

>> David Keith: It's terrible

>> Stephen: but it will be better if we put more in.

>> David Keith: we're talking about 1% of that. A tiny fraction of that. So we should reduce that sulphuric acid emission

>> Stephen: but if it kills a million people ..

>> David Keith: It's bad

>> Stephen: we only do 1% more we're just killing 10,000 more people.

>> David Keith: you can do math, okay. But that's-- so killing people is not the objective here.

Yeah a lot of people wanna sue Dane for spreading the truth.

 

[hiilikeyourbird]

If by "hoax" you mean a belief in so-called "chem"trails? Yes. Science that explains contrails is the proof.

Is it made up? Is this completely fabricated? And what are the motives behind this?

 

[WeedWhacker]

Yeah a lot of people wanna sue Dane for spreading the truth.

No, Dane is a bit like (though not to the level) of Alex Jones. They both (apparently, allegedly) lie in order to promote themselves, and get attention.

Many call this "Free Speech". So, could be protected from litigation as a result....until someone gets hurt. There ARE laws in the country that prohibit the promotion and inciting to violence.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Is it made up? Is this completely fabricated? And what are the motives behind this?

Some of it is. There are a number of truly sincere (if "under-educated") people who 'believe', and reject ALL science and factual evidence to the contrary.

There is a thread (here) which discusses the original "motive" behind the promotion of the meme of "chem"trails, back in the 1990s. It was a plan to sell unnecessary "cures" for non-existent illnesses.

 

[hiilikeyourbird]

No, Dane is a bit like (though not to the level) of Alex Jones. They both (apparently, allegedly) lie in order to promote themselves, and get attention.

Many call this "Free Speech". So, could be protected from litigation as a result....until someone gets hurt. There ARE laws in the country that prohibit the promotion and inciting to violence.

I have never seen Dane advocate violence. Is that what you are implying? Is Dane promoting violence?

 

[NoParty]

I disagree with a lot of things on this site. Isn't that okay?

Honest disagreement is one thing.
You just throw crap up on the wall...when others point out that it doesn't hold water,
you don't really "disagree"...
you throw up a big red X,
run away from addressing legitimate objections
and then pop-up (Whack-A-Mole style) a few days later, with a new handful of crap to throw at the wall.
Which you also won't actually discuss.
That may pass for intelligent discourse in your world...Me? I've had about enough of it.

 

[hiilikeyourbird]

Some of it is. There are a number of truly sincere (if "under-educated") people who 'believe', and reject ALL science and factual evidence to the contrary.

There is a thread (here) which discusses the original "motive" behind the promotion of the meme of "chem"trails, back in the 1990s. It was a plan to sell unnecessary "cures" for non-existent illnesses.

Weird. I'm talking about this interview. Why would this man make all this up? This information sounds very classified.

 

[hiilikeyourbird]

Honest disagreement is one thing.
You just throw crap up on the wall...when others point out that it doesn't hold water,
you don't really "disagree"...
you throw up a big red X,
run away from addressing legitimate objections
and then pop-up (Whack-A-Mole style) a few days later, with a new handful of crap to throw at the wall.
Which you also won't actually discuss.
That may pass for intelligent discourse in your world...Me? I've had about enough of it.

Listen man, I have a life. I can't be addressing the flock of comments I get on every single thread. POST even. Your little group here that just swarms me makes it really hard. Sorry!

 

[Ray Von Geezer]

Listen man, I have a life. I can't be addressing the flock of comments I get on every single thread. POST even. Your little group here that just swarms me makes it really hard. Sorry!

I've found my time management skills have improved no end with age. Not falling for everything I see on YouTube and then feeling the need to post it here must save me about 3 or 4 hours a day.

Ray Von

 

[hiilikeyourbird]

I've found my time management skills have improved no end with age. Not falling for everything I see on YouTube and then feeling the need to post it here must save me about 3 or 4 hours a day.

Ray Von

That's great man. I'm happy for you.