John Massaria latest video.

Who is David Keith? He has ears like Adam Lanza, and his pupils don't look right. Who has ears like that? Seriously, you are looking at one of these planes (none of them are real planes), that has come down to Earth in human form, and is spreading disinformation about what they are, to charge people up. They are living on our fear of death.
I like that response.

I think it's the stance everyone should take.

As long as you don't think it's persistent contrails they are your friend. It's so funny.

You're wrong, it's persistent contrails = shill.

You're wrong, it's aliens = hmm, could be, welcome.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
THe bulk of the video is suggesting that TMA is used in jet fuel, and does not combust until it is past the gap despite the fact that TMA is highly reactive to oxygen, and there is no way it can get through the combustion chamber without combusting. In fact, it would most likely blow up the plane - that's if there was any way t even get it into the fuel in the first place.

But that's just standard stuff that has been debunked before. Sad but inevitable that people will push it again. And it leads to stuff like this, from the comments:

 

Rico

Senior Member.
I feel sorry for guys like David Keith, who probably gets death threats to no end. And it's really not the issue that he is a Geoengineer, but more likely because of the way he was antagonized in Michael J. Murphy's video.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Interesting, I posted there that he was stealing a name, just like he had tried to do with the ALMA site. He knew we knew
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
We don't know for sure it was Massaria.

Anyway, the good news is that it prompted me to revive the official Metabunk page, maybe a new source of visitors if I can keep it updated with interesting fresh content.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Off topic but am I the only one that seems to be getting ads for Orgone Generators and Chemtrail Busters on their FB page?

Edit: Oops. Wrong thread.
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
I posted a number of comments on John Massaria's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM5iIdQZ2Ts using my grommo account as he had previously blocked my Gregorca youtube account.
I explained clearly in three posts that TrimethylAluminium is pyrophoric and was specifically chosen in the afterburner tests because of its extreme reactivity.
Trimethylaluminium of course combusts spontaneously in contact with air, not requiring ANY ignition source.
Jet fuel in contrast has a very high activation energy. TMA will ALWAYS burn first.
Jet fuel requires to be atomised into fine droplets, compressed , heated and exposed to a naked flame or electrical spark even before it will begin to combust. Jet fuel has an extremely high activation energy. TMA does NOT and that is why it was used in the experiment. It is so reactive that when released in the afterburners, it ignites spontaneously with air contact and so ignites the fuel it is mixed in. Thus it is a flame stabiliser, preventing the afterburner from blowing out.
The fuel containing TMA is so dangerous it must be stored in tanks filled with an inert gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas) such as expensive helium, argon etc rather than air, as otherwise of course in a normal airliner fuel tank it would ignite and probably explode, destroying the aircraft. Not a wise move for aircraft with paying passengers onboard.
Not something that could ever be stored and used in airports as casually as jetfuel.
John referred specifically to this document: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930090198_1993090198.pdf

The report specifically states "...the aluminium trimethyl additive presented difficult operational problems because the fuel-additive mixture was unstable and reacted in contact with air. A purge system was required to make the fuel system inert before and after each test , and the fuel additive mixture had to be stored under an inert atmosphere."

Nowhere does the report mention any reference to the test resulting in a persistent contrail on the ground as John clearly states in the beginning of the video.
That comment is a fictional invention of John Massario who wrote a brief reply: "not sure if you have your facts straight there Grommo.... but I did not make this video... so can I remove your comment since it mentions my name or should I wait for you to correct it."


So he suggest John Massario did not make or post the video that also contains a copy of EnergySupply2008's video. My reference to John Massario in the comments refers to his name by his own admission...... oops ..... bit of a give away that line John... "so can I remove your comment since it mentions my name"

John naturally deleted all comments that point out the vast number of errors in the video and blocked me from posting.

I hope that gives an insight into John's willingness to deal with information that contradicts his beliefs.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
What gets me is that he called folks here 'cowards' but he is never wants to own up to what he does. He 'accidentally ' posted on the ALMA page, he didn't 'SAY' the barrels were for spraying. He seems to have a problem with being truthful. He may think that 'non -indigo folks are inferior to him.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He's going to be explaining himself in about 30 minutes:

http://globalskywatch.com/live/#.UUeqLluwwga
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He claimed the video was getting towards a million views, and he removed it himself because he got scared, because "the debunkers" were so adamant in correcting his mistake.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
He claimed the video was getting towards a million views, and he removed it himself because he got scared, because "the debunkers" were so adamant in correcting his mistake.
I suppose that means debunking is able to control chemtrail believers when chemtrails cannot?

My, how powerful simple words can be, if they are irrefutable, based on fact and logic!
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
We 'infiltrated' his FB pages---now how does one do that? Disinformation agents--who is PAYING us? He doubts the photoshopped labels---when you can compare the real and the photoshop. So we work for big corporations. What HOSES? He is so [...]. He thinks he is so smart.

Facts intimidate him---He ignores a lot of things--- [...]

No access to 'classified information'. How can there be classified information if there is NO conspiracy
The guy interviewing [...] smells and tastes chemtrails

Does he not understand that 'John Doe' is a normal reference for an unknown man? It was an ANALOGY--
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It might could have been, but did you see some of the things he had posted on the ALMA page? it wasn't just his video, it was the "the MOST important news you will read. Martial law coming to the US' among other nonsense, and then there was the 'time travel crystals'. He was representing himself as the ALMA public relations officer for the US for them.

I feel that he came in here, expecting us to fall at his feet and to worship his superior intelligence and we didn't.

Any idiot could see that my statement was an analogy, he claimed it was a 'veiled death threat'. A 'veiled death threat' is when someone tells you that they want you HANG for your 'crime' of pointing out lies and hoaxes---I know, I have been on the receiving end of those.

Did you listen to any of the interview? I did, and his lies and misinformation made me want to gag
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I listened too.
He basically ignored what he learned here, and added falsities about this forum (and the subject) - to boot.
He said he learned a lot of information about cloud seeding, etc.....but did not give this forum credit for his new knowledge.

I agree, some people here treated him a bit harshly, so he reacted harshly. We should refrain from treating anyone in such a manner, as it should be above us.
That being said, the majority of the discussion was about FACTS....compared to the squabbling.

In the interview, he and Russ Tanner said they feel free to censor opposing opinions on their various sites. We don't do that here. There is the difference.
One caller points to the 717,000 chemtrail videos on YouTube (lump in all the independent chemtrail pages) .....and they complain about the 2 "debunker"sites Mick runs.

BTW... YouTube limits videos to 15 minutes in duration and 2gb in size.....to anyone...not just Massaria's account.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
The trait that is the most difficult to resist responding to with frustration and ridicule is the self-perpetuated persecution complexes of those who believe they are exposing a truth and are constantly beset on all sides by attempts to silence them.
This usually kicks in straight after they have been shown a good reason to re-think their conclusions, which they then manage to promptly ignore by claiming they are a victim of some kind of dis-information or harassment campaign from those who are threatened by their 'truths'.
While I guess we are all susceptible to this effect without it necessarily being a full-blown [problem], he seems to be fantasising his case almost to the point of a kind of hysteria. But maybe this is normal for those invested in this topic, and possibly it will be seen as a sign of status among his chemtrail peers.

I hope people are pointed to the thread in question so people are able to see from what molehill the mountain is made.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
I've been shown a screenie of a facebook post of a different 'threat', which was (incorrectly) identified as emanating from a user here.

It was evidently NOT actually a threat, but has been picked up and passed around other relatively sensible believers as an example of metabunk's behaviour anyway.

There is exceptional paranoia at play with believers in general, and in the same way as they see connections which aren't actually there in the theories, they also see aggression, threats and opposition where there are none. It's all very similar to the attitude of the hard-right fascists I've come across.

EDIT - Just checked my history. I thought the person who posted me the facebook pic I refer to above meant it depicted a threat made against John Massaria, which made sense in context of the conversation we were having at the time.

Actually, I'm not sure if this was his meaning, and the image doesn't confirm or deny either way. I've edited this post to reflect that.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I've been shown a screenie of a facebook post of a different 'threat' to John, which was (incorrectly) identified as emanating from a user here.

It was evidently nothing of the sort, but apparently that narrative suits his purpose, and has been picked up and passed around other relatively sensible believers as an example of metabunk's behaviour.

There is exceptional paranoia at play with believers in general, and in the same way as they see things which aren't there in the theories they also see aggression, threats and opposition where there are none. It's all very similar to the attitude of the hard-right fascists I've come across.
Absolutely. Pareidolia, Apophenia [...].

Oh, I'm listening to this interview. Congratulations, Mick. Here IS someone who WANTS "intimidating". How are you going to get around him? How to be a mere springboard for another liar? :(

Hm. Exciting Gish Gallop, there. Had enough. Whoops. :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
First of all, the politeness policy still applies here. I know this rankles some people, but responding with insults, mocking, and emotionally charged speculating over people's state of mind is not helpful. Just the facts folk. (I've edited some posts above to reflect the policy.)

It's clear the John got the wrong end of the stick. Metabunk is a small community of science-minded people who like to debunk, but he's got the idea that we are some kind of paid "shill" site - and so that's what gets talked about. His basis for this idea is pretty minimal, but it's worth considering why that's what gets talked about, and the facts get sidelined.

Debunking is about science and truth, it's about the validity of evidence. It's about exposing falsehoods. It's not about individuals. If you want to just reason with some individual, then do it over email. If you are doing something in public, then in part you are doing it for the public. There's an audience out there, and you need to consider how the conversation will be perceived and what effect it's going to have. What's the net outcome for debunking?

The thread about John's video (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1232-Chemtrails-Video-with-Ballast-Barrels) was largely okay, fact based, raising specific issues the video. It probably did not help that a large number of people piled on (I know, it's hard to resist when - someone says something wrong, your natural urge is to correct them). But what drove it off track were the discussions of John as a person, the immediate assumptions of what he was about, and a whole bunch of adjectives about what he was doing that could not be taken as anything other than hurtful.

Of course this does not excuse him from saying what he did. It just makes it a lot easier for him to do. What we need to try to do is make it harder for people to avoid discussing the facts. If we stick to the facts, then they have to stick to the facts. If we veer even slightly, even just a hint, into the realm of personal attacks, then that's all the excuse some people need to avoid the facts and talk about that as well.

It was actually close here. John did actually admit that maybe the barrels had water in them, and maybe some trails are just contrails. But that was lost in the "Metabunk are paid shills" talk.

Metabunk is about honest polite debunking. It's about how to debunk effectively. Being polite works, and it also helps makes Metabunk the unique little niche that it is. I intend to keep it that way, and appreciate your help.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I didn't realise I was in breach, I was trying to be analytical not inflammatory - but point taken.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It seems that he considered this post of mine to be a 'veiled death threat'

"If there was a stabbing, and a media source published picture of Bob 'Smith', leaning over the body of John Doe, and his hand was on the knife in Bob's chest. Say that they just said this is a picture of the murdered John Doe, what would you think Bob's involvement in the murder was? "

It was an analogy, to him posting the water barrel picture, in a video on chem trails. He was upset about be using 'John Doe' as a name in it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why is the knife in Bob's chest? :)

Unfortunately no politeness policy is going to stop misinterpretations like that. It would never have occurred to me to avoid analogies involving murder. I suppose though if you really understood their world view it might make sense.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It didn't dawn on me, either. I think it came to mind, because I watch (sort of--listen to more) a lot of the police procedurals.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I'm not sure it's right to step around someone's delusion without pointing it out. They have to be challenged at some point.

Sorry about my post. I wasn't able to remove the images from the post. The code I had already removed, but the images remained.

The text is another matter. He may be, er, unwell, but he is still rampant with, er, terminological inexactitude, and promising to be as socially destructive as he possibly can be.

Fortunately for the thread I was otherwise engaged. Maybe it would have lasted, but I would definitely had to have been in the cooler...

Now he's "'ad it away on his legs", as they say in shady parts of "The Smoke".
 

Related Articles

Top