Look-Up "No more lies" campaign

Balance

Senior Member.
https://www.facebook.com/events/276648865852852/
Peaceful demonstration at The MET Office.

Action: Banners, leafleting, talking to people entering and leaving the premises.

Reason: The MET are knowingly distributing false weather information to the BBC and other organisations. They are knowingly releasing images of man (Plane) made clouds that contain chemicals. They are deliberately misleading the public to disguise the illegal geo-engineering being carried out by commercial airlines.

The MET are complicit in a national and international program of subterfuge. We will expose them and encourage thier own staff to do the same.

They are effectively cooperating in an illegal program that is manipulating our weather and affecting our health.

We will request to go in and speak with management to get some answers about why they are lying to us and failing to acknowledge illegal Geo-engineering aka chemtrails.

The event will be filmed for broadcast in the near future.

WE DO NOT CONSENT !
Content from External Source
This could prove interesting or just be nothing.

The problem is only 91 are showing as going (15 maybe) and historically, much less will turn up.
The MET Office have been pre-advised so will they respond positively and offer to educate the concerned citizens or just batten down the hatches and try to ignore the complainers while they get on with their work?

This event will be professionally filmed.
Content from External Source
Glad to see they got their priorities right. :p
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I hope it is a big turnout and makes national news. I know if I were a Met Office employee I would not take lightly to been called a liar as Look Up claims, but I assume they will behave properly.

I have always felt that media coverage is a good thing. The CT movement initially would gain more acolytes but then that would implode as they personally come into contact with professionals and the academic world, after all they will have to accuse all of them been a paid shill even if they are married ;-)

At the end of the day actions like this may well move the hoax into a more public forum where professionals, as compared to debunkers, will be addressing their arguments. I appreciate there are many professionals who are debunkers but once a shill always a shill.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have always felt that media coverage is a good thing.

The problem with media coverage is the issue of "False Balance" - i.e. giving equal weight to fringe science gives it equal respectability. Something the BBC are trying to fix.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...inviting-cranks-on-to-science-programmes.html

“Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.”

The Trust said that man-made climate change was one area where too much weight had been given to unqualified critics.

In April the BBC was accused of misleading viewers about climate change and creating ‘false balance’ by allowing unqualified sceptics to have too much air-time.

In a damning parliamentary report, the corporation was criticised for distorting the debate, with Radio 4’s Today and World at One programmes coming in for particular criticism.

The BBC’s determination to give a balanced view has seen it pit scientists arguing for climate change against far less qualified opponents such as Lord Lawson who heads a campaign group lobbying against the government’s climate change policies.
Content from External Source
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
The problem with media coverage is the issue of "False Balance" - i.e. giving equal weight to fringe science gives it equal respectability. Something the BBC are trying to fix.

This has become the problem. Stories that quote press releases without any verification. I hope the BBC can work on that; CNN, Sky, Fox, etc certainly don't have an educated science staff to do the job. The problem is that they can't afford a team of scientists that can vet stories. Hopefully metabunk will become a recognized source for the media, but participants need to post their full credentials to be taken seriously (see my profile, my Linkedin info is disclosed).
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
The crazy thing is, they can afford it. Scientists are not exactly high on the celebrity pay scale, unless you're after Niel Degrasse Tyson or Phil Plait or somebody. They could easily stuff a room with college interns (which most of these companies already treat as an infinite and inexhaustible source of busywork labor) or grad school burn outs and filter out enough bunk science that most of us would probably be willing to forgive the mistakes that do slip through.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's very hard to take him even slightly serious if he keeps claiming that all the cloud names were made up, even the ones from 100+ years ago.

20140809-183009-lsyul.jpg
20140809-183330-xr5s6.jpg
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Of course they made it up, they named it after that shill from Contrail Science. lol

While that WAS A JOKE, I can see that sort of thinking behind lookup.org's comments.

at least I know where you got your name on that site from now, Mick.
it's always good to learn something new.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Of course they made it up, they named it after that shill from Contrail Science. lol

While that WAS A JOKE, I can see that sort of thinking behind lookup.org's comments.

at least I know where you got your name on that site from now, Mick.
it's always good to learn something new.

I just picked the name of my favorite cloud
http://contrailscience.com/cirrus-uncinus-and-contrails/

Back in 1905 Arthur Clayden tried to broaden the classifications a little, but his names never really caught on.
20140809-185039-l85rj.jpg
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
Whenever I read comments by look-up, I can't help but consider them trolling. There are too ridiculous, too obviously wrong, to be meant as a serious contribution.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
I am he isn't.
But assuming someone hasn't sneaked into the museum and doctored a painting that has been hanging there for a long time, without anyone noticing (which I am sure Look up would claim) then an artist painted those kind of cloud formations in 1435., which suggests that they did.

Unless you want to suggest the evil elites controlling the world have access to a time machine so they can go back in time and force an artist to paint something that won't exist for nearly 500 years.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Whenever I read comments by look-up, I can't help but consider them trolling. There are too ridiculous, too obviously wrong, to be meant as a serious contribution.
I'm almost inclined to agree. He apparently thinks the protests over Gaza are just designed as a distraction from chemtrails! Can anybody really be this obtuse?

image.jpg
 

Gridlock

Senior Member.
From the video,

Why doesn't he want to speak to us? Why is he avoiding us? Why is everyone avoiding us?
Content from External Source
Compare and contrast with their itchy banhammer on FB :rolleyes:
 

KAT

Active Member
Very informative. Airbus leaves the long ones, the B737 leaves the short ones that cause the haze. Good to know. Long ones are the barium. Didn't catch what the short ones are.

Hang on, what does the Met have to do with it? they're just naming the new clouds, not creating them. Giving something a name nether condones nor causes it.

Odd they're all walking around without even simple face masks, to protect them against all the "toxicity".

Ahhh... interesting way to test for it. Swill red wine around your mouth for a while and globs of junk will come out. So. The cure would seem to be better oral hygiene???
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
By naming them, the met is "normalizing" them, conditioning people to ignore them, convincing people they've always been there, etc etc.

Weirdly, some people seem to have put more thought into this than the whole rest of the theory.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Very informative. Airbus leaves the long ones, the B737 leaves the short ones that cause the haze.

I hope this was meant with sarcasm. (Difficult to tell, in these Forums).

Swill red wine around your mouth for a while and globs of junk will come out.

When I brush my teeth, and the gums bleed a little...and then I rinse with an alcohol-based mouthwash (such as Listerine), same thing happens. I don't suppose the alcohol in the wine has anything to do with the effect?? [/sarcasm]
 

Balance

Senior Member.
Long ones are the barium. Didn't catch what the short ones are.
I think he said they're fibres.

I rinse with an alcohol-based mouthwash (such as Listerine), same thing happens.
I watched a science series and in one episode, the presenter demonstrated extracting dna from his mouth. The swab was put in an alcohol solution and it began forming a long chain.
Just did quick google to refute/confirm this - http://www.planet-science.com/categories/experiments/biology/2012/03/extract-your-own-dna.aspx
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
"....protest against all the new clouds the Met Office have invented....."
Content from External Source
Eh? I thought most of these clouds were first named and identified years ago?

I did notice there's a lot of placards and banners and only a few people. How many did they expect were going to turn up?

Ray Von
 

KAT

Active Member
When I brush my teeth, and the gums bleed a little...and then I rinse with an alcohol-based mouthwash (such as Listerine), same thing happens.

Bleeding gums = scurvy = take Vitamin C for it and use a softer brush. if you swish alcohol around for a long time, the "globs of gunk" he describes would be small bits of food from between the teeth, which is more easily fixed than by banning contrails. If you have tartar buildup, swishing with neat lemon juice will remove most of it, in pieces (some enamel too I guess).

It WAS informative. I never knew different planes (by make) are supposed to be spraying different chemicals. I thought they all spray the chemical du jour according to "Their" requirements of the moment.
 

KAT

Active Member
demonstrated extracting dna from his mouth.

We'd better start a separate thread on this. The recipe you linked is dubious to me. It starts off being inaccurate, in saying you need 3 empty cups but then only uses 2. Also I know detergent as a wetting agent, not a molecule destroyer.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
We'd better start a separate thread on this. The recipe you linked is dubious to me. It starts off being inaccurate, in saying you need 3 empty cups but then only uses 2. Also I know detergent as a wetting agent, not a molecule destroyer.
The first cup is to mix the salt into the 500ml of water. Then use two more after. One to spit the salt water/spit into and another for the alcohol/coloring mix.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Eh? I thought most of these clouds were first named and identified years ago?

As far as I know, the MET is just using the World Meteorological Organization's International Cloud Atlas. The last time a new cloud time was added to that was 1951 when cirrus intortus was split off from cirrus uncinus. There's been a proposal for a few years to add a new one, undulatus asperatus, which currently would be classified as altocumulus or stratocumulus, but which some people think look cool enough to deserve their own classification.

I did notice there's a lot of placards and banners and only a few people. How many did they expect were going to turn up?

Ray Von

This is probably the same problem that embarrassed things like Operation American Spring. They talked about it on the internet, counted up everybody who said,"Yeah, that's awesome, I'm totally there," as a confirmed attendee, and assumed at least X% more would show up unconfirmed and even more would be convinced to join after hearing their speeches.

Posting on the internet is easy, traveling is hard, so when a group projects attendance this way, they'll always be disappointed when thousands turns into dozens, hundreds into handfuls, and dozens into chirping crickets.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
We'd better start a separate thread on this. The recipe you linked is dubious to me. It starts off being inaccurate, in saying you need 3 empty cups but then only uses 2. Also I know detergent as a wetting agent, not a molecule destroyer.

As soulfly mentioned, one cup to mix the bottled water and salt, 3tbsp of that salt water goes into the second cup, swished in the mouth and spit back into same second cup, and the third cup is for mixing the alcohol/food coloring solution which is then gently poured into the second cup.

Detergents/surfactants destroy cell membranes:

Consequently, detergent molecules allow the dispersion (miscibility) of water-insoluble, hydrophobic compounds into aqueous media, including the extraction and solubilization of membrane proteins.
Content from External Source
http://www.piercenet.com/method/detergents-cell-lysis-protein-extraction#membranes-detergents
 

KAT

Active Member
The first cup is to mix the salt into the 500ml of water. Then use two more after. One to spit the salt water/spit into and another for the alcohol/coloring mix.

3. Gargle the salt water for 1 minute. Don't swallow it!
4. Spit the water back into the cup

Yeah ok, ok, 500 ml is nearly a pint, fair enough, too much for one mouthful of gargle. Better be a big cup then, as a BIG coffee mug is only 250ml, average one 150.
 

KAT

Active Member
OK I've browsed the internet a bit more. Most of the sites that seem to have good information are blocked, faulty, have server errors or say I am blocked unless I sign up.

But overall, it seems the red wine test is
a) borrowed from the Morgellon's crowd (as fibres are a major concern for them)
b) correctly done only with the addition of hydrogen peroxide to the wine
c) and the function of the RED wine is to stain the fibres, to make them visible

I wonder if this isn't a vague version of the "collect your own DNA" experiment?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Red wine test was discussed here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunk-this-tripple-dare-impossible.912/

Specifically
http://www.aromadictionary.com/articles/wineastringency_article.html
Have you ever peered into another person's spittoon at a wine tasting
and contemplated their "stringy bits"?
In fact, a closer inspection of the "bits"
produced by different people will reveal that, like snowflakes, no two are
identical. Some look like delicate and ornate maroon coloured curtains,
swaying precariously above the wine below. Others float on top of the
wine's surface like a cake of purple soap that has been left in the bath water overnight.
(...)Saliva contains a number of proteins that lubricate the surfaces of the
mouth. When we taste a red wine, these salivary proteins interact with the
wine's tannins. When a protein mixes with a tannin, they react and join, and
react and join, ad infinitum. The proteins are effectively mortared together
by the tannins. This results in the formation of "super structures" that are
so heavy they precipitate, and are consequently spat out.
As the lubricating
proteins are in the spittoon rather than in the mouth, then the oral surfaces become
dry and fail to slip easily across each other. Touch receptors in your mouth,
which normally track the food in your mouth so that you can time
your swallowing, then signal to the brain the existence of the roughing and
drying sensation of astringency. As an short aside, each person's salivary composition
is slightly different, which explains the individual nature of each persons
"glyco-protein-flavan-3-ol complexes (aka stringy bits)".
Content from External Source
 

MikeC

Closed Account
so is there a definitive list somewhere that shows when various cloud names were officially adopted by whoever?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I wonder why he didn't mention Cirrus Aviaticus better known as a contrail cloud.
http://namesofclouds.com/cirrus/cirrus-aviaticus.html

It's odd that they have such a contradictory paragraph about it. Why say what is "normal" and then say the opposite can also happen?

What are cirrus aviaticus clouds?
Also referred to as vapor trail or contrail, cirrus aviaticus are a cloud formation that come about as a result of pressure and changes in temperature that is caused by the jet aircraft engine’s exhaust matter in the surroundings. These types of clouds normally dissipate as fast as they are formed, though they can remain visible for sometime. Under the right atmospheric conditions, they can spread widely and occupy large areas in the sky.
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's odd that they have such a contradictory paragraph about it. Why say what is "normal" and then say the opposite can also happen?

What are cirrus aviaticus clouds?
Also referred to as vapor trail or contrail, cirrus aviaticus are a cloud formation that come about as a result of pressure and changes in temperature that is caused by the jet aircraft engine’s exhaust matter in the surroundings. These types of clouds normally dissipate as fast as they are formed, though they can remain visible for sometime. Under the right atmospheric conditions, they can spread widely and occupy large areas in the sky.
Content from External Source

Just a rather vague use of "normal" to mean "more often than not".
 

Rusky

New Member
Intelligence and critical thinking skills don't necessarily come as a packaged deal. Having one without the other means your brain is really good at finding patterns and connecting dots, but your conscious mind doesn't think to question the futility of trying to play connect the dots on an anthill.
Fair point. He does acknowledge that his opinions may seem far fetched though, so I do think he can think critically. I think he simply wants to believe it all. And uses a fair bit of imagination to link chemtrails to seemingly unrelated things.

Why clever, rational people choose to believe in such things is very interesting... difficult to discuss without seeming incredibly patronising, however.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Fair point. He does acknowledge that his opinions may seem far fetched though, so I do think he can think critically. I think he simply wants to believe it all. And uses a fair bit of imagination to link chemtrails to seemingly unrelated things.

Why clever, rational people choose to believe in such things is very interesting... difficult to discuss without seeming incredibly patronising, however.
In his own words:
One thing I am particularly good at is spotting things, and building a picture from small clues, and forming theories about what is going on.
Content from External Source
That is from this page detailing Ian's beef with David Lim, which I find quite fascinating as it shows how even within the chemtrail "community" there are seemingly vast amounts of suspicion and schisms between rival factions with different versions of the story. The comparison with religion is almost irresistible!

http://www.look-up.org.uk/david-lim-messiah-or-cointel/
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
Just going through Ian's spiel on David Lim and found this:

2. David stated categorically that short trails were normal contrails, and that we regularly see them at 26,000ft and above. This is completely untrue, and unforgivable. The MET office official figures are -57 Celsius and above 37,000ft
Content from External Source
I had seen the -57C reference before on Metabunk but never the altitude. These two figures are very close to the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) position of the tropopause being: 36,089 feet or 11000 metres and -56.5C.

I think someone at the UK Met office got confused and quoted the tropopause definition. Just a hunch.
 
Top