Max and the WhistleBlower

solrey

Senior Member.
I was just rereading his blog and it became clear where he gets his figure for 0.008 ug/l Al in rainwater. He has taken the upper figure 8 ug/m3 for air converted it to litres. However he fails to understand that the content of solids in rainwater is not directly proportional to what is in the air. I suggest he reads around "Rainwater Scavenging" as different types if precipitation will contain differing proportions of solids. I would suggest that a move to air sampling may be called for and maybe hire a sampler and set it up near a CEH/DEFRA system to validate their results (any interested group can do this)

I note he has addressed the TMA issue. However his claim now is that a 15% suspension of TMA in hexane is added at a proportion of 22% of the fuel. That means that fuel contains 3.3% TMA. Jay has already demonstrated that TMA will produce a lesser amount of Aluminium oxide therefore for every metric tonne of fuel burned less than 33kg of aluminium oxide will be produced. I would suggest that at that quantity it would not look like the long trails in the sky (I have no idea how much fuel is burned per mile).

Where does he come up with this stuff? Not only would it produce miniscule amounts of aluminum oxide, TMA in hexane is still a pyrophoric and it will still crystalize below 20 C. Not exactly properties one would want in an additive for jet fuel used in commercial airliners, or any aircraft for that matter.

https://www.spectrumchemical.com/MSDS/TCI-T0782.pdf

http://www.scbt.com/datasheet-301939.html
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Where does he come up with this stuff? Not only would it produce miniscule amounts of aluminum oxide, TMA in hexane is still a pyrophoric and it will still crystalize below 20 C. Not exactly properties one would want in an additive for jet fuel used in commercial airliners, or any aircraft for that matter.

https://www.spectrumchemical.com/MSDS/TCI-T0782.pdf

http://www.scbt.com/datasheet-301939.html

Sorry I am unable to externally quote.

Essentially he has joined the dots. TMA is available in a suspension of n hexane. N hexane is a component of JP4 military aviation fuel, making up 22% of it. Therefore TMA can be in the hexane added to the fuel. http://hazmap.nlm.nih.gov/category-details?id=698&table=copytblagents
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
TMA added to hexane in jet fuel would still be

1/ detectable in that fuel and
2/ illegal as an unapproved additive to Jet A1

So all he has to do is show a fuel sample (with good chain of evidence of course) that has it in it and he's home and hosed....
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
Source: http://realnewsaustralia.com/2013/08/07/corpus-delicti-metabunk-scam-or-is-it/

From all these years reading articles such as this one I get ever so convinced that the conspiracy mindset is no different from fanatics of major religions. Too much emotions are blocking their ability to see objectively. The fear and urge to be a hero is obviously stronger than the need to be sceptic and self-critical.

The irony is that almost none of these people see the criticism that should be pointed toward Max for passing on the information as "genuine" without really verifying any of it. Too few of them realize that this is often how these CT-celebrities work. Quick to jump to conclusion because the thrill of being the first to become a hero is too tempting.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
The irony is that almost none of these people see the criticism that should be pointed toward Max for passing on the information as "genuine" without really verifying any of it. Too few of them realize that this is often how these CT-celebrities work. Quick to jump to conclusion because the thrill of being the first to become a hero is too tempting.

The lack of criticism is partly "glass-house" phenomenon. In a rare moment of frankness PaulMac states, " Yes our movement has a few quacks and some definite crazies in it,...". If PaulMac started naming names he risks being examined in the same way and so he simply leaves it at that. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Then there is the peer pressure exerted on anyone who gets critical. They risk the "shill" label. That is why Russ Tanner's can repeat his endless claim that nobody should ever see an ordinary contrail in their whole life or that he has a special ability to smell contrails shortly after they pass 6 miles overhead and is suffering deathly ill most of the time.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Oh the irony. Max claims that Ryanair is one if the carriers involved in spraying. As it happens there is a Channel 4 programme about them tonight. All about bad practices, safety, contracts, fuel etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rds-say-comfortable-raising-fears-bosses.html

They have even been accused of trying to gag employees on social media
http://www.independent.ie/business/...s-twitter-and-facebook-accounts-29488060.html

It is a pity that he did not hang fire for a week or so then he could have seen real whistleblowing and journalism in action. I wonder if they will mention aluminium at all?
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
It's one of the great weaknesses of their argument. Pilot/management relations in most airlines are fractious at best.
Most pilots, if they had an opportunity to put their bosses in the slammer, wouldn't hesitate for a nanosecond...

(Not my airline of course...:rolleyes:)
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
It's one of the great weaknesses of their argument. Pilot/management relations in most airlines are fractious at best.
Most pilots, if they had an opportunity to put their bosses in the slammer, wouldn't hesitate for a nanosecond...

(Not my airline of course...:rolleyes:)
To add a little to further debunk the claims in the hoax the programme was rather interesting. It covered 2 areas that Max would need to think on.

1. The fuel carried by Ryanair. Pilots have claimed they are under pressure not to carry more fuel than they would prefer. This had meant that on a number of occasions they have had to declare "fuel emergencies". The example stated was from 2012 when a number of aircraft were diverted from Madrid to Valencia, which has a single runway, and 4 aircraft declared fuel emergencies 3 of which were Ryanair and all within a tight timespan. I was suggested that other carriers would be following suit.

I suggest that as a consequence of the pilots taking on less fuel fir cost purposes it would be hard to hide the aluminium.

Secondly. The staffing situation. The airlines have a rapid turnaround with airside staff often multitasking (Ryanair aims 25 minutes). In addition it would appear that during night shifts the staff are usually less experienced and lack supervision. On top of that many are casual employees and the wages are not as handsome as described. A usual contract appears to be 20 hours and the pay scale around £9 per hour. To give some context our minimum wage is around £6.30. I work as a casual for the Royal Mail sorting mail and I get well over £9.

So it would appear that a great bulk of airside staff are casual and low paid and I would suggest also unlikely to keep their gobs shut.
 

M Bornong

Senior Member.
Max has now spoken about the hoax. He is convinced that it was orchestrated by metabunk, and is an attempt to hide in plain sight what is happening, and the debunking done prior to exposure was just an attempt at cover up. He thanks the "whistle blower" and asks him to contact him again, since the information is being confirmed by the "research" that he (Max) is doing. I hope that "The Referee" is watching and realizes the mistake he made.

It begins @15:20
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
@17:15 RL: "How did you figure out it was a hoax?"

Well, if it wasn't for Metabunk he would have never noticed probably. He would have bought it without question.
Too bad he interpreted the attempt to explain why he was hoaxed as being part of the hoax, that the information is "sort of" accurate.

I have begun to change my mind about hoaxing him. Perhaps it can be used to point out the problematic mindset in the conspiranoid movement, but it did more damage to the hardcore believers (and their followers) than actually making them realize how gullible and rash they are. In hindsight hoaxing Max wasn't such a good idea, and I realize none of these hardcore believers should be hoaxed this way. It will only convince them more of how targeted they are by the "government agents".
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
*sigh*

Max Bliss want to rename "aerotoxic syndrome" to "chemtrail syndrome".
The subject of why people travelling in the skies every day won't suffer serious health problems is exactly the question I posed to Roxy some year ago. Of course she couldn't answer this question immediately, but later brought up aerotoxic syndrome and jet lag as potential coverups for this.

Not even the fact that travelling within the same time zone won't cause jet lag seemed to make Lopez realize how desperate her argument was...

Edit: And at the end Bliss says that the alleged "bee apocalypse" is not due to pesticides and petrochemicals, but due to "electro smog" caused by electro magnetic field from cell and wifi traffic. Problem is the "bee apocalypse" halted in 2006 and the number of bee hives have since increased thanks to better knowledge and resources.

Fact is, when I looked at statistics I found many endangered bird species are in fact stabilizing, and some are even coming back in greater numbers.
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
*sigh*

Max Bliss want to rename "aerotoxic syndrome" to "chemtrail syndrome".
The subject of why people travelling in the skies every day won't suffer serious health problems is exactly the question I posed to Roxy some year ago. Of course she couldn't answer this question immediately, but later brought up aerotoxic syndrome and jet lag as potential coverups for this.

Not even the fact that travelling within the same time zone won't cause jet lag seemed to make Lopez realize how desperate her argument was...

Edit: And at the end Bliss says that the alleged "bee apocalypse" is not due to pesticides and petrochemicals, but due to "electro smog" caused by electro magnetic field from cell and wifi traffic. Problem is the "bee apocalypse" halted in 2006 and the number of bee hives have since increased thanks to better knowledge and resources.

Fact is, when I looked at statistics I found many endangered bird species are in fact stabilizing, and some are even coming back in greater numbers.
To be fair to Max his assessment in bees could have been worse. He could have said the bees don't get around that much as they are shagged out from carrying all the metal falling from the skies.

I would argue your point on bee decline as most news articles are saying the decline is since 2006.
 
Last edited:

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
I would argue your point on bee decline as most news articles are saying the decline is since 2006.

Seems to me that conventional "news articles" usually exaggerate the subject of “Colony Collapse Disorder”.
The decline in bee colonies started in 1990s and have continued up until 2006 when the number of colonies seem to stabilize in numbers, and have ever since.
Here are a couple of articles on the subject (obviously in relation to pesticides, not "chemtrails"):

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sic...llapse-revisited-genetically-modified-plants/
http://membracid.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/guest-post-honey-bees-ccd-and-the-elephant-in-the-room/
http://perc.org/articles/everyone-calm-down-there-no-bee-pocalypse

Neither pesticides nor GMOs seem to correlated with the decline in bees, but the point is when Max Bliss says there is a alarming drop in "bees" I believe he is referring to the decline in colonies that started in 90s, but he doesn't seem to be aware that statistics show the phenomenon have stabilized since 2006, thanks to better preparations and planning, and more knowledge about the reason behind the decline. Also as mentioned in these articles, what contributed to the drop was the inefficiency of the fluvalinate miticide that forced many bee keepers to give up their business.

 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Seems to me that conventional "news articles" usually exaggerate the subject of “Colony Collapse Disorder”.
The decline in bee colonies started in 1990s and have continued up until 2006 when the number of colonies seem to stabilize in numbers, and have ever since.
Here are a couple of articles on the subject (obviously in relation to pesticides, not "chemtrails"):

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sic...llapse-revisited-genetically-modified-plants/
http://membracid.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/guest-post-honey-bees-ccd-and-the-elephant-in-the-room/
http://perc.org/articles/everyone-calm-down-there-no-bee-pocalypse

Neither pesticides nor GMOs seem to correlated with the decline in bees, but the point is when Max Bliss says there is a alarming drop in "bees" I believe he is referring to the decline in colonies that started in 90s, but he doesn't seem to be aware that statistics show the phenomenon have stabilized since 2006, thanks to better preparations and planning, and more knowledge about the reason behind the decline. Also as mentioned in these articles, what contributed to the drop was the inefficiency of the fluvalinate miticide that forced many bee keepers to give up their business.


This should be a thread of its own but I will side with Max on this one especially given he is in the EU. A great number of studies are showing a decline but due to many factors http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR263711.aspx

Even the government have stepped up after voting against a pesticide ban and ordered a review
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ched-into-bee-population-decline-8678624.html
Now as I understand it CCD has ran its course but there are a number of stressors impacting on bee numbers.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
@17:15 RL: "How did you figure out it was a hoax?"

Well, if it wasn't for Metabunk he would have never noticed probably. He would have bought it without question.
Too bad he interpreted the attempt to explain why he was hoaxed as being part of the hoax, that the information is "sort of" accurate.

I have begun to change my mind about hoaxing him. Perhaps it can be used to point out the problematic mindset in the conspiranoid movement, but it did more damage to the hardcore believers (and their followers) than actually making them realize how gullible and rash they are. In hindsight hoaxing Max wasn't such a good idea, and I realize none of these hardcore believers should be hoaxed this way. It will only convince them more of how targeted they are by the "government agents".

Max saying that he figured it out at all, "near the end", or whatever he said, is just flat false. He was TOLD it was a hoax, BY THE HOAXER.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
@17:15 RL: "How did you figure out it was a hoax?"

Well, if it wasn't for Metabunk he would have never noticed probably. He would have bought it without question.
Too bad he interpreted the attempt to explain why he was hoaxed as being part of the hoax, that the information is "sort of" accurate.

I have begun to change my mind about hoaxing him. Perhaps it can be used to point out the problematic mindset in the conspiranoid movement, but it did more damage to the hardcore believers (and their followers) than actually making them realize how gullible and rash they are. In hindsight hoaxing Max wasn't such a good idea, and I realize none of these hardcore believers should be hoaxed this way. It will only convince them more of how targeted they are by the "government agents".

I learned this with the "Planet X" people. There is absolutely nothing you can say or do to change their minds. Anything you try to do will be spun into being more evidence that they were right in the first place.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
But if the debate with the hardcore becomes antagonistic, then some of the the bystanders are going to side with the underdog. It's difficult to see a net benefit here. The hoax itself is too complicated to easily be conveyed as anything more than a contextless anecdote.

I would like to be able to talk to people on the more sensible edge of the hardcore, and attacks on their community make that difficult.

I have a family member in the hardcore category. I talked to a psychiatrist friend about him and she says she won't treat delusional people because they take your efforts and role it into their delusions - strengthening their delusions. She said she normally gives them some kind of anti-psychotic drug, waits weeks for it to kick in, and then she can begin real therapy.

I don't have any answers, I just see her words ringing true with the bad rap MetaBunk gets trying to rationalize with delusional people.
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
Mr. Max Bliss has started editing the wikipedia article on chemtrails today, linking to his (edited) post with the whistleblower. All additions have been reverted by multiple users.

The edited post claims metabunk is COINTELPRO (obviosly) and is really expensive to run. Well, he can claim it, so it must be true. His followers will eat it right up. Critical thinking in action.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Strawman

Senior Member.
Ah, sorry. What I meant was that it's in the edited blogpost, not on wikipedia.

His wikipedia edit obviously not encyclopedic and was pushing his own website. Both are not frowned upon at WP. Let's see what he does next.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ah, sorry. What I meant was that it's in the edited blogpost, not on wikipedia.

His wikipedia edit obviously not encyclopedic and was pushing his own website. Both are not frowned upon at WP. Let's see what he does next.

From a debunker's perspective it's actually a good thing when a bunk promoter tries to add a load of bunk to a page, and then complains when it is removed. Edit wars draw more eyes to a page, and one average raises the number of sensible eyes who can fix the article.
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
Indeed. In this case, it was pretty clear it wasn't going to stand a chance and was swiftly reverted. If he takes it to the talk page, this could draw more eyes to the article again. He might just leave and go with "being censored", using it to bolster his credibility. He wouldn't be the first. I have found my name on a CT promoters site for reverting unsourced controversial edits before, for example.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Mr. Max said he was going to the UK Met Office headquarters to inquire about interviewing someone about his belief in chemtrails. A helicopter flew by and seems to have surprised him. It's been a week and he hasn't shown us anything. If he does show an interview with someone knowledgeable, this could be very good. But not for him. I'll not hold my breath.

 

TomC

Member
Mr. Max said he was going to the UK Met Office headquarters to inquire about interviewing someone about his belief in chemtrails. A helicopter flew by and seems to have surprised him. It's been a week and he hasn't shown us anything. If he does show an interview with someone knowledgeable, this could be very good. But not for him. I'll not hold my breath.


As max has noticed Met Office HQ site is a restricted area under the official secrets act. He shows the sign at around 00:30.

The public can't just wander onto the site as they please, and if you show up without an appointment you will probably at least be asked to leave. If you kick up a fuss you run the risk of being arrested. We do allow members of the public on tours http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/open-days on occasion, but you can't just show up on a whim and wander around the site unescorted.

The reasons for this are mainly the strategic importance of a weather forecasting centre to our national interest, we provide forecast services to our military both at home, and those deployed on operations, providing such services requires knowledge of information that is on occasion classified, this is not as exotic as Max would imagine, it is usually things such as operating sensitivites of various assets to various weather phenomenon for example. Secondly as the national forecast centre we are a potential target of terrorist attacks, taking out the building would impact our forecasting capability, which would be very costly to the UK economy, particularly if there is severe weather happening. Also weather is very key to the impact of some disasters etc. So we are very involved with civil contingency plans of which some are restricted. I would expect forecast centres in other countries are also restricted for the same reason.

The helicopter does not surprise me at all. I trained there, there is an airport nearby, and also a police station from which police helicopters operate, seeing the odd helicopter was not unusual.

If he wants to speak to someone, the best place to start is with the phone numbers and email addresses on the "Contact us" page of the website. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/contact as I said, showing up without an appointment will not get you anywhere. (And showing up unannounced with a video recorder is likely to land you in hot water, just as if you hung around outside an embassy with one)

I know people who have worked on the weather desk and they get their fair share of "interesting" calls every day, usually it is global warming deniers, but also people who think they have spotted some unusual weather for example, or have their own theories on something going on with the weather, so I would imagine if Max called up it would not be seen as particularly noteworthy.

Given that he will want a detailed answer and the difficulty of explaining his claims over the phone I would imagine his best bet for getting a detailed response is to email his questions along with his "evidence" supporting his suspicions.

I doubt he will be happy with the response he gets though...
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Mr. Max said he was going to the UK Met Office headquarters to inquire about interviewing someone about his belief in chemtrails. A helicopter flew by and seems to have surprised him. It's been a week and he hasn't shown us anything. If he does show an interview with someone knowledgeable, this could be very good. But not for him. I'll not hold my breath.

I suspect Max may end up on someones watch list soon. Hanging around airports and universities in addition to hanging around the Met Office ( which was part of the MOD) and here he is visiting the police

 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I suspect Max may end up on someones watch list soon. Hanging around airports and universities in addition to hanging around the Met Office ( which was part of the MOD) and here he is visiting the police

He seems harmless enough but he really doesn't present as in the slightest bit credible. I do not understand why you (debunkers in general, not you Dave), spend so much time trying to debunk him when he does such a good job of it himself.

Anyone who really thought they had substantive evidence would automatically take proper legal advice and present the evidence in a legal format.

He really is demonstrating a basic lack of skills in dealing with procedural matters, (at a common sense level), so I cannot see that he would be capable of putting forward a cogent, credible scientific argument.

Perhaps someone would like to put (a more tactfully worded) suggestion to him along the lines of 'This would be a more productive procedural route', i.e. accredited tests followed by a legal action or maybe 'accredited tests presented to an Member of Parliament'. Perhaps that may get it out of his system and put his fears to rest.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
He seems harmless enough but he really doesn't present as in the slightest bit credible. I do not understand why you (debunkers in general, not you Dave), spend so much time trying to debunk him when he does such a good job of it himself.

Anyone who really thought they had substantive evidence would automatically take proper legal advice and present the evidence in a legal format.

He really is demonstrating a basic lack of skills in dealing with procedural matters, (at a common sense level), so I cannot see that he would be capable of putting forward a cogent, credible scientific argument.

Perhaps someone would like to put (a more tactfully worded) suggestion to him along the lines of 'This would be a more productive procedural route', i.e. accredited tests followed by a legal action or maybe 'accredited tests presented to an Member of Parliament'. Perhaps that may get it out of his system and put his fears to rest.

Max is the/a central figure in the UK and his claims are taken as Gospel by the rest. Interspersed with jargon and delivered in a personable way I can understand why people go along with them. However it is from him that the claims of COINTELPRO and disinformation stem in the UK. There is no way a dialogue would have any effect in my view. His claims are becoming more bizarre but his followers buy into it. I have listened to some his stuff about Agenda 21 and it is real Alex Jones stuff, and although mostly irrelevant for the UK again his followers accept it. Unfortunately it means you have to debunk everything he says (assuming there is bunk as some things I will agree with).
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Max is the/a central figure in the UK and his claims are taken as Gospel by the rest. Interspersed with jargon and delivered in a personable way I can understand why people go along with them.
He didn't come across well to me. He seemed very unsure of himself and very short on fact. When he suggested the police should look at the leaves on the trees closely... I nearly fell off my perch. :)

However it is from him that the claims of COINTELPRO and disinformation stem in the UK.
But Cointelpro is from the 50's or 60's and a proven propaganda operation isn't it?

There is no way a dialogue would have any effect in my view. His claims are becoming more bizarre but his followers buy into it. I have listened to some his stuff about Agenda 21 and it is real Alex Jones stuff, and although mostly irrelevant for the UK again his followers accept it.
But how many people actually support this theory... it seems extremely marginal. I think if someone took the tack of trying to get him to engage in a more scientific approach and a more structured plan... like actually attempting to make appointments with appropriate independent people who know what they are talking about... he would debunk himself.

Unfortunately it means you have to debunk everything he says (assuming there is bunk as some things I will agree with).

But sometimes that approach can have the opposite effect? I liked a comment made by Mick a while back where he suggested saying something like 'I am a bit skeptical about this personally'... and then letting the person try to explain it to you and you asking interested type questions and getting them to come up with their own flaws in the theory.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.

He didn't come across well to me. He seemed very unsure of himself and very short on fact. When he suggested the police should look at the leaves on the trees closely... I nearly fell off my perch. :)


But Cointelpro is from the 50's or 60's and a proven propaganda operation isn't it?


But how many people actually support this theory... it seems extremely marginal. I think if someone took the tack of trying to get him to engage in a more scientific approach and a more structured plan... like actually attempting to make appointments with appropriate independent people who know what they are talking about... he would debunk himself.



But sometimes that approach can have the opposite effect? I liked a comment made by Mick a while back where he suggested saying something like 'I am a bit skeptical about this personally'... and then letting the person try to explain it to you and you asking interested type questions and getting them to come up with their own flaws in the theory.
One would think he would debunk himself but he is viewed as an expert within the UK chemtrail community. You have to appreciate that many of the folks, like Max or the folks at Chemtrail Project UK, are greatly invested in this. Subconsciously they avoid ways in which will disprove their theory. In the past I have spoken to some to offer sources of information only to be called a paid shill. They don't take challenge or discussion at all.
 

TomC

Member
"what's happening to our weather" ARRGHH! Nothing unusual is happening to our weather. It's weather!!! What exactly does he think is "happening to our weather"?

Why doesn't he go through the climate statistics and try and find something that he thinks would not happen naturally? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I liked a comment made by Mick a while back where he suggested saying something like 'I am a bit skeptical about this personally'... and then letting the person try to explain it to you and you asking interested type questions and getting them to come up with their own flaws in the theory.

Might work in person. Anywhere on the net, where you are on any site controlled by believers, you will be blocked for even asking questions which suggest their conclusions might be wrong. It's like what Foote said before deleting that thread on his site- "Shills" should not be allowed to post. You are "only there to disrupt". Most of the sites have adopted the stance that there "is no debate"- their position is proven and that's that! It's uncanny how perfectly this parallels Nancy Lieder's "Planet X" hoax. Her story is "proven beyond all question", according to her. Doubters need not apply and will be banned on sight.
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
The difference between the scientific method and emotional conviction:

  • I want someone to prove me wrong so I know if I made a mistake.
  • I don't need anyone to prove me wrong because I know I'm right.
 
Top