Mick West Interview for "Overcast" documentary by Dedal Films

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
The first review of the film, in German:
http://wearechange.ch/themen/hintergrundmaechte/4451-overcast-klimaexperimente-am-himmel-filmkritik

No clear-cut conclusion here either. It seems to me that this film just muddies the waters.
The DVD is planned to be released this month.


So as mentioned earlier, they found a small amount of barium, but not aluminium.

Mit einer PC6 einer privaten Fallschirmsprungfirma wird dann auch in die Wolken geflogen. Die Maschine ist ausgerüstet mit Messgeräten, welche den Barium- und Aluminiumgehalt der Luft in acht Kilometern Höhe messen sollen. Ein erster Flug bringt Gewissheit, es wurde ein 10 Mal höherer Bariumwert entdeckt als im Blindwert. Barium darf in dieser Höhe nicht vorkommen. Aluminium wurde jedoch nicht gefunden. Dieser finanziell aufwendige Flug wurde bisher noch nie durchgeführt und dokumentiert. Man bekommt hier also eine Weltneuheit zu sehen. Diese bringt das Thema Chemtrails von der Verschwörungstheorie weg zu einem ernstzunehmenden Thema, welches untersucht werden muss. Denn wie bereits gesagt, gibt es keine Studien dazu. Die einzige Schweizer Studie die es zu Barium in der Umwelt gibt, ist jene des Nationalen Beobachtungsnetz für Luftfremdstoffe (NABEL), welches in 10 Jahr-Abständen die Feinstoffbelastung in der Schweiz prüft, aber auf Bodenhöhe. Hier wurde Barium gefunden, mit einer Erhöhung in Agglomerationszentren, dies ist aber zum Beispiel auf den Abrieb von Bremsen zurückzuführen, so der Versuchsleiter. Wären es Chemtrails, gäbe es diese Unterschiede zwischen Stadt und Land nicht.
Content from External Source
Translated:

A PC6 [plane] from a private skydiving company is then flown into the clouds. The machine is equipped with measuring instruments which are intended to measure the barium and aluminum content of the air at an altitude of eight kilometers. A first flight brings certainty, discovering a barium level 10 times higher than the blank value. Barium should not occur at this level. Aluminium, however, was not found. Such a financially costly flight has never before been carried out and documented. So, you get to see a world premiere here. This turns the issue of chemtrails from a conspiracy theory into a serious issue that needs to be investigated. Because, as I said, there are no studies on this. The only Swiss study available for barium in the environment is that of the National Air Pollution Monitoring Network (NABEL), which studied the fine particle load in Switzerland examined 10 year intervals, but at ground level. Here, barium was found, with an increase in urban centres, but this is, for example, due to the abrasion of brakes, according to the experimenters. Had it been chemtrails, there would not be these differences between town and country.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick West will you post here when the film is released so we get alerted by email?

It has been released on DVD. Does not seem to be available for streaming yet.
http://www.overcast-the-movie.com/

There are several "outtakes" just published:
https://www.youtube.com/user/OVERCASTTHEMOVIE/videos

But this is probably going to get the most attention:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic4dml5oUVk


Scientist analyzes jet fuel, engine crud, and jet exhaust, finds various traces of metal, as expected. But the filmmakers act all horrified at the "pollution"

Jim Lee commented:

Jim “rezn8d” Lee3 days ago
finally someone speaking the truth, I was beginning to think I was alone climateviewer.com/chemtrails/
Content from External Source
 

M Bornong

Senior Member.
It has been released on DVD. Does not seem to be available for streaming yet.


Scientist analyzes jet fuel, engine crud, and jet exhaust, finds various traces of metal, as expected. But the filmmakers act all horrified at the "pollution"

Jim Lee commented:

Jim “rezn8d” Lee3 days ago
finally someone speaking the truth, I was beginning to think I was alone climateviewer.com/chemtrails/
Content from External Source

I'm not a scientist, was the ambient air test adequate for a control? From what I read, it was a stagnant air test. For a proper control shouldn't they have run the ambient air through the system at a similar volume through the instruments as the volume produced by the engines? I still agree that the final results are pollution is bad, planes contribute.

I'm just not sure they explained everything in the ambient air.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
It has been released on DVD. Does not seem to be available for streaming yet.
http://www.overcast-the-movie.com/

There are several "outtakes" just published:
https://www.youtube.com/user/OVERCASTTHEMOVIE/videos

But this is probably going to get the most attention:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic4dml5oUVk


Scientist analyzes jet fuel, engine crud, and jet exhaust, finds various traces of metal, as expected. But the filmmakers act all horrified at the "pollution"

Jim Lee commented:

Jim “rezn8d” Lee3 days ago
finally someone speaking the truth, I was beginning to think I was alone climateviewer.com/chemtrails/
Content from External Source


Why is she focusing on aluminium and barium? Is that in the editing or have the film makers specifically asked her to?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why is she focusing on aluminium and barium? Is that in the editing or have the film makers specifically asked her to?

Probably both. The actual research does not single them out at all. See attached presentation
 

Attachments

  • 2016_Lohmann_PR.pdf
    2.5 MB · Views: 727

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
" For a proper control shouldn't they have run the ambient air through the system at a similar volume through the instruments as the volume produced by the engines?"

They would, I think, just have to test the same volume of air as taken from the engine exhaust. They didn't take the entire output of the engine and test it, right?
 

M Bornong

Senior Member.
" For a proper control shouldn't they have run the ambient air through the system at a similar volume through the instruments as the volume produced by the engines?"

They would, I think, just have to test the same volume of air as taken from the engine exhaust. They didn't take the entire output of the engine and test it, right?

That's what I'm getting at, how many Cubic feet of ambient air were being pushed through the instruments by the engines, compared to just opening the doors of the chamber and letting the ambient air passively go by the instruments?

3.2.5. Ambient background particles ATOFMS measurements of ambient background particles were conducted in order to investigate if ambient aerosol particles could influence the engines measurements. The 325 background particles
were sampled overnight from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. without an engine running following the test run of the Mixed-Flow Turbofan which ended at 2:30 p.m. The sampled particles represent the aerosol particles that enter the test cell with the air that is consumed by the engine as it is running. During the overnight sampling, the airlocks of the test cell were left open to allow a passive exchange of the outside air with the test cell air. The sampling conditions did not fully re .ect the situation during engine runs due to the .ow of air through the test cell during engine runs caused by the operation of the engine.
Content from External Source
I'm just wondering if more of the metals found in the exhaust came from the dust in the ambient air, than is accounted for?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Looks like no ambient air was forced to go through. In other words, bad science.

I don't think it's a problem, as proportions are relative to the total collected solids, or individual particles, not a mass of air.

What I posted above is a link to a powerpoint presentation. The full article (Chemical characterization of freshly emitted particulate matter from aircraft exhaust using single particle mass spectrometry) is paywalled, and was posted in a closed group of Facebook, but I've not found a publicly available version. I have a copy, but can't post it for copyright reasons.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I don't think it's a problem, as proportions are relative to the total collected solids, or individual particles, not a mass of air.

I get that, but if no air is forced through the collector, how can they even get a useful measurement? Just sounds ill-prepared.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I get that, but if no air is forced through the collector, how can they even get a useful measurement? Just sounds ill-prepared.
They mention this problem:

The presented fractions of particles that contain metallic compounds
are lowest for the ambient background particles except for
silicon, lead and aluminium of which the latter shows similar
values as Turbofan 1. It is likely that the ambient background
measurements were influenced to some extent by the engine test
run conducted beforehand on the Mixed-Flow Turbofan.

Content from External Source
I'm not sure this would introduce significant errors though. And it's basically irrelevant to the idea of this being evidence of covert geoengineering. There's no real unexplained high numbers here.
 

Lisa P

Active Member
The professor states they tested the fuel and it had aluminium and barium. What we don't know is, is it on purpose for geoengineering to have a cooling effect? Have other people tested it and found the same? I have only looked at the proposals for SRM at 60000+ feet so I have no idea if there is science out there that states adding a bit of aluminium/barium or anything else to the fuel used by commercial jets can offset anthropogenic global warming. My only concern here is if chemicals are being added to combat AGW I want transparency. I am not so concerned about health effects because I drive a car, burn fossil fuels etc so I am a hypocrite if I were to be concerned about minimal amounts of aluminium in jet fuel to help offset the heating effect of contrails and pollution.

What we as humans tend to do if we aren't rational is we get a snippet of information and make a huge delusional story out of it. This is why I love science as I am very good at making up stories!!

And remember, as per Wikipedia, 'Tea drinking accounts for a high proportion of aluminum in the human diet'. If you are concerned about aluminium in jet fuel stop drinking tea or other foods that are high. If your blood test are normal then you have nothing to worry about but worry itself ;)
 

M Bornong

Senior Member.
The professor states they tested the fuel and it had aluminium and barium. What we don't know is, is it on purpose for geoengineering to have a cooling effect? Have other people tested it and found the same? I have only looked at the proposals for SRM at 60000+ feet so I have no idea if there is science out there that states adding a bit of aluminium/barium or anything else to the fuel used by commercial jets can offset anthropogenic global warming. My only concern here is if chemicals are being added to combat AGW I want transparency. I am not so concerned about health effects because I drive a car, burn fossil fuels etc so I am a hypocrite if I were to be concerned about minimal amounts of aluminium in jet fuel to help offset the heating effect of contrails and pollution.

What we as humans tend to do if we aren't rational is we get a snippet of information and make a huge delusional story out of it. This is why I love science as I am very good at making up stories!!

And remember, as per Wikipedia, 'Tea drinking accounts for a high proportion of aluminum in the human diet'. If you are concerned about aluminium in jet fuel stop drinking tea or other foods that are high. If your blood test are normal then you have nothing to worry about but worry itself ;)

There are small amounts of metal contaminants in your drinking water, due to the conveyance of said water, from what I've read from this study, that's the kind of contamination we are dealing with. In the paper, she states there is a warming effect from contrails.
"Contrails cause a positive radiative forcing due to their occurrence at high altitude. Similarly to thin cirrus clouds, they reflect little incoming solar radiation back to space but absorb terrestrial infrared radiation."
Content from External Source
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
What we don't know is, is it on purpose for geoengineering to have a cooling effect?

Don't overlook that it was found in parts per million. Levels like that can be found in ambient air that gets sucked into the front of the engine from the surrounding atmosphere and also mixed into the exhaust stream behind the engine from the surrounding atmosphere.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have a DVD of the documentary (I had to pay for it). I think any impact from this is really going to be limited if it remains pay-to-view.
 

skephu

Senior Member.

skephu

Senior Member.
The synopsis of the movie says:
In a challenging investigation this documentary distinguishes the hard scientific facts from lofty speculation. OVERCAST aims - once and for all - to find conclusive answers to one of the most pressing questions of our time.
Content from External Source
From what I gleaned from various sources about this movie (I haven't seen it), it does not provide conclusive answers at all. Instead it is the type of movie that presents all kinds of stuff while keeping an air of mystery and then leaves the decision to the viewer.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Interestingly, I also found the same article on another site with a different author named,
yea i saw that too when i was looking up that alleged quote from German Aerospace- because why would anyone say aluminum shouldnt be in the atmosphere? it's in dust, it's everywhere- anyway they are both conspiracy woo sites. so, same old same old.
It is interesting they have two different authors listed. maybe the author on your first link was just who posted the article on before its news?

I think if it 'muddies the waters' for nonchemtrailists, that only helps. The population will (well i would anyway) just think "chemtrails are just airplane exhaust, and we have vehicle exhaust/brakepad dust etc everywhere we breathe anyway so why are these people so freaked out about airplanes?"
 

M Bornong

Senior Member.
The video might become available for streaming once they paid off their debts.

debts.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/groups/glo...0157508760850302&comment_tracking={"tn":"R3"}

Russ Tanner is not happy with the trailers, it seems to go against some of his claims.

Russ.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalskywatch/permalink/10157537443065302/?match=cnVzcyB0YW5uZXI=

How do we know the chemical trail ("chemtrail") issue is not related to jet fuel additives?
  • Only unmarked jets without transponders - clearly not commercial jets - are producing jet trails. This fact alone is enough to prove that jet fuel additives have nothing to do with chemtrails.
  • Jet fuel additives do not contain nearly enough metals to account for the enormous quantities of metals we're finding in rainwater (and other) tests.
  • Only jet airframes (737, 747, DC-9, etc.) which are known to have been converted to military (and contractor) tankers are producing jet trails. Airframes not used as tankers magically don't produce trails.
  • Jet trails began appearing suddenly (see this interview) in any given area - usually in a single day - and formed behind jets flying much lower than commercial jets.
  • Jet trails are often emitted by the bypass air stream of the engine, not the combusted air. This alone is enough to prove two things: (1) The trails have nothing to do with jet fuel, water vapor, or jet fuel additives, and (2) The trails consist of intentionally-injected substances into the bypass air stream of the engine. The bypass air is simply air that is pushed through the engine by the large fan in the front of the engine. It should contain nothing but air.
Content from External Source
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=17693#Post17693



Overcast has offered to send Russ a copy of the movie to smooth things out.

RussVsOvercast.jpg
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
  • Only jet airframes (737, 747, DC-9, etc.) which are known to have been converted to military (and contractor) tankers are producing jet trails. Airframes not used as tankers magically don't produce trails.

Do you think Russ is aware the 737 has never been a tanker?
 

skephu

Senior Member.
Overcast has offered to send Russ a copy of the movie to smooth things out.

RussVsOvercast.jpg
Regarding "Overcast Themovie"'s claims above, I have checked out the "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology" study, which has been published this year:

Abegglen, M., Brem, B. T., Ellenrieder, M., Durdina, L., Rindlisbacher, T., Wang, J., ... & Sierau, B. (2016). Chemical characterization of freshly emitted particulate matter from aircraft exhaust using single particle mass spectrometry. Atmospheric Environment, 134, 181-197.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016302424

It contains this table reporting the metals found in jet fuel and oil:

upload_2016-10-2_3-56-47.png

As you see, it does not even list barium separately because its concentration was on the order of a few tenths of mg/kg (could not be measured accurately), so it was lumped into the "Others" category. Most of these metals probably get into the jet fuel as simple contamination from the environment.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
How can any rational person believe that no marked commercial planes are leaving trails in the sky? How is it possible to avoid knowing that is an utterly false notion?
 

Dan Page

Senior Member.
How can any rational person believe that no marked commercial planes are leaving trails in the sky? How is it possible to avoid knowing that is an utterly false notion?
Exactly, this is so easily proven these days with FR24 and a good zoom camera. Perhaps THEY need to "look up".
 

skephu

Senior Member.
I think if it 'muddies the waters' for nonchemtrailists, that only helps. The population will (well i would anyway) just think "chemtrails are just airplane exhaust, and we have vehicle exhaust/brakepad dust etc everywhere we breathe anyway so why are these people so freaked out about airplanes?"
Apparently the filmmakers think otherwise:
upload_2016-10-2_12-34-20.png
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
How can any rational person believe that no marked commercial planes are leaving trails in the sky? How is it possible to avoid knowing that is an utterly false notion?

The recognition that when people see persistent contrails they are seeing commercial flights rather than air tankers
is the Achilles Heel of the idea of chemtrails. The leadership know this vulnerability and dodge it because of the peril.
It 'took out' G. Edward Griffin who co-produced the WITWATS movie, probably the only major figure to back out of support for chemtrails.
https://www.metabunk.org/14-years-of-chemtrails-comments-and-suggestions.t100/
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I just want to add one thing.....the word "OVERCAST" in the movie description caught me eye.

I began learning to fly at a stupid young age, to most,,,at 14. Just as driving a car, you can learn,
but not be "licensed" until a certain age.

So, as I have had a long career in aviation, many decades....the term "overcast" is a term I've dealt with, have seen,
and am familiar with....since AT LEAST 1973.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
How can any rational person believe that no marked commercial planes are leaving trails in the sky?

Here's the thing....A typical airliner, when viewed from the ground, and it's 35,000 feet above? It just looks "white"....I've noticed a few
airlines have begun to PAINT the belly of the fuselage, and even underside of the wings....so that the nonsense of the "chemtrail debate" can be finally put to rest.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
It 'took out' G. Edward Griffin who co-produced the WITWATS movie, probably the only major figure to back out of support for chemtrails.

Is Griffin completely out of the movement? Did he say anything at the end? Sorry if that is shown in your link.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Here's the thing....A typical airliner, when viewed from the ground, and it's 35,000 feet above? It just looks "white"....I've noticed a few
airlines have begun to PAINT the belly of the fuselage, and even underside of the wings....so that the nonsense of the "chemtrail debate" can be finally put to rest.
I just today looked at a vid from a chemtrail believer. I guess he thinks the windows would be LOTS bigger than they really are relative to the plane. Low-res vid, which he thinks proves that the plane "has no windows". Even with a decent amount of zoom, you still can't make out windows which ARE there.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I just today looked at a vid from a chemtrail believer. I guess he thinks the windows would be LOTS bigger than they really are relative to the plane. Low-res vid, which he thinks proves that the plane "has no windows". Even with a decent amount of zoom, you still can't make out windows which ARE there.
Meanwhile Look-up.org.uk have a decent zoom camera and are taking videos of easily identifiable commercial airliners leaving trails. But none of the chemtrail followers seem to notice the glaring inconsistencies in the narrative.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
Top