Sylvain Henry

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
here is the result of his first pilot interview:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/sy...-chemtrails-ongoing-report-/10151216579337148

This document contains his top ten/eleven evidence for chemtrails:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PLB1lLF5KoWqzTs2Milfmi_KhorkakS7oRz4ssdBu8c/edit

He is meeting with the pilot again and is asking for submision of questions.
Most of the questions asked so far have been poorly thought out, IMHO.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/sylv...pilot-to-discuss-chemtrails/10151244184877148

Henry claims to have a degree in biochemistry.

Sylvain had a revealing interview in 2010 by a skeptical Ottawa physics professor named Denis Rancourt:
http://trainradio.blogspot.com/2010/09/some-truth-about-chemtrails.html
At this point, Sylvain was a beginner, and Rancourt let him have his say in a very unbiased manner.

He was also interviewed a few months later along with Michael J. Murphy:
http://trainradio.blogspot.com/2010/12/chemtrails-geoengineering-and-climate.html
In the interview, Rancourt informed Murphy and Henry in no uncertain terms that they were wrong in many of their claims.
Rancourt woud not allow Murphy to filibuster, kept insisting on evidence, and pointed out the weaknesses in WITWATS.
It was an experience that Murphy won't repeat if he can ever help it. Very revealing. Murphy lost it completely.

So to me, Henry appears to be genuine and not out to make money or simply driven by ego. He is, however, able to internally deflect criticisms which conflict with his belief system and filter out contradictory evidence. He has been told about some of the defects in the chemtrails claims, yet nevertheless continues to restate them as you can see from his top ten.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
I saw his report of the first interview,and thought it smacked of selectiveness and evasion.Also noted the prominent chemtrail names commenting in the post,which suggests he's in deep.

I did congratulate him however,for being sane enough about the subject to secure a second discussion with the pilot.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This document contains his top ten/eleven evidence for chemtrails:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PLB1lLF5KoWqzTs2Milfmi_KhorkakS7oRz4ssdBu8c/edit

That was an editable document (he was asking people to collaborate), so I (and others) helpful edited a few errors out, particularly in the following section section, hoping to prompt some discussion:

Some of the changes (which have been there for months) in bold

Unfortunately he never noticed the additions. Particularly #1, which of course would be a huge smoking gun, and of course does not actually exist, as the old weather books say the same thing as the new weather books about the persistence of contrails and clouds.

He's articulate, but like you say, not really open to conflicting evidence. Maybe the fact that he missed the above might give him pause.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That was an editable document (he was asking people to collaborate), so I (and others) helpful edited a few errors out, particularly in the following section section, hoping to prompt some discussion:

Some of the changes (which have been there for months) in bold

Unfortunately he never noticed the additions. Particularly #1, which of course would be a huge smoking gun, and of course does not actually exist, as the old weather books say the same thing as the new weather books about the persistence of contrails and clouds.

He's articulate, but like you say, not really open to conflicting evidence. Maybe the fact that he missed the above might give him pause.
Hmmmm . . . anyone relying upon environmental testing or visual evidence is wasting their time . . . Too many alternate explanations are available to challenge such claims . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hmmmm . . . anyone relying upon environmental testing or visual evidence is wasting their time . . . Too many alternate explanations are available to challenge such claims . . .

True, but one should at least establish a baseline based on expected historic values if one is going to go down that path.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Visual documentation of planes using high resolution photography could clear up over 90% of all chemtrail claims. Doing so would enable the data to debunk the claims about non-persistance, start/stop, and even atmospheric soundings. Few chemmies are technically inclined or dedicated enough to get off their asses to do that. If they do the reasonable slink away embarrassed and intimidated to tell their folk.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
He was also interviewed a few months later along with Michael J. Murphy:
http://trainradio.blogspot.com/2010/12/chemtrails-geoengineering-and-climate.html
In the interview, Rancourt informed Murphy and Henry in no uncertain terms that they were wrong in many of their claims.
Rancourt woud not allow Murphy to filibuster, kept insisting on evidence, and pointed out the weaknesses in WITWATS.
It was an experience that Murphy won't repeat if he can ever help it. Very revealing. Murphy lost it completely.

This interview is hilarious. Makes my enforced-by-repeated-spam-reporting sabbatical from the #chemtrail tag on Twitter much easier to bear.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's a bit odd as clearly "John Whitelines" is no chemtrail believer. And it's not as if pilots have refused to talk to chemtrail advocated before. There are several pilots who have posted here and on ContrailScience, who have been more than willing to answer questions. The problem is getting people to believe what the pilots say.

Still, I'm glad Henry is doing this. He's pretty smart, and might eventually figure out he's been mislead if he keeps digging with an open mind.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Looking at the questions being posed, it seems that (as is the case with the David Keith meeting w/ activists) most of them assume that chemtrails are real and that the pilot knows about them. Very few are posed from the standpoint of asking whether they are real - that is treated as a given. So, they have a "wife beating question" quality to them. For example:

 

HappyMonday

Moderator
Looking at the questions being posed, it seems that (as is the case with the David Keith meeting w/ activists) most of them assume that chemtrails are real and that the pilot knows about them. Very few are posed from the standpoint of asking whether they are real - that is treated as a given. So, they have a "wife beating question" quality to them. For example:



The comments I referenced doubting this chap due his contrailscience.com link earlier today have been deleted. Shame I can't screenshot on my phone.

I interpreted one or two of Sylvain's responses to these as fairly hostile myself, almost as though he felt the pilot should be pressed to admit what he knew.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Looks like they started:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/projectlightsout

Sample of the comment stream, not getting a very positive response.

 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I listened for about 1-1/2 hours and had to go mow grass. During the chat I was able to make some brief 1-2 line comments. There were other skeptical people doing the same, but a large crowd of true believers without a clue, and many hecklers of the pilt like you see in Mick's chat post above.

The Canadian pilot did a good job, but when asked about aluminum he pointed towards emissions from China, so he hasn't been through what we have found here, even if he has been to contrailscience.com.

Russ Tanner and some other guy dominated much of the other audible conversation. Russ made himself look foolish by his claims to smell "chemtrails" within 20 minutes of seeing them. It didn't faze Russ one bit when the pilot pointed out how Russ had first claimed they hung around in the sky for hours but at the same time he claimed they dropped like a rock. Tanner also claimed that there was no air traffic over Maine or New York, and that most people will never see a real contrail in their whole lives, he also said that he had watched the skies all his life and had never seen one before chemtrails. He believes that even non-persistent contrails are evidence of chemtrails, and that only the small aerodynamic contrails from wings on landing are real contrails. Those claims sort of flabbergasted the pilot, how do you answer such nonsense? He tried to be polite when he made that point.

In his introduction, the pilot mentioned that one of his reasons for speaking was because of the threats against aircraft. He is worried.

The conversation is available here:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/27272532
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's last few hours of the chat log. Quite a remarkable exercise in Group Gish Galloping

 

HappyMonday

Moderator
Ye Gods! There's no hope for those guys,or for rationality prevailing about this subject.

The weird mix of ecological paranoia,pseudoscientific bullshit and religiosity is bizarre to comprehend.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Yes, he definitely did. He stated that in thousands of hours flying he had never seen any plane he could not identify, military or civilian, and that he had never seen anything similar to a contrail which was suspicious in any way. He had a good grasp of meteorology and atmospheric science and had taught the subject to aviators.

The session evolved mostly into a debate between the pilot and Russ Tanner. It should be listened to because Tanner is so extreme it is a good way to see what it is like to debate a very true chemtrail believer and how to avoid some pitfalls. Mick and contrailscience made a lasting impression on Tanner which he addressed at around the 2 hour mark onwards. The second part in the ustream link above with the recording is a worthless hour, just a couple of conspiracy theorists spouting off about unrelated stuff. The exchanges with Tanner had him filibustering and using a Gish Gallop. If you debate these people publicly you have to have a moderator insist on one point at a time to prevent them from monopolizing all the time and giving you 20 points to answer all at once. You have to take notes on what they say and have some basic rebuttals ready. You need to note when they say "proposed" "could" or otherwise qualify their statements, because they unconsciously tell the truth when they do that. Point it out when they do.

The pilot didn't have specific information we have here for debunking the specific claims, but he had a general idea and was able to handle them. He used logic well to counter, and made several references to how there is no consensus, and when one claim is countered factually or logically, they move on to expand the claim. For instance, when confronted with evidence of contrail persistence in the past, Tanner first claimed that it was rare, then later claimed that past peristence was spraying going back fifty years. Rather than getting exasperated, as the pilot did to some extent(you could hear it in his voice), these failures of logic need to be brought out, which he eventually did. He would have benefitted greatly from more speciifc knowledge of where their claims fall short.

BTW, Sylvain Henry took almost no part in the discussion, that was a mistake. The pilot should have steered the conversation towards him to avoid Tanner from monopolizing all the time with nonsense.

Some thing important to note is the consensus issue. When dealing with a radical like Tanner, the pilot did note that Rosalind Peterson had said in ten years study she had found no concrete evidence for anything but persistent contrails. The disparities between believers needs to be emphasized, I can't stress that enough. Pit them against each other as often and as far as you can, because taken as a whole, many of their claims debunk each other with no further work from you needed, you become the mediator, the witness, the public observer, not an adversary at that point. By doing this, you also sow seeds which may grow into a general refutation of the more extreme and outlandish of the claims or even a wholesale rejection of the individual making them.

You need to use the 'set up'. Take note of their factual or logical fallacies. These are your targets. They are the only things that matter. By taking brief notes you can recount their fallacy or false claim to the audience and explain the failure. Think about how their statements don't make sense or are contradictory.

If dealing with a Gish Galloper, don't ask a direct question of your opponent which allows them to take the floor. Instead, direct your questions to the audience or elsewhere in a rhetorical way. If absolutely necessary, ask a question they can only answer by yes or no, state it that way, "yes or no?", "right?" or "would you agree with that, yes or no?". You might have to interrupt, "hold on a minute.." do it politely but don't be afraid to do so or point out why you did. They will do so whether you do or not, so you have nothing to lose and much to gain.

Since this is public, you really need to avoid arguing with the opponent directly. Your audience is not your opponent, and your opponent is not your audience who must be persuaded. You are there to persuade the audience that the opponent is wrong, nothing more. Frame your responses to elicit a response from the audience, leave the opponent standing by himself, turn the audience into your sympathizer if the opponent
makes unclear, false, misleading, or illogical statements.

None of Tanner's extreme stuff can be documented or is confirmable. He won't give sources for them because they are total BS. You must point that out when an individual makes a claim which isn't part of the meme already, and how others contradict him.

For a committed chemtrail believer in the audience, none of what the pilot said made any difference. For that person, lots of what Tanner said will be entering the meme. His claims beyond the current meme need to be examined and refuted because of that. Maybe a thread here could get that done fairly easily. He sent this out yesterday from his "Global Skywatch". We need to oblige his request because he ijntends to become a "contender" .

We will be holding our first public phone conference to discuss chemtrails/geoengineering.

Time: Monday, November 26th, at 8 pm Eastern time, 5 pm Pacific time
Number: Call 702-589-8240 and use access code 9371679.
All are welcome to attend.
Details & Agenda

We will be discussing some very unique proposals to coordinate our efforts to expose chemtrails to the public and to raise the funds necessary to reach our goals.

We will also begin organizing our group so more people can get directly involved in a well-coordinated, well-focused group that gets things done.

You can join our Wiggio Group to stay connected with us by using this link.
http://wiggio.com/group_open_join.php?groupid=1517236&password=whatintheworld&ref=1471613
Please enter your email when prompted. Your email address will not be published or shared: Global Skywatch Wiggio Group

Please join us!

Below is our general agenda for this event. This will be expanded as the event approaches, so check back often.
•Introduction◦Who we are; What we do, Why we do it

•Our Purpose & Goals ◦Ending chemtrails: The 5-step plan

•Overview: The Problems We Face◦The scope and effect of geoengineering
◦Two small groups trying to influence the public
Exposing Geoengineering/Chemtrails to the Public◦General Ideas ■Teaching the dangers of metallic aerosols to the public
■Encouraging public cooperation/education
■Blogging - Ideas for combining exposure with fund raising
■Managing newsletters and email lists - Tools & tips
■Contact local media
■Contact local health food stores
■Showings of "what" and "why"
■Partner with farmers and co-ops
■Centralized link sharing
■I Oppose geoengineering business signs with central webpage
■Where to find more ideas

◦Proposed Projects ■The "I Do Not Consent" Project


•Fundraising ◦Conventional donations
◦Creating a business model ■Proposal #1: A mutually beneficial group model
■Proposal #2: A flat business model


•Taking Legal Action ◦What is happening? A status report
◦What you can do

•Utilizing Our Talents◦A Model that Works: How the powers-that-be accomplish their goals
◦Burning DVDs
◦Website design/programming
◦Art work; Creation of flyers/brochures
◦Music writing/production

•Fundraising
•Open Discussion for sharing ideas about achieving our goals
•Open Discussion for anything else
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
It's funny how silent the usual suspects are on Twitter about this.Yesterday it was awash with tweets promoting the 'event',nobody is posting any links to the outcomes at all.

Just thought too,I don't know if it's possible to grab a copy of the interview,as it's only a matter of time before a selectively edited version appears.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
Mick,that's pretty sage advice from Jay above,do you have post or sticky containing advice for debunkers about debating believers?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
There's my "guide to debunking", with a few good references in the comments
https://www.metabunk.org/content/129-A-Guide-to-Debunking

The Debunking Handbook is also good:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf

Both of Mick's references for debunking are great.
Different tactics may be necessary during a live debate compared to a prepared debunking for later consumption.

Remember what you are up against. These are info-warriors and will use any tactic possible.
Tanner was full of scorn and directly called the pilot a liar and disinformationalist, even though a woman(a true believer) in the mix asked folks to not get personal.
The pilot should have brought this out to counter the tactic and gain sympathy with the undecideds. It would have flattened Tanners accusations, instead he let it stand and was not being countered the pilot was thus diminished in some eyes.
We need to use all tactics, except for dis/misinformation, which will come out in the end on either side.
The side that uses it, loses the info-war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Both of Mick's references for debunking are great.
Different tactics may be necessary during a live debate compared to a prepared debunking for later consumption.

Remember what you are up against. These are info-warriors and will use any tactic possible.
Tanner was full of scorn and directly called the pilot a liar and disinformationalist, even though a woman(a true believer) in the mix asked folks to not get personal.
The pilot should have brought this out to counter the tactic and gain sympathy with the undecideds. It would have flattened Tanners accusations, instead he let it stand and was not being countered the pilot was thus diminished in some eyes.
We need to use all tactics, except for dis/misinformation, which will come out in the end on either side.
The side that uses it, loses the info-war.

I've started a new sub-forum (MetaDebunking) to focus in debunking techniques, and copied some of the above over to it:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/951-Debunking-in-Live-Debates
 
Last edited:

HappyMonday

Moderator
Sylvain Henry's Facebook group, which shares everything from Infowars to the Guardian newspaper, hasn't mentioned chemtrails since the beginning of February at least.

It's much more concerned with homeland security and civil liberty matters now it seems.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.

FlyingAtheist

New Member
Hello! I have to admit to being the pilot of the the above mentioned debate "John Whitelines".
I had stumbled onto Sylvain Henry's website Mass Action Demand, I saw the gross errors being repeated and I felt obliged to correct them. After receiving multiple threats I called Sylvain directly as he freely advertises his phone number, he seemed as was mentioned deluded but passionate about what he believes.
I met with him a few times proved my credentials, with hopes of enlightening him and potentially swaying a mass of deluded misinformed people.
He seemed keen and suggested a live interaction in which I could answer questions.
I honestly didn't realize it was going to be a debate, I had never heard of Russ Tanner nor was I in any way prepared for the mind numbing statement that he was to make.
I had only stumbled onto contrail science while trying to find references to questions days before I had this web radio discussion.
I do apologies for my poor performance, I did my best to keep a friendly demeanour and was quite frazzled by the end. Never anticipating the level of absurdity and total lack of common sense the CT group possessed.

" Truth from knowledge! "

From a fellow pilot hoping for a more enlightened wold.
 

KC-10FE

Senior Member.
The latest claim is that the spraying is being conducted by unmarked drones, or airliners disguised as holograms. I had a woman tell me today she saw formations of 30 drones flying over her mother's house, spraying.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
I just listened to some of the "radiothon" led by Sylvain Henry. In the beginning there were a few comments in the chatroom by non-believers but they were quickly blocked by this Henry guy. A few minutes ago they just discussed that everybody who disagrees with them is a troll/shill/disinformation agent, and these should be ignored and blocked.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
I had somebody cite him as a commercial pilot who believes in chemtrails. I didn't think he was, but wanted confirmation. Are you sure?
Yes, judging from his facebook page he studied biochemistry. No mention of being a pilot. But he's looking for whistleblowing pilots all the time, but cannot find any.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Yes, judging from his facebook page he studied biochemistry. No mention of being a pilot. But he's looking for whistleblowing pilots all the time, but cannot find any.

Yep. The guy who said it is now admitting he saw other chemtrails believers say it, but thinks it isn't true. He even said he wishes the believers would check their sources better. :) He STILL seems to think I'm part of the coverup, though. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Top