Wigington/West Geoengineering Debate

Balance

Senior Member.
... Not something an investor is likely to do if there is no market. If they already have a patent, then this product must have been tested. Perhaps not in the air, but somewhere. Patents can't exist unless they are approved. Who would approve a patent for geoengineering if it isn't happening? That's My point. And believe Me, if I could walk through walls, I would show You and I would patent that shit!

The point I'm trying to get across is a patent does not mean the idea behind the patent is in use. It is just a record that someone has produced the patent and includes details to guard against someone coming up with the same idea. 'Idea' being the operative word.
 

RealTruth

Member
I have a plan for next week. Next week is not happening now.
Dude, just look up. Seriously. It's not up for debate, it really isn't. Geoengineering is happening, the more You dispute its actual occurrence, the more You discredit Yourself. The question is WHAT are they spraying and what are the effects?
Russia also highlighted that its scientists are developing geoengineering technologies.
Russia would not do this unless they were already aware of the US program. It makes no sense. Again, nice way of saying. We can do what You are doing, We want to know Your intentions. This is cold war type talk, but only when You understand that IF there are in fact particulates of aluminum and barium in the contrails of planes, they do contribute to conductivity of HAARP instruments, which modify the weather in even more drastic ways. That's what that comment is about. If You haven't noticed, Russia has been ordering the US around lately. That's a first in My lifetime, they know what's up.
 

RealTruth

Member
The point I'm trying to get across is a patent does not mean the idea behind the patent is in use. It is just a record that someone has produced the patent and includes details to guard against someone coming up with the same idea. 'Idea' being the operative word.
Yeah, I get that. What I'm saying is that it would be VERY costly. Find out how corporations work. They do NOT formulate patents for shit they can't sell and would not begin production on such a patent if they did not know there would be a market for it. The people in this debate understand that as a fact of business, not up for dispute. One company might take a chance. But several corporations would not invest as much as they have for patents they may never use. Just doesn't make any logical business sense. Think about it.
 

Balance

Senior Member.
Dude, just look up. Seriously. It's not up for debate, it really isn't. Geoengineering is happening, the more You dispute its actual occurrence, the more You discredit Yourself. The question is WHAT are they spraying and what are the effects?

May I suggest you and the believers stop telling people to Look Up and go look in a library or something. You discredit yourselves claiming looking up tells you all you need to know. Seriously Dude.


Yeah, I get that.

Obviously not...

They do NOT formulate patents for shit they can't sell and would not begin production on such a patent if they did not know there would be a market for it.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Dude, just look up. Seriously.
LOL.. sorry, I mean LMAO
They do NOT formulate patents for shit they can't sell and would not begin production on such a patent if they did not know there would be a market for it.
They take a patent out as soon as they come up with the idea and are able to formulate it into an acceptable patent application. They are not going to develop something to only find out someone beat them to the patent. What might not have a market today may have one 5 years from now. Better to spend a little up front on a patent than waste money in development, to later pay someone else a license fee cause they beat you to the patent.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
So, for this theory to fly, we only have to pretend that we don't know that
companies constantly take out patents on things they'll probably never produce
(Apple had 15,500 patents two years ago…so, conservatively, maybe 18,500 - 20,000 patents currently?)
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1261292

We know Monsanto, for instance, had a net income of ~$2,470,000,000 (2.47 billion)
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/mon/financials in 2013...

and patents can range from as little as a couple hundred bucks to 10,000+
depending on how you choose to calculate them…

the math is not hard, you just have to get past the "obvious" claims,
said not ;) to be up for dispute
 

RealTruth

Member
May I suggest you and the believers stop telling people to Look Up and go look in a library or something. You discredit yourselves claiming looking up tells you all you need to know. Seriously Dude.




Obviously not...
I wouldn't say 'Look Up' if You would seriously consider any of the evidence that is in front of You. You tell Me to go to a library. What difference would it make? At this point it seems that I could present You with all kinds of data on increased air toxins, particulates, PATENTS that already exist for things We are NOT doing?.. Not logical, Brother. You have well documented scientists that are providing physical evidence of their findings and it's like You are looking with Your eyes closed. Not logical, Brother. Really, just not logical. But I get it, Your site is founded on this and 'losing' one of these debates would be like losing Your identity. I appreciate Your integrity but You're just not thinking about this with an open mind. Cognitive dissent. Truth is, the patents are probably the best real evidence to support geoengineering. Really, tell Me when a company has designed a product when there is no potential to sell it? NOT LOGICAL. Please, use constructive arguments. No point asking for data if You refuse to accept it. Also, library books will never teach You anything except what You are permitted to know. I don't know why it is so hard for You to accept that this is happening or why they would want to keep it secret. Plenty of reasons for it like countering global warming, subversive warfare, manipulating weather for better crops. But it would make sense to keep this technology under wraps as long as possible. Do You really think You know about the US top weapons? No, You don't. They have shit the American people would never approve of, far worse than nuclear weapons. Denying that this is happening entirely discredits You. Maybe You're young. Maybe You don't remember what real clouds look like. Or maybe You believe they've changed as a result of global warming or something. I've got no idea. But I know what I see in the sky is not contrails because they NEVER lasted that long, never spread out and never shut out the sun the way they do now on a heavy spray day. Cloud seeding IS geoengineering by the way, which further discredits You. You admit to one but not the other. Totally illogical when they are the same thing. You need to add chemicals to the stream to seed clouds - that is geoengineering. Goodnight.
 

RealTruth

Member
So, for this theory to fly, we only have to pretend that we don't know that
companies constantly take out patents on things they'll probably never produce
(Apple had 15,500 patents two years ago…so, conservatively, maybe 18,500 - 20,000 patents currently?)
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1261292

We know Monsanto, for instance, had a net income of ~$2,470,000,000 (2.47 billion)
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/mon/financials in 2013...

and patents can range from as little as a couple hundred bucks to 10,000+
depending on how you choose to calculate them…

the math is not hard, you just have to get past the "obvious" claims,
said not ;) to be up for dispute
OMG You are impossible to reason with! You don't have the cognitive ability to process what I'm actually saying. Yes, I'm sure Apple and many other software firms have a ton of patents. Recipe's might have that too (Coke, Pepsi) but there is a MARKET for the patents they are creating, someone to sell them to. If geoengineering isn't happening, companies won't invest unless they know it will.
 

RealTruth

Member
OMG You are impossible to reason with! You don't have the cognitive ability to process what I'm actually saying. Yes, I'm sure Apple and many other software firms have a ton of patents. Recipe's might have that too (Coke, Pepsi) but there is a MARKET for the patents they are creating, someone to sell them to. If geoengineering isn't happening, companies won't invest unless they know it will.
*know it will have a market to sell to. But this ridiculous, I'm done, enjoy Your darkness. :p
 

RealTruth

Member
This is just one of the reasons I suggest you go to a library or other fountain of knowledge that is reliable, verfiable and accurate.
And most likely the reason You can't think. Everything You know is somebody else's idea, You can't leave that realm. If it didn't come from a book, it isn't fact. And so many of Your library books are bullshit. You learn a world of bullshit, then turn back to the bullshit to defend the bullshit. Almost as bad as someone quoting the bible to defend their faith without having any intuitive knowledge or understanding of their own. That's why You are sheeple and I am not.
 

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
Yeah, I get that. What I'm saying is that it would be VERY costly. Find out how corporations work. They do NOT formulate patents for shit they can't sell and would not begin production on such a patent if they did not know there would be a market for it.
There we go:
This invention is a training system which enables a human being to acquire sufficient hyperspace energy in order to pull the body out of dimension so that the person can walk through solid objects such as wooden doors.
http://www.google.com/patents/US20060014125

So you say people can walk through solid objects and it is happening right now?
 

Balance

Senior Member.
And most likely the reason You can't think. Everything You know is somebody else's idea, You can't leave that realm. If it didn't come from a book, it isn't fact. And so many of Your library books are bullshit. You learn a world of bullshit, then turn back to the bullshit to defend the bullshit. Almost as bad as someone quoting the bible to defend their faith without having any intuitive knowledge or understanding of their own. That's why You are sheeple and I am not.

Whatever the reason you ignored me advising you seek a
fountain of knowledge that is reliable, verfiable and accurate.
Content from External Source
of your choice, I don't really care.

Replacing debate with personal attacks is not necessary and not welcome. Have a nice day and don't get a neck ache "learning".
 

Rns

Member
I wouldn't say 'Look Up' if You would seriously consider any of the evidence that is in front of You. You tell Me to go to a library. What difference would it make? At this point it seems that I could present You with all kinds of data on increased air toxins, particulates, PATENTS that already exist for things We are NOT doing?.. Not logical, Brother. You have well documented scientists that are providing physical evidence of their findings and it's like You are looking with Your eyes closed. Not logical, Brother. Really, just not logical. But I get it, Your site is founded on this and 'losing' one of these debates would be like losing Your identity. I appreciate Your integrity but You're just not thinking about this with an open mind. Cognitive dissent. Truth is, the patents are probably the best real evidence to support geoengineering. Really, tell Me when a company has designed a product when there is no potential to sell it? NOT LOGICAL. Please, use constructive arguments. No point asking for data if You refuse to accept it. Also, library books will never teach You anything except what You are permitted to know. I don't know why it is so hard for You to accept that this is happening or why they would want to keep it secret. Plenty of reasons for it like countering global warming, subversive warfare, manipulating weather for better crops. But it would make sense to keep this technology under wraps as long as possible. Do You really think You know about the US top weapons? No, You don't. They have shit the American people would never approve of, far worse than nuclear weapons. Denying that this is happening entirely discredits You. Maybe You're young. Maybe You don't remember what real clouds look like. Or maybe You believe they've changed as a result of global warming or something. I've got no idea. But I know what I see in the sky is not contrails because they NEVER lasted that long, never spread out and never shut out the sun the way they do now on a heavy spray day. Cloud seeding IS geoengineering by the way, which further discredits You. You admit to one but not the other. Totally illogical when they are the same thing. You need to add chemicals to the stream to seed clouds - that is geoengineering. Goodnight.

Do you have links to support your contention that there are "well documented scientists providing physical evidence"?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Truth is, the patents are probably the best real evidence to support geoengineering. Really, tell Me when a company has designed a product when there is no potential to sell it? NOT LOGICAL.
The fact is that the vast majority of patents are never put to use. The existence of a patent doesn't mean that something is being used, or even necessarily that it would work.

RealTruth said:
But I know what I see in the sky is not contrails because they NEVER lasted that long, never spread out and never shut out the sun the way they do now on a heavy spray day.
As others have said, this is the main claim behind the whole chemtrails idea, and it's provably false. There is ample documentation of contrails persisting for hours and spreading as cirrus clouds (in the right atmospheric conditios), for as long as there's been high-altitude air travel. I suggest that you spend a little time looking here to get started: http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/
RealTruth said:
Cloud seeding IS geoengineering by the way, which further discredits You. You admit to one but not the other. Totally illogical when they are the same thing. You need to add chemicals to the stream to seed clouds - that is geoengineering. Goodnight.
How would you define geoengineering? The commonly accepted definition is that it's the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system with the aim of reducing the effects of global warming. Cloud seeding to induce or enhance precipitation does not meet these criteria. It involves local, small scale attempts to affect weather (not climate). It also does not cause those persistent contrails you're seeing.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't have a patent for walking through walls. But if I had a patent for geoengineering as companies do (as stated by John in the debate), then it would mean that there is a market. If no engineering is going on, why would companies invest in patents to create them? Companies are not like people. They don't have morals and values. They survive on profits. And developing these compounds would be costly. Not something an investor is likely to do if there is no market. If they already have a patent, then this product must have been tested. Perhaps not in the air, but somewhere. Patents can't exist unless they are approved. Who would approve a patent for geoengineering if it isn't happening? That's My point. And believe Me, if I could walk through walls, I would show You and I would patent that shit!

There are many patents for things that are not happening. There are patents for houses on the moon, mining the center of the earth, and centrifugal birth assist tables.
http://www.google.com/patents/US5094409
https://www.google.com/patents/CN102336196A
https://www.google.com/patents/US3216423

In most industries, things are patented the moment someone thinks of them, not after they have actually implemented them. Patents are there just in case.

Sometimes patents reply on plausible yet undeveloped technology. For example IBM's 1998 patent for an intelligent car that will chat with you to keep you awake:
https://www.google.com/patents/US6236968
 
Last edited:

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
And most likely the reason You can't think. Everything You know is somebody else's idea, You can't leave that realm. If it didn't come from a book, it isn't fact. And so many of Your library books are bullshit. You learn a world of bullshit, then turn back to the bullshit to defend the bullshit. Almost as bad as someone quoting the bible to defend their faith without having any intuitive knowledge or understanding of their own. That's why You are sheeple and I am not.

You describe yourself like a person who reject the idea of others if you can't prove it yourself.

Please ask yourself the question of "when did you first start looking up and finding that long trails was something odd". You don't need to answer that here or to anyone. Answer it to yourself. Did it happen before or after you read or watched "somebody else's idea" of chemtrails?
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Senior Member.
The word "geoengineering" has been hijacked by chemtrail believers in order to give their theory/theories some credence.

And they consistently fail to differentiate between cloud seeding and other methods of weather modification, not even seeing how that hurts their credibility with anyone who looked into the matter for more than 5 minutes.
 

RealTruth

Member
There we go:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20060014125

So you say people can walk through solid objects and it is happening right now?
I'll give You credit for relentlessness. But You don't understand the basic argument. I did not say that people were or were not walking through walls. I said I'm not. Didn't think anyone was bold enough yet to believe they can, but good for them. Now, is there a market for that technique - sure. I'm sure I could find plenty of people that would love to have that ability if it works. Difference between Your point and mine is the MARKET. THERE IS NOTHING SAYING WALKING THROUGH WALLS WOULD NOT BE PROFITABLE AND THAT IS THE POINT YOU MISS IN THREE ARGUMENTS NOW. Different between Your lame concept and what I'm presenting You, is that it doesn't make sense to market something You can't sell. If You could walk through walls, You could sell that shit! At least grasp the content of the argument, if only for Your own self respect. What market is there for geoengineering patents if geoengineering is not happening?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What market is there for geoengineering patents if geoengineering is not happening?

The future. It's speculation. Like with patents for houses on the moon. Or missions to mars:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20130259186
Disclosed is an interplanetary rocket propulsion to Mars and the Moons of the nearer outer Planets by means of 6000° K temperature, 100 atmosphere pressure, power generation and propulsion systems that utilize a gas cooled nuclear reactor and metal powder combustion, in combination with water wherein dissociation into oxygen to react with certain metals to form on board retained metal oxides, and to heat the hydrogen from dissociated water as well as on-board liquid hydrogen that is seeded with an alkali metal for use in a linear, Faraday magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generator that is coaxial with a MHD accelerator for propulsion, wherein water and probable metal sources on planetary bodies would provide rocket fueling by metal oxide reprocessing to metal and for manned permanent life support bases, and for search of high value minerals, gold, silver, aluminum, rare minerals, diamonds, for transport with their lesser gravity back to Earth.
Content from External Source
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
What market is there for geoengineering patents if geoengineering is not happening?
Geoengineering is something that is being proposed for the future. If it is utilized, and a patented technology is found useful for it, then there's the market. As has been repeatedly explained to you, patents are often put in place in anticipation of a future market.

By the way, there is a politeness policy here.
 

RealTruth

Member
And they consistently fail to differentiate between cloud seeding and other methods of weather modification, not even seeing how that hurts their credibility with anyone who looked into the matter for more than 5 minutes.
Again, lame double-talk. I don't care what You call it. Putting shit in engine exhaust of planes is what We are talking about. That is happening, We know it. Mick said in the interview they are additives, like in Your car. What You just quoted "fail to differential between cloud seeding and OTHER methods of weather modification."
Bonehead, weather modification is EXACTLY what We are talking about. ANOTHER FORM OF... Your own quote defines cloud seeding as one form of geoengineering (weather modification), which You say is not happening.
 

RealTruth

Member
The future. It's speculation. Like with patents for houses on the moon. Or missions to mars:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20130259186
Disclosed is an interplanetary rocket propulsion to Mars and the Moons of the nearer outer Planets by means of 6000° K temperature, 100 atmosphere pressure, power generation and propulsion systems that utilize a gas cooled nuclear reactor and metal powder combustion, in combination with water wherein dissociation into oxygen to react with certain metals to form on board retained metal oxides, and to heat the hydrogen from dissociated water as well as on-board liquid hydrogen that is seeded with an alkali metal for use in a linear, Faraday magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) generator that is coaxial with a MHD accelerator for propulsion, wherein water and probable metal sources on planetary bodies would provide rocket fueling by metal oxide reprocessing to metal and for manned permanent life support bases, and for search of high value minerals, gold, silver, aluminum, rare minerals, diamonds, for transport with their lesser gravity back to Earth.
Content from External Source
Again MARKETABLE ideas!!! Ugh. People would want those things. Who wants to develop chemicals for the air if We don't use them and would never be able to?
 

RealTruth

Member
Again MARKETABLE ideas!!! Ugh. People would want those things. Who wants to develop chemicals for the air if We don't use them and would never be able to?
Once again, You miss the point. Not just a little, You entirely misunderstand arguments.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Again MARKETABLE ideas!!! Ugh. People would want those things. Who wants to develop chemicals for the air if We don't use them and would never be able to?

The point here is that patents are not evidence that it is being used now.

They are evidence that someone thinks it might be used in the future.
 

RealTruth

Member
Okay. Just remove Me. I can't stand being surrounded by idiots. You fail to acknowledge Your own weaknesses. You're like a child who wants to insist 2+2=5. It's not. But here, it can be. I don't want to disrupt this forum with any other ideas that might shake the foundation of Your tiny minds and world. Good luck. This will be the only site I occasionally come back to say, "See, told Ya!".
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Okay. Just remove Me. I can't stand being surrounded by idiots. You fail to acknowledge Your own weaknesses. You're like a child who wants to insist 2+2=5. It's not. But here, it can be. I don't want to disrupt this forum with any other ideas that might shake the foundation of Your tiny minds and world. Good luck. This will be the only site I occasionally come back to say, "See, told Ya!".

Somehow I doubt this is going to be your last post. ;-)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Okay. Just remove Me. I can't stand being surrounded by idiots. You fail to acknowledge Your own weaknesses. Your like a child who wants to insist 2+2=5. It's not. But here, it can be. I don't want to disrupt this forum with any other ideas that might shake the foundation of Your tiny minds and world. Good luck. This will be the only site I occasionally come back to say, "See, told Ya!".

Calm down. Nobody is misunderstanding your point. They are just saying that it is wrong.

Patents usually indicate someone thought there will be a market for something. Everyone agrees with you there.

Patents do not mean that that thing currently physically exists or is in use. That's what the disagreement is.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Okay. Just remove Me. I can't stand being surrounded by idiots. You fail to acknowledge Your own weaknesses. Your like a child who wants to insist 2+2=5. It's not. But here, it can be. I don't want to disrupt this forum with any other ideas that might shake the foundation of Your tiny minds and world. Good luck. This will be the only site I occasionally come back to say, "See, told Ya!".
Let's be honest: many people, myself included, are simply not very good at accepting obvious truths until some evidence is shown.
 

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
At least grasp the content of the argument, if only for Your own self respect. What market is there for geoengineering patents if geoengineering is not happening?
You do it again, you assume geoengineering is happening because there are patents describing it, which is a false argument. If geoengineering is going to happen in a future there might be people making money of it indeed, but as for now nobody seems to be doing that.

I guess some people might invest in patents as there are people investing in small companies to make a lot of money out of them when they grow big, but it is a big gamble I would say. If it is true what you say and geoengineering is going on, somebody must have gotten pretty rich from such a patent. Can you give such an example?
 

Mark Barrington

Active Member
Okay. Just remove Me. I can't stand being surrounded by idiots. You fail to acknowledge Your own weaknesses. You're like a child who wants to insist 2+2=5. It's not. But here, it can be. I don't want to disrupt this forum with any other ideas that might shake the foundation of Your tiny minds and world. Good luck. This will be the only site I occasionally come back to say, "See, told Ya!".
The statement that 2 + 2 = 4 is actually fairly deep. The proof is easy, but it involves the associative property of addition. so explaining it teaches the kid a lot about numbers and mathematics. If you understand the concept, you can explain it.
 

Rns

Member
I wouldn't say 'Look Up' if You would seriously consider any of the evidence that is in front of You. You tell Me to go to a library. What difference would it make? At this point it seems that I could present You with all kinds of data on increased air toxins, particulates, PATENTS that already exist for things We are NOT doing?.. Not logical, Brother. You have well documented scientists that are providing physical evidence of their findings and it's like You are looking with Your eyes closed. Not logical, Brother. Really, just not logical. But I get it, Your site is founded on this and 'losing' one of these debates would be like losing Your identity. I appreciate Your integrity but You're just not thinking about this with an open mind. Cognitive dissent. Truth is, the patents are probably the best real evidence to support geoengineering. Really, tell Me when a company has designed a product when there is no potential to sell it? NOT LOGICAL. Please, use constructive arguments. No point asking for data if You refuse to accept it. Also, library books will never teach You anything except what You are permitted to know. I don't know why it is so hard for You to accept that this is happening or why they would want to keep it secret. Plenty of reasons for it like countering global warming, subversive warfare, manipulating weather for better crops. But it would make sense to keep this technology under wraps as long as possible. Do You really think You know about the US top weapons? No, You don't. They have shit the American people would never approve of, far worse than nuclear weapons. Denying that this is happening entirely discredits You. Maybe You're young. Maybe You don't remember what real clouds look like. Or maybe You believe they've changed as a result of global warming or something. I've got no idea. But I know what I see in the sky is not contrails because they NEVER lasted that long, never spread out and never shut out the sun the way they do now on a heavy spray day. Cloud seeding IS geoengineering by the way, which further discredits You. You admit to one but not the other. Totally illogical when they are the same thing. You need to add chemicals to the stream to seed clouds - that is geoengineering. Goodnight.


I ask again.

Do you have links with supporting evidence of "verified scientists" claiming chemtrail activity?

To date there has been nothing concrete offered to support the contention other than dubious at best self proclaimed experts doing some seat of the pants testing which has been doubtful at best.

Could you please try to stay with evidence rather than make generalizations and try to find ways of calling people who don't agree with you idiots without outright saying as much?

I look at evidence rather than consensus.
 

RealTruth

Member
You do it again, you assume geoengineering is happening because there are patents describing it, which is a false argument. If geoengineering is going to happen in a future there might be people making money of it indeed, but as for now nobody seems to be doing that.

I guess some people might invest in patents as there are people investing in small companies to make a lot of money out of them when they grow big, but it is a big gamble I would say. If it is true what you say and geoengineering is going on, somebody must have gotten pretty rich from such a patent. Can you give such an example?
I won't. I will close with this, well thought out argument to see if I can clarify My frustration. I do not want to say it is or isn't happening. I don't frankly know. What I do know is that there is aluminum and barium of varying concentrations in the atmosphere. What I do know is that trees all over My own town are suffering from excessive UVA and UVB rays, I can send pictures in the spring if You want to see the diseased trees. I am listening to the data, which shows increased PH levels of soil and unusual amounts of aluminum. This is the data which I won't provide or get into again as there is plenty on Dane's site and plenty was offered to You in Your debate. My position is that this data points to and strongly suggests geoengineering based on logic from data I have seen. Negating DATA because it may have been windy or because You don't trust the instruments the scientist is using - that sounds like denial. And I am not convinced that any data, regardless how valid would be accepted by You. That's all. Thank You.
 

Rns

Member
I won't. I will close with this, well thought out argument to see if I can clarify My frustration. I do not want to say it is or isn't happening. I don't frankly know. What I do know is that there is aluminum and barium of varying concentrations in the atmosphere. What I do know is that trees all over My own town are suffering from excessive UVA and UVB rays, I can send pictures in the spring if You want to see the diseased trees. I am listening to the data, which shows increased PH levels of soil and unusual amounts of aluminum. This is the data which I won't provide or get into again as there is plenty on Dane's site and plenty was offered to You in Your debate. My position is that this data points to and strongly suggests geoengineering based on logic from data I have seen. Negating DATA because it may have been windy or because You don't trust the instruments the scientist is using - that sounds like denial. And I am not convinced that any data, regardless how valid would be accepted by You. That's all. Thank You.

It appears that you believe Dane to be a "scientist"

Is this true?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West The Dimming - New Documentary From Dane Wigington Contrails and Chemtrails 8
MikeG Toxic Spraying and Radio Frequency Bombardment Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Jacob Aman J. Marvin Herndon's chemtrail letter to San Diego City Council Contrails and Chemtrails 39
Rico Debunked: Dane Wigington's Undeniable Footage of Jet Aircraft Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 42
FuzzyUK "Geoengineering And The Collapse Of Earth 2014", a Dane Wigington presentation Contrails and Chemtrails 16
JRBids Dane Wigington "Nucleated 'fake snow' demystified" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Dane Wigington - Inaccuracies and Omissions Contrails and Chemtrails 269
TWCobra Wigington/Max Bliss Debunked. Automated Chemtrail dispersal Commercial aircraft Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Jay Reynolds Dane Wigington & Co. get taken to the cleaners by climate scientists Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Hama Neggs Challenge from Dane Wigington General Discussion 71
Jay Reynolds Global Skywatch Conference Call with Dane Wigington, Nov 2012 Contrails and Chemtrails 110
B Howdy from the Wild West Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Mick West on the H3 Podcast General Discussion 0
Mick West Tales From the Rabbit Hole - A Mick West / Metabunk Podcast Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 20
Rory Observations of West Hampton Dunes from Mastic Beach, Long Island Flat Earth 9
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 16
John85 How could the interior collapse in WTC7 Move West Without More Visible Exterior Damage 9/11 63
deirdre PSA: Mick West discusses Flat Earth on Joe Rogan (JRE) show today Flat Earth 8
derwoodii Hundreds Of Millions Of Salmon Feared Dead On US West Coast due to Fukushima nuclear General Discussion 3
Mick West Four Engines, Flying West over Sacramento Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Mick West Possible Explanations for the West Virginia "Mothman" Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
Mick West Debunked: Carbon Monoxide "Explosion" on US West Coast Feb 26th? [Terra Satellite Glitch] General Discussion 13
Mick West Mick West on the Pat Walsh Show, KFBK Sacrament, Talking About Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Flynn Mick West Interview for "Overcast" documentary by Dedal Films Contrails and Chemtrails 97
Whitebeard Claim: 'Bigfoot' filmed in West Virginia Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 16
S Black exhaust, contrail, or chemtrail? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Chew Video examining Fukushima west coast impact Science and Pseudoscience 6
ssfor27 Aircraft Caught "Spraying" over Key West Contrails and Chemtrails 8
TemplarJLS I have a question General Discussion 38
Leifer Investigated: "Why are massive numbers of sea creatures dying along the west coast" Science and Pseudoscience 19
Mick West Mick West on Warning: Radio General Discussion 10
Mackdog Debunked: Fukashima radiation reaches west coast Conspiracy Theories 54
Mick West Mick West: My appearance on SkyderAlerts "Look Up" is not an endorsement Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Mick West Mick West on Joe Rogan Experience General Discussion 84
TWCobra Debate Challenge from Madisonstar Moon to Mick West West/Wigington Geoengineering Debate 283
joelb79 Video shows missile hitting West Texas fertilizer plant Conspiracy Theories 272
Canadasix If its just contrails why does it start from the east and work it's way west? Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West Debunked: Two Disinfo Sites Run by 'Just Some Guy - Mick West Contrails and Chemtrails 38
J Fukushima Radiation hitting the US/West Coast General Discussion 7
Agent K Earthquake at China Lake Current Events 1
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
MikeG Geoengineering in Southeastern Pennsylvania Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Geoengineering Watch and the Wagon Wheel Effect Contrails and Chemtrails 20
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Magic77 What is this Dark Mysterious Line in the Sky Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West Banff Chemtrails Billboard Worries David Keith Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top