Wigington/West Geoengineering Debate

RealTruth said:
Not going here. Because I've seen new explanations for old phenomenon. Ideas 'changing', situations and positions 'changing'. If I can't trust what I see, I can't trust anything. If We believe everything We are told, We are fools.
Click to expand...

I think I already asked you if you believe your eyes when you see the Sun orbit the Earth on a daily basis. You have no response?
 
Rns said:
Not in expansion methods.

The air does need to be saturated but it does not need to have large enough nucleation to be seen as a "cloud"

We are venturing into a semantics issue methinks.
Click to expand...
Good to know. I was going based on what I was told by someone at WMI, but maybe it's a matter of which methods they generally use.
 
RealTruth said:
The weather is too wild and the potential for HAARP and the knowledge that such weapons need reflective particles in the air suggest there is something going on.
Click to expand...

For over a decade, Nancy Lieder of ZETATALK fame had many followers convinced that "weird weather" was being caused by a rogue planet entering the solar system. She provided lots of supposed "proof" of the existence of her "Planet X". Was it true? No, of course not.
 
Belfrey said:
Good to know. I was going based on what I was told by someone at WMI, but maybe it's a matter of which methods they generally use.
Click to expand...
It is an interesting field and the methods and practices have been advancing at a fair pace.

I remember when many people considered weather modification pseudoscience.
 
RealTruth said:
I just refuse to believe they are not putting SOMETHING in our air.
Click to expand...

This is the big problem here, you're not being scientific.

You refuse to believe, no matter the amount of data, evidence or personal experience presented to you, as you said yourself.

You say you base all your opinions in your own experience and observations, and yet you present already debunked "evidence" or somebody else researches, instead of your own.

When was the last time you tested your rain or your snow instead of believing somebody's else data. Why do you believe so much only in the scientists that say that something is being sprayed and so little in those that say that nothing is being sprayed? Why don't you believe in photos from 1950 and before presented to you showing that persistent contrails did occur in the past?

I really think you're smart, but are failing to question your premises.
 
RealTruth said:
I am listening to the data, which shows increased PH levels of soil and unusual amounts of aluminum.
Click to expand...
Now on this point there was much done to alleviate acid rain since it was first noticed as a problem I think back in the late 60s to early 70s so is there a possibility that the current soil samples are reflecting the decrease in soil PH?

I will set aside the testing methods and quantity of samples that Wigington bases his claims on for this.

It would need to be considered before jumping into the PH readings being due to chemrails.
 
RealTruth said:
I just refuse to believe they are not putting SOMETHING in our air. I just want to know what it is.
Click to expand...

It is the exhaust products from the combustion of hydrocarbon fuel and some additives.

Now that you know you don't have to worry about it any more.
 
RealTruth said:
And developing these compounds would be costly.
Click to expand...

RealTruth said:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/19/russia-un-climate-report-geoengineering
Click to expand...

Did you read those reports carefully?

Sulphur is removed from jet fuel. There is a proposal to stop removing sulphur from fuels as a means of releasing more sulphur at high altitudes The would leave out a step in fuel production rather than adding one and leaving IN a substance already present rather than taking it out. How is that a costly development?
The Russian tests done so far over a 2 square mile area of farmland near the city of Saratov on the Volga river 300 miles south east of Moscow , initiated by Yuri A. Izrael involved 5 passes using a smoke machine at 650 feet altitude from a helicopter and measuring how much dimmer it gets on the ground. They later tried using a smoke machine at 8000ft from the same Mikoyan_8 helicopter. Skywriters normally operate at 7 to 15 thousand feet altitude.
The Russians suggest they would like to conduct a test where they could make a smoke cloud 8km long over Russia.
From those crude experiments you seem to be deducing that a worldwide geoengineering program is already underway?

Are you aware of the difference between geoengineering proposals and cloudseeding/weather modification?




RealTruth said:
But if I had a patent for ............, then it would mean that there is a market.... Who would approve a patent for geoengineering if it isn't happening?
Click to expand...

OK, so that must mean there is a market for centrifuging babies out of vaginas since there is a patent for it:
http://www.google.com/patents/US3216423
Maybe that's why my kids love theme parks so much?

In reality, anything can be patented and there is no requirement that the idea actually works or has ever been tested.
 
RealTruth said:
Again, I believe there are. This is what Dane was talking about with reference to three plumes or additional plumes aside from what appears to be propelling the plane. You have seen photos of this and dispute it as condensation on the wings or something.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Dane didn't even know about aerodynamic contrails! He is still under the impression that the KC-10 Extender video shows an aircraft spraying from nozzles. He wasn't even aware that the original video was a spoof made to suck in gullible chemtrail believers. It was quite clear that like many in the chemtrail community he had never seen the original video and was only relying on the altered and spun videos from the likes of Rosario Marciano (Known as Tanker Enemy on You Tube). If he has no knowledge of aerodynamic contrails then yes I can fully understand why he misinterprets 'three plumes' or 'additional plumes'.

See following for transcript of debate between Dane and Mick.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...odynamic-contrails-as-proof-of-spraying.2250/

The links to the original spoof video are in the above link. See following for all the videos from the original source. Notice the close-up video and no they are not 'nozzles' as Dane believes.

https://www.youtube.com/user/USAFFEKC10A?feature=watch
 

"Selective memory". Yes. It is actually a viable explanation. This goes along with people claiming that they "remember" the skies being "more blue" when they were younger. I can invite anyone to come visit the Los Angeles area, and see the typical "blue" sky color....it hasn't changed in fifty years. (In fact, in the case of LA, it's gotten MORE blue, with less smog and other air pollution, from when I was growing up here).

Member "RealTruth", you tend to write a lot in response which is reactive, and offer little that is pro-active. Seems much of it is some boiler-plate that is something you've read, and are just repeating.

One thing you could do is to learn more about aviation...no matter where you live (since you have Internet access, obviously), you could do an Internet search for flight schools nearby. Go, is what I'd suggest. Take at least one "Introductory" lesson...most schools offer this.

Or, if money is tight...just go to a nearby airport, preferably a large one...find pilots to speak with face-to-face. I can write until the cows come home (here on the Internet) about my aviation experience, but cannot really 'prove' any of it to your satisfaction (I am guessing), so seek out people who YOU can personally verify. And, just ask. Many pilots are former Flight Instructors, and some may even be willing to disabuse you of your misconceptions, for free. I do it here, for free!!
 
Last edited:
RealTruth said:
It's interesting to note, though, that when those claims were first being made, it was by the con-artists who are in the "chem"trail hysteria "business", in order to keep it going. They resort to any number of lies and manipulations, in order to promote this scam, for their own personal benefit.
This got My attention. What is the motivation behind keeping the conspiracy going, if not to discredit conspiracy theorists and make them seem 'nutty'? Really. If what You say is true, they fed the rumour, then debunked it? Is this to deliberately discredit conspiracy theories? What other motivation would there be?
Click to expand...

This is interesting. I recognize some of what I wrote, there. YOUR portion, I will re-quote below, for clarity:

This got My attention. What is the motivation behind keeping the conspiracy going, if not to discredit conspiracy theorists and make them seem 'nutty'? Really. If what You say is true, they fed the rumour, then debunked it? Is this to deliberately discredit conspiracy theories? What other motivation would there be?
Click to expand...

You seem to be trying to say that there are active 'de-bunkers' acting as (the current Internet term is "POE")...as "poes" on the Internet, in order to discredit (as you call them) "conspiracy theorists"? Well....I'd say that conspiracy theorists discredit themselves quite well already, without any help needed!

I say this from some practice engaging with many such "theorists", on a variety of topics...topics which I either know already a LOT about (like aviation), or that I was already keen on (like Apollo, for example). I learn a LOT every time, as I learn how to better present the science, the rationality, the common sense reasoning.

AS TO the, as you asked, "other motivations"? There are at least two (possibly three) that I can think of, off hand.

1} Those who continue to promote this scam, this hoax of "chem"trails do so knowingly, and in full knowledge that they are "selling" a lie. This helps to perpetuate a, as I called it, "business" that involves the selling of books, and videos....for profit;

2} Those who are employed tangentially with #1, above, to act as agents, as "shills" if you please;

3} Those who are the "targets" of #! & #2 above...who are the "marks", the gullible, the "fish". This facet of society includes those who truly are fooled, and through no fault of their own, are victims of this HOAX.

Hoaxes and scams exist everywhere, not only today, but are part of history. Think of the nonsense of "Seances", popular in the early 20th century (and that Harry Houdini campaigned against, until his death). In fact, speaking of Houdini...it is often true that those most skilled in the art of "fooling an audience" know very, very well how to spot the deceptions mounted by others, even if in unrelated fields. There are many, many more examples of Human capacity to be fooled, to be gullible, to simply "believe" what they are told, without taking time to critically examine it. I daresay..."religion" is one of the most egregious examples, but this begins to stray off-topic, and more to my personal convictions...and best discussed on the many forums devoted to it. Still, it is an aspect of Human nature...'gullibility', that is....and is undeniable.
 
WeedWhacker said:
This is interesting. I recognize some of what I wrote, there. YOUR portion, I will re-quote below, for clarity:



You seem to be trying to say that there are active 'de-bunkers' acting as (the current Internet term is "POE")...as "poes" on the Internet, in order to discredit (as you call them) "conspiracy theorists"? Well....I'd say that conspiracy theorists discredit themselves quite well already, without any help needed!
Click to expand...
wtheck is a POE?[/QUOTE]
 
deirdre said:
wtheck is a POE?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Ah..."POE" (or 'poe') from Urban Dictionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe

It originally and specifically refers to those who "spoof" religious fundamentalists, online. But, it can be expanded to include any and all who "spoof" any topic.

A derivation of "Poe's Law":
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s%20Law

EDIT: I guess I have to be more careful about the caps, as in "Poe", etc. But, there is likely a better alternative? Give the Internet time, it will come up with one, no doubt!! Lots of creativity out there!
 
WeedWhacker said:
Ah..."POE" (or 'poe') from Urban Dictionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe

It originally and specifically refers to those who "spoof" religious fundamentalists, online. But, it can be expanded to include any and all who "spoof" any topic.

A derivation of "Poe's Law":
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s%20Law

EDIT: I guess I have to be more careful about the caps, as in "Poe", etc. But, there is likely a better alternative? Give the Internet time, it will come up with one, no doubt!! Lots of creativity out there!
Click to expand...
lol. oh, I read that three times trying to figure out what y'all were talking about. makes a lot more sense now. ;)
 
RealTruth said:
I suppose I should at least clarify this. No, not Dane Wigington. He has scientific data that I trust because he always quotes his sources and works with other geoengineers and 'real' scientists in the field. I would call him a scientist for those reasons, but I have no idea if he himself has any 'degree', if that's what You mean. But check out his work in detail, it is all well quoted and credited to those who help him gather data. He does an awful lot of work and gets a considerable amount of support from various professional communities.
Click to expand...

This is an example why Dane Wigington is no where near "scientific": https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mi...ook-up-is-not-an-endorsement.2813/#post-88836

He cites a patent which in reality does not even use the methodology he describes, the patent even discredits that methodology. Somehow Dane made this patent his big starting point in "Look Up", despite the fact that it does not in any way contain the methodology Dane claims (solar obscuration).

Understand, Wigington is a guy who doesn't care about facts as long as you agree with him.

Also, here is a discussion thread that might interest you concerning "selective memory" or so called "false memories": https://www.metabunk.org/threads/di...es-and-no-persistent-trails-in-the-past.2517/

The point is, if we don't pay attention to a particular thing because we don't find it relevant, we don't store that information in our memory. But due to the suggestive nature of conspiracy theories, ie., they work through our emotions, we tend to substitute that lack of memory with a conviction that we have consciously observed a negative. Especially since that is what the anti-chemtrail community tells you to believe.

So in the end, the lack of memory due to not finding contrail behaviour relevant in the past - becomes a false memory of not seeing persistent contrails in the past.

And of course, the fact that there were much less air traffic in the past further increases the effect of this false memory phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
I remember observing a total sky white-over (because of crossing contrails over Dunstable Down) while picnicking with my wife and friends. It was the summer of 1970.

At the time it was no worry. Ice is harmless.

I knew what, how, and where, because I knew both about how jet engines exactly worked, and the nature of the atmosphere at the height those engines were running.

Nothing has changed in the physical world except for an increased number of aircraft in the sky. More ice - is still harmless.

But people are now lying about it. That ISN'T.
 
Hi Everyone!

My name is Chris Engen and I'm an actor, writer and musician from the Los Angeles area. I've been researching the chemtrail/contrail debate for quite some time now and I'd really like to find out the truth once and for all. I'm not a scientist, but I do love science. I stumbled onto this forum while researching Dane Wigington's work and it is my intention to offer something valid to the debate.

Can you please post the audio of the debate somewhere so I can listen to it? Thanks!

Chris Engen
 
Chris Engen said:
Hi Everyone!

My name is Chris Engen and I'm an actor, writer and musician from the Los Angeles area. I've been researching the chemtrail/contrail debate for quite some time now and I'd really like to find out the truth once and for all. I'm not a scientist, but I do love science. I stumbled onto this forum while researching Dane Wigington's work and it is my intention to offer something valid to the debate.

Can you please post the audio of the debate somewhere so I can listen to it? Thanks!

Chris Engen
Click to expand...

Hi Chris, I've emailed you a link to the audio. The transcript is complete and verbatim though. Feel free to ask questions.
 
Thanks Mick. Nice job with the transcription by the way. So I take it Dane has not produced a video of the UV A/B readings?
 
RealTruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is if I make it up, then it is a FACT? Cool!
 
I'll drop an observation, here, that Dane Wigington is fighting the trend of those who believe that global warming doesn't exist. Dane apparently believes global warming is a real problem and that geoengineering is meant to control it, but is having the opposite effect. I guess he believes the people implementing the geoengineering(since the late 40s) are so stupid that they don't understand what he can easily see - that it's actually causing more warming and will destroy the planet.
 
Hama Neggs said:
I'll drop an observation, here, that Dane Wigington is fighting the trend of those who believe that global warming doesn't exist. Dane apparently believes global warming is a real problem and that geoengineering is meant to control it, but is having the opposite effect. I guess he believes the people implementing the geoengineering(since the late 40s) are so stupid that they don't understand what he can easily see - that it's actually causing more warming and will destroy the planet.
Click to expand...
I think Dane is on a money making drive. And anything he has to say to get more people onboard his bank roll will be said. Anything that has to chnge to align with whats been proven will change. I dont believe he or alex believe what they sell.
 
I agree. I think these guys are firm believers. You can tell by the way they talk that they truly don't understand how Mick can think otherwise. The problem with them is that they are not dumb but they are also not scientific. Combine that with Dane's obvious car salesman, preacher type of personality and you get him set in his ways and followers who believe him all the way. It's frustrating to read the transcript without being able to interject. Im afraid poor Mick really is "just some guy" whereas those other two are seasoned con-artists. They may not know they are but they are good at debating and arguing their point in a roundabout, slimy way. Cheers to Mick though, he is always so calm. Just trying to get the facts out while they are like a circus all around him.
 
What a read so far. Hey @Mick West during the debate an argument was made that oxygen was dropping at "extremely fast rates." And you countered it accordingly. I'm curious. Could you provide a link that you got that from. I just want to read it because I can't lie when I first heard that claim it freaked me out a little haha. You provides great information!
 
derrick06 said:
What a read so far. Hey @Mick West during the debate an argument was made that oxygen was dropping at "extremely fast rates." And you countered it accordingly. I'm curious. Could you provide a link that you got that from. I just want to read it because I can't lie when I first heard that claim it freaked me out a little haha. You provides great information!
Click to expand...

Mick West said:
Dane seemed to be suggesting that the oxygen levels in the atmosphere had dropped so much that they were no-longer blocking UVB. I knew that was a wild claim, as any significant change on oxygen would be massive news. If you look it up though the first result I found was:
http://disinfo.com/2013/01/atmosphe...er-than-atmospheric-carbon-levels-are-rising/
External Quote:

Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Are Dropping Faster Than Atmospheric Carbon Levels Are Rising
by Good German on January 27, 2013 in News
upload.wikimedia.org_wikipedia_commons_thumb_c_c7_Earth6391.jpg_128px_Earth6391.jpg
Forget rising temperatures and bigger storms, this is the big problem that neither side of the mainstream debate over environmental destruction is talking about. Peter Tatchell reported for the Guardianback in 2008:

The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects.

Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis.
Which makes it seem like Dane might actually have a point. However if you look deeper, at the actual (hard to read) research behind this, you find that the atmospheric O2 is basically unchanged for the last few thousand years. And the recent decline is something like from 20.95% to 20.94% (or even smaller). Comparisons with prehistoric times are meaningless. One might as well compare the temperatures now to the last ice age and say global warming is a much bigger problem than we thought. Plus if you go back a bit further to the precambrian, the levels of O2 were around 10%.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php
External Quote:

The largest fall in O2 was observed in the study of Swiss research team led by Francesco Valentino at University of Bern, for data collected at high altitude research stations in Switzerland and France. The Jungfraujoch (JFJ) station in Switzerland (3 580 m above sea level, 46o 33'N, 7o 50'E) is located on a mountain crest on the northern edge of the Swiss Alps. The Puy de Dôme station (1 480 m above sea level, 45o46'N, 2o 58'E) is situated west of the Alps at the summit of Puy de Dôme.

The research team confirmed the general upward trend for atmospheric CO2 and a downward trend in atmospheric O2. But since 2003 for JFJ, and mid 2002 for at Puy, there is a significant enhancement of O2 and CO2 trends compared to previous years. At JFJ, the rate of CO2 increase shifted up from 1.08 ppm (parts per million) for the years 2001-2002 to 2.41 ppm/y for 2003-2006; while the increase in D(O2/N2) and APO (measures of oxygen concentration, see Box 1) shifted downwards to greater extents from –2.4 ppm/y and -1.5 ppm/y to -9.5 ppm/y and -6.9 ppm/y respectively.
the largest decrease is -9.5ppm/year, or 0.00095% decline per year.
Click to expand...
 
Another question about Dane in the debate. He mentions his measurements were taken by someone who is a "40 year environmental monitoring veteran." But what exactly does that mean? Does it mean this person is well versed in the tests that they are doing? Because as Mick said, If they have been "spraying" for oh so long now to combat global warming which would reduce UV, why is it that suddenly he is saying UV has increased? Isn't that a contradiction? What was your take on that? @Mick West ? Didn't really add up for me on all of his claims.
 
I think that he thinks that the UV increase is a new thing, caused by the atmosphere finally breaking down after years of spraying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Giddierone
Claim: "They're eating the dogs" - Trump / Harris Presidential Debate '24
3 4 5
Replies
183
Views
5K
Greene
Greene
Charlie Wiser
US forensic scientist Dr John McDowell says the small Nazca mummies are NOT REAL
Replies
23
Views
3K
Charlie Wiser
Charlie Wiser
Mick West
Errors in Luis Elizondo's UFO Book "Imminent"
4 5 6
Replies
217
Views
9K
elvenwear
elvenwear
Mick West
Sean Kirkpatrick's Interview With Daniel Lavelle at The Guardian [Transcript]
Replies
26
Views
5K
MapperGuy
M
FastIndy
Choteau, Montana UFO, 2024-08-31 - Reddit [Starlink + Plane]
Replies
21
Views
2K
FatPhil
FatPhil

Latest posts

Back
Top