Wigington/West Geoengineering Debate

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
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.

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?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
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.
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.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
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.

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.
 

Rns

Member
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.
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.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
I just refuse to believe they are not putting SOMETHING in our air.

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.
 

Rns

Member
I am listening to the data, which shows increased PH levels of soil and unusual amounts of aluminum.
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.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I just refuse to believe they are not putting SOMETHING in our air. I just want to know what it is.

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.
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
And developing these compounds would be costly.


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?




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?

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.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
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.

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
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member

"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:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
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?

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?

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.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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!
wtheck is a POE?[/QUOTE]
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
wtheck is a POE?
[/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!
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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!
lol. oh, I read that three times trying to figure out what y'all were talking about. makes a lot more sense now. ;)
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
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.

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:

Jazzy

Closed Account
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.
 

Chris Engen

New Member
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
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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

Hi Chris, I've emailed you a link to the audio. The transcript is complete and verbatim though. Feel free to ask questions.
 

Chris Engen

New Member
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?
 

JRBids

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.

So what you are saying is if I make it up, then it is a FACT? Cool!
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
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.
 
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.
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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 really don't think Dane is making any money from this. He's a true believer.
 

Geochick1

New Member
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.
 

derrick06

Active Member
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!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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!

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/
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
the largest decrease is -9.5ppm/year, or 0.00095% decline per year.
 

derrick06

Active Member
Ah ok! So, the levels are nothing outside of "normal" and can probably be attributed to deforestation and such.
 

derrick06

Active Member
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think that he thinks that the UV increase is a new thing, caused by the atmosphere finally breaking down after years of spraying.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
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
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 12
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" UFOs, Aliens, 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
Mick West Mick West Interview for "Overcast" documentary by Dedal Films Contrails and Chemtrails 97
Whitebeard Claim: 'Bigfoot' filmed in West Virginia UFOs, Aliens, 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
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
MikeG Debunked: Geoengineering Killing Great Barrier Reef Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top