Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Critical Thinker, Apr 23, 2013.
Most interesting . . . like two people speaking different languages thinking they are communicating . . .
Clearly correspondence borne of frustration on both sides. Shame to see this CT wasting the time of that organisation too.
The error for Graham Thompson was responding further than his first sentence in his initial reply. That's all he needed to say.
Max Bliss is a very aggressive individual . . . seems most disturbed by the rejection by Greenpeace . . . this is the first time I have actually felt sorry for Greenpeace !!
I was taking a look at the letter he links (or tries to link, he messed up the URL), from Monika Griefhan, in which he says she is "admitting there is a program of chemtrailing." My German is rusty and was never very great, but if I'm reading it right, she's saying that she is aware of research and experimentation into geo-engineering, but she is firmly opposed to such strategies, which treat the symptoms rather than addressing the cause: greenhouse gas emissions. She says that while the release of aluminum and barium compounds could have some toxic effects, to her knowledge any amounts released up to then had been very small. Furthermore, she states that such a program would involve release of materials into the stratosphere, rather than the troposphere.
As far as I can see, she doesn't "admit" to an ongoing chemtrails program. If Freizeitgeist reads this, I'm sure this could be cleared up.
Edited to add: She starts out by saying something to the effect of, "I'm sorry that your previous attempts at communication were so frustrating, that you felt the need to fill your letter with so many unfriendly and hurtful remarks." Judging from Max Bliss above, this is a standard practice.
Monika Griefhahn is member of the german Parlament ("Bundestag") for the socialdemocratic Party and a member of GReenpeace.
As she wroted this letter 2004, the Chemtrail-hypothesis was very unknown in Germany, She answered very polite and just doesn´t know if these chemtrails are real or not. So she answered for the posibility if someone would do this.
Years later she was asked again, and this is the Answer the chemtrail-Belieers doesn´t like so much like her first Letter:
But there is an official Statement about Chemtrails from Greenpeace-Germany. Our german "Carnicom", Mr. Werner Altnickel was a Greenpeace-Activist and was thrown out by them
Greenpeace Germany wroted in on of their magazins for members 2004
Since this, there is a kind of love&hate relationship between Altnickel and his fans and Greenpeace. For Example they made a smal Greenpeace-like Action in front of the headquarter of Greenpeace Germany.
Max Bliss. What a wonderful character. He is the one that told me rainwater should only contain 0.08 ug/l of Al and when asked how he had arrived at that figure he had "calculated" it.
I notice that Patrick Moore has been mentioned in the comments above. He is often cited by chemtrailers and their favourite quote of
Strong words indeed, and totally misquoted, yet the chemtrailers conveniently ignore the fact that he is pro-nuclear, pro-GMO and worked for a logging company, essentially against all that Greenpeace stands for.
However there is the unescapable fact that no environmental group accepts the premise of chemtrails, and many would wet themselves over an issue like this.
0.08 ug/L of aluminum? That is less than 1/10th of one microgram(ug) in one Liter. Consider that a grain of sand weighs about 100 micrograms (ug). What 'Max Bliss' is claiming is that natural rain water should only contain 1/10th of one percent of one grain of sand worth of the most common metal found in earth's crust? Bear in mind that almost all clay dusts contain large amounts of aluminum, between 2 and 3 percent! Max's claim simply boggles the mind.
What's worse though, perhaps, is that 'Max Bliss' seems blissfully unaware that the minimum detection limit for aluminum in these water tests is 750 ug/L.
People like 'Max Bliss' are both a boon and a liability for the hoax. On the one hand they target folks who don't bother to really understand the sometimes technical issues. The effect of that is to develop the belief system towards a membership with a 'low information' standard as well as proven gullibility. Effectively, this selects out from the group those who might otherwise question what they are told.
However, this process also prevents progress by excluding those with technical expertise such as scientists or environmental professionals like the Greenpeace guy. 'Max Bliss' doesn't even want Greenpeace to be involved, whether he knows it or not.
They threaten his dominance of the table and are actually the last sort of people he really wants to be involved. Unconsciously, perhaps, what he is doing is throwing up a wall between Greenpeace and his followers in order to maintain the status quo.
That is why we don't see Michael J. Murphy, Dane Wigington, or Max Bliss engaging in debate or conversation about these matters, they don't want to know, but perhaps more significantly they don't want others to know where they have made serious mistakes. Not very honorable behavior, in my opinion.
To be fair to Max Bliss Jay he does get out there and is quite passionate. Unfortunately when it comes to understanding and science he [fails]. He does know how to play to a crowd and has a few followers. He is going on tour
Has anyone ever seen him do a debate on the subject?
Would he be willing to do a fair debate with me?
I have been blocked by all their FB pages and I really want to go to a "meet". Ask him Jay. I seem to have burned my bridges as obviously they read here so block me on FB. How could we organise a
Max was the guy who told me I eat Borax to ward off the effects of flying in chemtrails. I comment a lot on his YT videos and got this reply from him after I questioned why chemtrail believers never appear to really believe the theory as none ever seem to wear face masks....which I would consider crucial if one were being poisoned. The response is interesting.
So, apart from their standard definition of "troll" (someone who disagrees with your position????) he does appear to accept I am a pilot. I might see if he would contemplate a debate.
Because I haven't seen this done before, I propose a third party manage a Youtube video debatebetween two parties.
The third party could manage the video channel and commentary, and debaters would each create videos following the Lincoln-Douglas debate format as seen here:
There should be a time limit within which the videos must be completed, say within 2-3 days of the last exchange, and the complete debate should not be made public until it is completed.
I'm not sure what to think about Max, except that it would be fun to debate him.
This is what he is currently saying at his website:
"millions of people worldwide"? In his mind.
Air, or rainwater?? Should you bother to take the time out to explain the difference to him??
That would be an exercise in futility.
I have commented on his videos in a fact-oriented fashion. At least he is not deleting sceptical comments or blocking commenters immediately.
His responses point to a somewhat 'evangelistic' approach. He just knows he is dealing with government agents and tries to encourage them to convert/repent/see the light.
Anyway, I think the comment areas of his videos are probably a good place to post factual information and reach lots of chemtrailers - if you manage to stay cool.
One CT guy was recently alarmed (Chemtrails Awareness FB page) that alumina levels were "off the leash" at 0.156ppm against a US EPA reportable level of 0.6ppm. Maths is my training, so I first noticed that this is about one-quarter of the reportable level - well and truly still "on the leash".
I'm no chemist but within 3 minutes looking at Wikipedia and the US EPA documentation on reportable substances it turned out that aluminium oxide (alumina) is not on the reportable substances register, and it is the nice and inert abrasive in toothpaste. I did point this out and ask why CTers were also afraid of toothpaste as well as coulds and water, and got blocked for questioning their personal hygiene. I'm very new to this chemtrail stuff but it seems the best argument they have is "Look up at the sky, maaaan!!!!!!!"
Reminds me of this:
Not comparing Max to Oswald of course, but there often comes a point when you have to recognize that future communication is not leading anywhere productive unless the fundamental disagreements can actually be addressed.
Even aside from the glaring math error, that 0.6 ppm is not even an EPA reporting limit, at least as far as I can find. Aluminum falls under EPA's "Secondary Standards", voluntary recommended limits for contaminants in drinking water that may cause aesthetic or taste issues:
Noticeable Effects above the Secondary MCL
0.05 to 0.2 mg/L*
Edited to add: Sorry, I see now in your post that you already saw it wasn't on the reportable list.
This is something I find all the time, just a basic lack of understanding on limits etc. Even more frustrating is when I get in a debate and suddenly I am quoted levels that have no resembelence to anything I have seen. When asked for a link it us usually for a different country and a different medium.
Add in to that the folks that don't seem to understand 'that the dose makes the poison". A hard to measure amount is just as bad to them as a ton of it would be.
I've seen a documentary on poisons where they stated that in toxicology, the time/duration of exposure is more important than the toxicity itself, tobacco for instance
If it builds up in the tissues, that is true, if it does not allow the body to heal itself that is also true.
I have not got the figures to hand but in occupational health and safety they often have quantity over a fixed period. I know that air particulate Al is usually given as x ug/m3 for an 8 hour period. Anything over x is deemed hazardous.
Not only not on the reportable list, but it's the abrasive component of tooth paste.
I haven't seen any limits, but this CDC report (5mb pdf) notes some fatalitites and damage to lungs from 615– 685 mg Al/m3, and respirable dust was 51 mg Al/m3 (not sure what the difference between "total" and "respireable" is)
Edit: Found some limits:
On Greenpeace's website's blog section is an piece that addresses the chemmies claims:
Unfortunately that explanation is not entirely correct; they might inform themselves on Metabunk. But besides that I'm glad that they are on the ground with both feet.
First, apologies for being so late to the game... (I hadn't even heard of Metabunk in April 2013, never mind 2012)
And 30 minutes ago I had no idea who Graham Thompson was (evidently he's still with Greenpeace in 2015)
but I found his frankness and tone refreshing...he was willing to call a spade a spade, and a hoax a hoax,
long before many of us had heard of Max Bliss (is that a made-up name, btw?)
I understand why some wouldn't think Mr. Thompson quite polite enough...
but the highlighted portion--in the correspondence below--has started my Tuesday off with a big smile.
The use of the word "climate change hoax" in the original letter was unfortunate, and diverted attention from your claim about chemtrails. Climate change is not a hoax. If you had just asked them about chemtrails, you might have generated some interest.
Second, apologies for being so late to the game...again. I know it's wrong, but I've just got to type:
"Thank 'God' for Bertrand Russell!!"
Not really "unfortunate". The idea that climate change is a hoax seems to be central to Max Bliss's views. But really, whether or not you believe that anthropogenic global warming is a genuine concern doesn't make any difference to the matter of "chemtrails".
Separate names with a comma.