1. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    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?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior 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.
     
  3. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Rns

    Rns Member

    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.
     
  5. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Rns

    Rns Member

    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.
     
  7. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    You are full of irony today! 3rd times a charm?
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  8. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    The sign of a truly closed mind.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  10. Rns

    Rns Member

    Thank you mick
     
  11. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member

    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?




    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    no it doesn't - there is no such requirement.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. TEEJ

    TEEJ Senior Member

    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
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. WeedWhacker

    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: Feb 20, 2014
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker 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!

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  17. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    wtheck is a POE?[/QUOTE]
     
  18. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    [/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!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    lol. oh, I read that three times trying to figure out what y'all were talking about. makes a lot more sense now. ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yes!! And, your "Ab Fab" avatar is priceless!! Makes me want to go watch that series all over again!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  21. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Last edited: Feb 21, 2014
  22. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    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: Feb 21, 2014
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  23. Jazzy

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Chris Engen

    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
     
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

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

    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?
     
  27. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

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

    mrfintoil Active Member

    Don't you find it humorous how these people love truth, but hate facts?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  29. Hama Neggs

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  30. 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.
     
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I really don't think Dane is making any money from this. He's a true believer.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
  32. Geochick1

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  33. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

  34. derrick06

    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!
     
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

     
    • Like Like x 1
  36. derrick06

    derrick06 Active Member

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

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Or just normal cycles. But the change is incredibly small. A thousandth of a percent per year.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  38. derrick06

    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.
     
  39. Mick West

    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.
     
  40. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Gee, duh.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1