Interview of Dane Wigington of GeoEngineering Watch

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

Have a look here www.metabunk.org... and remember it's the information we critique and not the source, right?

I read your metabunk article against my better judgement. It reminded me of how the ranking for earthquakes changed after the Northridge quake. In the metabunk world there are two separate scales to judge when and if a contrail should form. The same scale cannot be applied to both newer and older engines, according to metabunk. Why is this?

It is because in the older engine world one of the ways to mitigate contrails was to make the combustion more efficient. Burn up more stuff rather than exhausting it. An older engine, made more combustion efficient, would produce fewer contrails. Metabunk, however, tells us that a new engine, born combustion efficient, will produce more contrails. Further, metabunk tells us that we need two scales to judge combustion efficiency. It's just ludicrous...I don't know what else to say.

Mary Rose
reply to post by mrthumpy

 

All I did was glance at the Abstract and it referenced military aircraft.

Why did you post that document?

edit on 03/12/14 by Mary Rose because: Capitalization

Try having more than a glance then. In particular at the tables at the end of the document

luxordelphi
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Have a look here www.metabunk.org... and remember it's the information we critique and not the source, right?

An older engine, made more combustion efficient, would produce fewer contrails.

What is your reasoning for this?

mrthumpy

luxordelphi
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Have a look here www.metabunk.org... and remember it's the information we critique and not the source, right?

An older engine, made more combustion efficient, would produce fewer contrails.

What is your reasoning for this?

Duh, Dane said so.

reply to post by luxordelphi

It is because in the older engine world one of the ways to mitigate contrails was to make the combustion more efficient. Burn up more stuff rather than exhausting it. An older engine, made more combustion efficient, would produce fewer contrails. Metabunk, however, tells us that a new engine, born combustion efficient, will produce more contrails. Further, metabunk tells us that we need two scales to judge combustion efficiency. It's just ludicrous...I don't know what else to say.

I know what you can say or better yet do...

Show where he was wrong and please provide corroborating scientific evidence that shows where your right and they are wrong.

It's that easy. Nothing more, Nothing less.

Here maybe this will help you understand...

Go to page 12...

www.enviro.aero...

Mary Rose
What I heard him say is that most commercial aircraft have high bypass turbofan engines and it is unusual for them to produce a contrail. Fighter jets have a different engine and are more capable of producing a contrail.

Wigington's website is GeoEngineering Watch.

He links to another website, Global Skywatch. The founder of that website tells his story, apparently, in "My Chemtrail Story & My Chemtrail Observations." His name is Russ Tanner and this is the About Me page:

I am a 40-something year old male, born in New York, raised in Florida, living in Maine, and educated as an electronic technician. I have an associate degree and an ISCET license.

My work includes Designer of Embedded-Systems (small self-contained computer systems), Technical Director (lighting/sound) for a theater, and an Herbal/Nutritional Researcher/Co-Writer. I have been successfully self-employed since 1997.

I am a self-taught computer programmer, website designer, musician, sound engineer, and IT manager.

My health is suffering daily from chemtrail spraying. I sincerely hope you will help us expose the largest crime against humanity in human history: Chemtrails.

globalskywatch.com...

Obviously he is a researcher motivated by his own health problems. These are the researchers I trust because they're doing what they're doing for good reason and not because they have to protect their livelihood.

Here is an excerpt from Tanner's article, "The Great Contrail Con":

urlbam.com...

I agree with the statement about Wikipedia. If the subject is not controversial, it is a goldmine of information. If the subject is controversial, it can't be trusted. It is mainstream and the mainstream is largely bought and paid for by those at the top of the pyramid of control, the financiers.

Mary Rose
It is mainstream and the mainstream is largely bought and paid for by those at the top of the pyramid of control, the financiers.

Why would those at the top want to poison the planet?

They're probably psychopaths.

reply to post by Mary Rose


The problem is, :





These are completely normal contrails. As I said, if you or anyone else can refute the science on contrailscience.com, then please do so, as this is where a lot of people get their information from. But if you or other cannot refute the science, then how is that you can ignore it?

reply to post by Mary Rose

Obviously he is a researcher motivated by his own health problems. These are the researchers I trust because they're doing what they're doing for good reason and not because they have to protect their livelihood.

And where are all the sick people around him that would also be sick from the same chemtrails, or are these specialized chemtrails that only effect him.

And why do these chemtrail websites all ask for donations, when you can create a site for absolutely nothing?

And when their livelihoods are making money from lying then yes they are doing this to protect it.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Why would those at the top want to poison the planet?

And what makes you think they are?

Because Dane Wigington says so?

Here is something to ponder...

Have you ever wondered why not one chemtrail pusher has taken some money to go up and test these killer chemtrails, yet they can take money and make useless and baseless videos pushing the hoax, why is that?

Mary Rose

Mary Rose
It is mainstream and the mainstream is largely bought and paid for by those at the top of the pyramid of control, the financiers.

Why would those at the top want to poison the planet?

They're probably psychopaths.

All of them. None of them have kids or grand kids. They have special gills that you cannot see that filter out the "bad juice" from their air. This mus be the case as they don't wear masks outside.

They must all be aliens. From center earth. Like Slestacks.



I think the one on the right is Eric Holder.

reply to post by network dude

I think the one on the right is Eric Holder.

Is that Donald Rumsfeld on the left?

He never has answered one simple question....is he a lizard.



You may be onto something.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Russ Tanner also claims he can smell chemtrails when they are being sprayed. Do you really want to listen to someone who claims they can smell something 7 miles above their head?

reply to post by mrthumpy

Russ Tanner also claims he can smell chemtrails when they are being sprayed. Do you really want to listen to someone who claims they can smell something 7 miles above their head?

That must be one heck of a schnoz he has to be able to do that.

Mary Rose
Tanner's article, "The Great Contrail Con"

We the people have to learn how to recognize techniques from the deception playbook relied upon over and over again by the powers that be.

To aid in doing that, here is another excerpt, under "The Contrail Coverup":

Since the writing of my series of articles exposing contrails, multiple professional airline pilots have contacted me and thanked me for my stance against the contrail deception.

All of them told me personally that they have never seen trails come out of jet engines and that they appreciate my work exposing the disinformation about contrails. Every one of these pilots knew that contrails are so rare that most people will never see one in their lifetime, and if they do occur, they are at high altitudes that cannot be seen from the ground.

Each of these professional pilots have flown most of their lives and have always had a deep interest in aviation. Some of them fly mainstream commercial jets while others fly large jets for major parcel carriers. . . .

globalskywatch.com...

That is very interesting.

Previous to starting this thread I was not aware that what I've observed and thought were normal "contrails" are not what I thought.

Now I know there is no need for two terms. All we need is the term "chemtrail."

Under "Why Some People Still Believe in Contrails," Tanner warns against government-created social media accounts.

Mary Rose
Tanner warns against government-created social media accounts.

Yes, since everyone who doesn't agree with you MUST be a shill.

The great copout when intelligent discussion can no longer be achieved.

As I said, go to contrailscience and prove any of that wrong, then come back with the chemtrial nonsense.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Previous to starting this thread I was not aware that what I've observed and thought were normal "contrails" are not what I thought.

And Dane Wigington was the person that changed your mind about what you are seeing?

Now here is what I don't understand...

How does one know what's in a so called chemtrail when nobody that pushes chemtrails has ever had a chemtrail tested in the sky?

Mary Rose

To aid in doing that, here is another excerpt, under "The Contrail Coverup":

Since the writing of my series of articles exposing contrails, multiple professional airline pilots have contacted me and thanked me for my stance against the contrail deception.

All of them told me personally that they have never seen trails come out of jet engines and that they appreciate my work exposing the disinformation about contrails. Every one of these pilots knew that contrails are so rare that most people will never see one in their lifetime, and if they do occur, they are at high altitudes that cannot be seen from the ground.

Each of these professional pilots have flown most of their lives and have always had a deep interest in aviation. Some of them fly mainstream commercial jets while others fly large jets for major parcel carriers. . . .

globalskywatch.com...

That is very interesting.

The fact that that quote does not scream "COMPLETE LIE" loud and clear to you tells me how little you understand about aviation at all. Nobody who completely fails to understand the topic at the very centre of their conspiracy du jour is ever going to tell me anything worth knowing.

Previous to starting this thread I was not aware that what I've observed and thought were normal "contrails" are not what I thought.

Now I know there is no need for two terms. All we need is the term "chemtrail."

So, just because you read that, on that site, it is automatically true? No fact checking, no basic common sense that makes you smell a rat about something so blatantly false, just pure, blind acceptance. Great work.

reply to post by waynos


Exactly what do you know about aviation, from your own personal experience, to speak with such disdain and confidence?

reply to post by Mary Rose

Exactly what do you know about aviation, from your own personal experience, to speak with such disdain and confidence?

Here is a better question...

What makes Dane Wigington, and Russ Tanner such authorities on chemtrails and what makes them so believable that you change your beliefs on what you see or what real science tells you?

Also contrails have been studied since the early days of flight with real scientific evidence, yet there is no scientific evidence or study that has tested a chemtrail, but because two internet chemtrail hucksters say they exist it must be true.

Here you may want to read this discussing Mr. Wigington...

www.metabunk.org...