How Can you Discredit This Chemtrail Video with Wigins?

I know there have been some threads on Dane Wigins before, but I didn't see this specific presentation posted here from July 2014.

I've been keeping a very open mind about chemtrails, which is big of me since I'm old enough to see how our wonderful country of America has been destroyed over the last 50 years. I admit it's hard to be skeptical sometimes. There's been so much damage that one is led to believe that there must be a million atrocities committed everyday against it.

But when it comes to chemtrails, I've seen some good arguments both ways.

I think today is the first time I've really become convinced that there is something definitely to this.

Here is the video. It's a 1/2 hour long, so it will take a bit of commitment to watch it.



I'd like to see those who object explain some of Wigins' claims away.

I'm fairly sure that lots of people on ATS must have torn this guy to shreds in no short order. Even still, it will be hard to convince me that he doesn't have a very strong argument here.

a reply to: MRuss

Aluminum is everywhere in our daily lives. It is contained in vaccines that are injected into your blood.
Why does this guy think it's falling from the sky?

What is the mode of transport from the stratosphere down to the lower troposphere where rain happens?


Losing me quick. Why Al... because it reflects? Reflectivity of ice crystals is comparable.


OK. Enough for me. The visible satellite photo of the marine layer is water vapor, not aerosols. It's 500-2000' thick. It doesn't blow over us all and prevent rain. I can take no more.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

I saw a great quote today:

Tell people that a man lives in the sky and a majority of people will believe it.

Tell them that the paint is wet and not to touch it and everyone will.

a reply to: MRuss

Still pushing the TankerEnemy BS for starters.

ETA: @ ~ 8:00 still claiming high bypass turbofans are virtually incapable of producing contrails, and using 'flawed' logic to make the claim.

IN the first minute he starts talking about how 'what those aircraft were putting above my home' and then starts talking about how he started testing rainwater. And that pretty much brings us to one of the big errors in chemtrail-thinking. There's nothing to connect contrails to whatever is found in rainwater. A contrail is not a raincloud, for starters, since it's a type of cirrus cloud, which is basically an ice-cloud that's found in higher regions of the atmosphere which don't produce rain clouds.

And it's all downhill from there.

At 2:20 he shows a picture of an interrupted contrail, and asks whether that does look 'natural' to the crowd. Well in a sense it doesn't it IS after all a man-made cloud. But the question is: is it anything other than a contrail? And the answer is that it does look and behave exactly like a contrail. A break in acontrail like that can easily happen if there's a patch in the air where conditions aren't good for contrail formation, and that's how such a contrail can easily be formed.

IT's this general lack of knowledge of aviation and meteorology that typifies the typical chemtrail guru. They depend on the fact that the general public knows even less than they do, and they stoke the fire of a public that's untrusting of governments and big companies, and that's how the chemtrail CT is kept alive... even if it seems close to being dead on this forum, since chemmies don't seem to like the criticism of their firmly held beliefs that they receive here. So now they mainly stick around in tightly controlled chemtrail pages, it seems

originally posted by: MRuss
I'd like to see those who object explain some of Wigins' claims away.

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: hellobruce

Great arguments all the way around and food for thought.

Thanks.

a reply to: payt69

A star for you.

This is what I find so frustrating about the whole CT hypothesis.

Unfortunately what he is saying cannot be discredited because geoengineering is a realty. Those who deny it are either incapable of discerning objective reality or they have an agenda.

a reply to: kimar

Fascinating. Exactly what GE is a reality?

originally posted by: kimar
Unfortunately what he is saying cannot be discredited because geoengineering is a realty. Those who deny it are either incapable of discerning objective reality or they have an agenda.

Well it has been discredited already. The guy descredits himself with his statements, which simply make no sense. So what evidence do you have of geo-engineering being a reality? Pictures of contrails?

And can I deny 'chemtrails' because:

1: I haven't seen ANY credible evidence that contrails aren't just that
2: The 'evidence' that's been put forward by the chemtrail community has all been debunked to the core.
3: The basic premise that contrails can't persist doesn't even make sense, since a contrail is just a cloud, and as we all know, clouds CAN and DO persist given the right conditions.

a reply to: kimar

No, geoengineering is not a reality. Geoengineering PROPOSALS are a reality. Big difference. There has been precisely one real-world aerosol geoengineering experiment done to date. It was done in Russia, using a helicopter to spray and measure aerosols in the lower troposphere (about 5000ft IIRC).

As for the OP video, it's the usual nonsense from Dane. Finding naturally occurring aluminium on the ground, deciding it shouldn't be there and then fabricating a link to contrails. Total logic failure.

In the first few minutes he shows the patent for Welsbach seeding but carefully avoids showing the part of the patent showing how the seeding material would be chosen to be invisible in the visible light wavelengths. He just throws up a patent and expects people to believe it's something sinister.

Then there's the old KC-10 aerodynamic contrails video and the AWACS refuelling video... all long-debunked stuff.

I wonder how much longer Dane will keep recycling and milking the same old garbage. Will he still be at it in 10 years?

originally posted by: kimar
Unfortunately what he is saying cannot be discredited because geoengineering is a realty. Those who deny it are either incapable of discerning objective reality or they have an agenda.

I tend to agree with this. But I actually pay attention to what is happening in the sky.

The aerosol spraying agenda is a complex rabbit hole, and it makes 9/11 look like child's play.

We all will die one day, but the truth has no expiration date.

a reply to: htapath

I pay a great deal of attention to the sky. The pattern of so-called "spraying" so obviously matches ordinary contrails and atmospheric conditions in the upper troposphere — and totally FAILS to resemble any proposed geoengineering programme — that I am totally mystified how anyone could believe in such nonsense.

originally posted by: kimar
Unfortunately what he is saying cannot be discredited because geoengineering is a realty. Those who deny it are either incapable of discerning objective reality or they have an agenda.

Is this the thing that finally does us in? I mean "they" have been at it for centuries now. They control the banks, the land, the media, the resources, our brains, space, our bodies, our dreams, our communications...what I miss?? When does the guy with the crown sit on the throne and declare himself the winner? All this power and still can't finish us off? Seem pretty inept to me. Maybe chemtrails will be the one.

a reply to: Rob48
Geoengineering is not taking place?

Maybe not on an Industrial scale with hazardous chemicals. But, when all air traffic was cancelled due to 9/11, was there not a measureable change atmospheric conditions (weather due to temperature change)? I am not sure where I read it but that IS geoengineering as a side effect.

originally posted by: bluetrees
a reply to: Rob48
Geoengineering is not taking place?

Maybe not on an Industrial scale with hazardous chemicals. But, when all air traffic was cancelled due to 9/11, was there not a measureable change atmospheric conditions (weather due to temperature change)? I am not sure where I read it but that IS geoengineering as a side effect.

Yes, persistent contrails trap more heat than they reflect and contribute a small amount to global warming so you could say that was an inadvertent type of geoengineering. But then so is turning your car ignition or planting a tree

originally posted by: MRuss
Even still, it will be hard to convince me that he doesn't have a very strong argument here.

What has convinced you that he has?

a reply to: bluetrees

There was a difference in the diurnal temperature, yes. There wasn't enough data to say what the long term effect is.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: bluetrees
a reply to: Rob48
Geoengineering is not taking place?

Maybe not on an Industrial scale with hazardous chemicals. But, when all air traffic was cancelled due to 9/11, was there not a measureable change atmospheric conditions (weather due to temperature change)? I am not sure where I read it but that IS geoengineering as a side effect.

Yes, persistent contrails trap more heat than they reflect and contribute a small amount to global warming so you could say that was an inadvertent type of geoengineering. But then so is turning your car ignition or planting a tree

You forgot cows farting