Interview of Dane Wigington of GeoEngineering Watch

The interview I'm referencing for this thread is on the show It's Rainmaking Time with Kim Greenhouse. I want to stress that the name of the show has nothing to do with the weather - the name refers to the word "rainmaker" as " One who is known for achieving excellent results in a profession or field, such as business or politics" as defined on The Free Dictionary.

This interview highlights how utterly confusing the topics of man made global warming, global warming, climate change, and geo-engineering are. I list global warming twice because one suggests the cause, the other does not.

In this interview Greenhouse challenges her guest's conclusions because she has hosted so many other interviews with other experts who conclude the opposite from what Wigington was saying. She mentioned doing a future show as a panel discussion with Wigington to debate opposing views.

Programs being classified and media being controlled makes it very difficult to discern the truth.

In my opinion, it is imperative that we the people listen to experts like Wigington being interviewed on the internet - the only news source with free speech.

I'm not going to try to summarize what Wigington said. The topic is too complicated.

What I'm doing with this thread is simply trying to spread the word that this is an interview well worth listening to: Dane Wigington – Geoengineering: The End of All Life

reply to post by Mary Rose

In my opinion, it is imperative that we the people listen to experts like Wigington being interviewed on the internet - the only news source with free speech.

And just what is Mr. Wigington an expert at?

Is he an expert at scamming the gullible out of money or is it he is an expert at lying?

The location of the DONATE button is much better. They usually put that at the end of the site.

Dane’s research and documentation on atmospheric spraying programs and other weather modification technologies is publicly available at GeoEngineering Watch. Of particular interest is a 1996 government document titled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, which describes the military’s weaponization of weather and its use in warfare.

It's sad that he would still be pushing this as it's been explained countless times. It was an exercise for Air Force Cadets to write hypothetical scenarios.

From page 2 of that document.

Disclaimer
2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The
views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.

This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or
events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.

This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared
for public release.

Misrepresentation when done on purpose is LYING.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Listened to the first 10 minutes of the interview. Very nice! Jet engine contrail enthusiasts might listen to the portion between 5 and 6 minutes which explains why we should be seeing almost no contrails at all.

Someone presented a video by this person in another thread and after a bit of research I found that there is persistent intelligent activism here against the trashing of our skies. Anyone like that is going to yank the chain of government subsidized trolls. It's kind of like Carnicom - there is no way to discredit his content so they try to discredit the person but there's really no way to do that either. Same with this person - he is what he seems: someone who has studied and tested and come to, imo, the only logical conclusion which is that the skies are being trashed by device.

Thank you for presenting the interview...sorry you got called names right out of the gate in this forum but that's kind of par here.

reply to post by luxordelphi

First things first

sorry you got called names right out of the gate in this forum but that's kind of par here.

Where did this happen?

Jet engine contrail enthusiasts might listen to the portion between 5 and 6 minutes which explains why we should be seeing almost no contrails at all.

Anything more than his mistaken opinion on this?

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

luxordelphi
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Listened to the first 10 minutes of the interview. Very nice! Jet engine contrail enthusiasts might listen to the portion between 5 and 6 minutes which explains why we should be seeing almost no contrails at all.

the man simply has no idea what he is talking about - his points about fuel are nonsense - the amount of fuel per unit of thrust has decreased, but it is not zero, and the amount of thrust from new engines is enormous - so TOTAL fuel burn is much higher than it was 50 years ago.

I've already pointed out his numerous factual errors here on ATS - the article is disinfo.

luxordelphi
Thank you for presenting the interview...sorry you got called names right out of the gate in this forum but that's kind of par here.

While you are a great cheer leader, please limit yourself to telling the truth. Nobody called the OP anything.

The interview is now on YouTube:

luxordelphi

Listened to the first 10 minutes of the interview. Very nice! Jet engine contrail enthusiasts might listen to the portion between 5 and 6 minutes which explains why we should be seeing almost no contrails at all.

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.

He seemed to be saying that even contrails, as opposed to chemtrails, contain particulates – they’re being sprayed intentionally.

Mary Rose

luxordelphi

Listened to the first 10 minutes of the interview. Very nice! Jet engine contrail enthusiasts might listen to the portion between 5 and 6 minutes which explains why we should be seeing almost no contrails at all.

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.

That's just made up though. High bypass engines are actually more likely to produce contrails

journals.ametsoc.org...

reply to post by mrthumpy


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

Why did you post that document?

reply to post by Mary Rose


If you do buy into the theory that very few airplanes can make contrails and those that do, have done so intentionally, then you have the unique capability of solving the chemtrail conundrum all by yourself.

Just use flight tracking software the next time you see a long lasting trail and you can submit your findings to the UN as Geo-engineering is illegal in all UN countries. You will have the aircraft identification and hopefully the pictures to prove it.

Good luck.

reply to post by network dude


Are you making no distinction between contrails and chemtrails if the contrails do contain particulates?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Contrails are mostly ice crystals, and they do have a tiny amount of suit in them.

What you see in the white lines is ice crystals. The particulates that are left over aren't seen unless you are looking at a plane taking off, or landing. Then it looks a lot like automobile exhaust. ( a by product of burning fuel)

Here is some information about contrails. They are nothing that needs anyone to fear. Just man made clouds. Fear the unseen exhaust, as it's pollution. Just like cars make. I wish we lived in a world that used something other than fossile fuels to power engines. (clean energy) But at this point, it doesn't look like we do.

edit to add:

Chemtrails are the misidentified contrails of a conspiracy mind. In other words, as of this moment, there doesn't seem to be any evidence they even exist.

reply to post by network dude


Do you see no difference in photos of contrails compared to photos of chemtrails, or do you think photos of chemtrails are fake?

reply to post by Mary Rose


I have yet to see a photo of a white line in the sky that didn't look just like a contrail.

Once you understand contrails, it's real difficult to believe in chemtrails. They just don't make sense. (IMHO)

reply to post by network dude


I associate chemtrails with criss-crosses:

From www.infowars.com...

reply to post by Mary Rose


This site can explain most of what is considered "chemtrails" with science that makes it all seem less dangerous.

The site owner is also a member here. A very nice guy.

He has a standing invitation for anyone who finds any errors on his site, to make him aware of the error and he will correct or remove it right away. To my knowledge, the information hasn't changed since I started to look at it 4 years ago.

reply to post by 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.

And you believed him didn't you?

Mary Rose

What I'm doing with this thread is simply trying to spread the word that this is an interview well worth listening to: Dane Wigington – Geoengineering: The End of All Life

edit on 03/10/14 by Mary Rose because: Typo

thanks for thelink, Dane has a good point about the chemtrails blocking 80% of his solar production. The chemtrails are blocking almost all of the direct sunlight. S&F (Stan Friedman)