Interview of Dane Wigington of GeoEngineering Watch

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


All researchers have to evaluate their sources using all of their experience to do so.

I became a serious researcher after discovering 9/11 truth. Before that I was living on what I have coined "planet earth A." Planet earth A is reality assumed to be according to mainstream institutions.

Now I live on planet earth B. My sources are ordinary people like myself who share their information on the internet - the only place that counter-balances the deception that is interspersed in the mainstream.

I have to get to know these ordinary people through audio and video interviews. I use my intuition and common sense about the credibility of the person, and then I compare the information relayed with the information from other sources I find credible.

I use the insights I've learned about all conspiracy topics and the understanding I've gained about fallacies of reason - mainly ridicule - used by disinformation agents and misguided minions of the powers that be - to put into context conflicting reports about what is going on.

reply to post by Mary Rose

All researchers have to evaluate their sources using all of their experience to do so.

Well you may want to sharpen up that evaluating of your sources if you believe these two are telling you anything close to the truth.

I became a serious researcher after discovering 9/11 truth.

So how does the two even compare, as one really happened and the other is an internet hoax.

Now I live on planet earth B. My sources are ordinary people like myself who share their information on the internet - the only place that counter-balances the deception that is interspersed in the mainstream.

So on planet earth B science is wrong and ordinary Joe knows best?

I have to get to know these ordinary people through audio and video interviews. I use my intuition and common sense about the credibility of the person, and then I compare the information relayed with the information from other sources I find credible.

You may want to re-evaluate that mind set, as your sources for this are hucksters without real scientific evidence to back their claims.

I use the insights I've learned about all conspiracy topics and the understanding I've gained about fallacies of reason - mainly ridicule - used by disinformation agents and misguided minions of the powers that be - to put into context conflicting reports about what is going on.

So what your saying is that if someone doesn't see things the way you do then they are misguided minions of the powers that be...Gotcha!

Also I still would love to get an answer on the question I asked earlier in this thread about all of the people around Mr. Tanner that should be as sick as him because of chemtrails or are chemtrails only specific to him?

You see that is the type of question that needs to be addressed as to the veracity of his claims.

Mary Rose

Now I live on planet earth B.

Thanks for all of your effort Ma'am , Have you looked into the topic of Solar Radiation Management? check out this link from Jetcarrers.com
interesting thread about Solar Radiation Management Flight Sorties(SRM(Chemtails)

tsurfer2000h
So what your saying is that if someone doesn't see things the way you do then they are misguided minions of the powers that be...Gotcha!

Humanity is going through a waking up process thanks to the internet.

Misguided minions resist horrifying information out of fear using defensive retorts such as you've demonstrated.

Misguided minions are more important than the powers that be or paid disinformation agents because they are in large numbers.

But progress is being made slowly.

tsurfer2000h
Also I still would love to get an answer on the question I asked earlier in this thread about all of the people around Mr. Tanner that should be as sick as him because of chemtrails or are chemtrails only specific to him?

Not everyone gets sick from smoking or vaccinations or any toxin.

And you don't know that others haven't gotten sick.

reply to post by SmikeS

Thanks for all of your effort Ma'am , Have you looked into the topic of Solar Radiation Management? check out this link from Jetcarrers.com
interesting thread about Solar Radiation Management Flight Sorties(SRM(Chemtails)

And you may want to read this about SRM...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Mary Rose

Misguided minions resist horrifying information out of fear using defensive retorts such as you've demonstrated.

What defensive retort?

What you got from me was an answer that comes from someone who has done research into this topic and have yet to see anything that proves what those two have told you.

Not everyone gets sick from smoking or vaccinations or any toxin.

And nobody has ever gotten sick from chemtrails either.

And you don't know that others haven't gotten sick.

And you know for a fact that he actually has, because there is no proof other than him saying he was.

Wigington has also been interviewed on Red Ice Radio. The summary for the first hour:

March 14, 2014

Dane Wigington has an extensive background in solar energy. He is a former employee of Bechtel Power Corp. and was a licensed contractor in California and Arizona. His personal residence was featured in a cover article on the world’s largest renewable energy magazine, Home Power. He owns a 1,600-acre “wildlife preserve” next to Lake Shasta in northern California. Dane focused his efforts on the geo-engineering issue when he began to lose very significant amounts of solar uptake due to ever-increasing “solar obscuration” caused from aircraft spraying. He also noted significant decline in forest health and began testing and research into the geo-engineering issue about a decade ago. He is the lead researcher for geoengineeringwatch.org and has investigated all levels of geo engineering from chemtrails to HAARP. We’ll discuss geoengineering, weather warfare, chemtrails and the collapse of civilization. Dane talks about the chemtrails spraying program and what compounds and particles are in it. Also, we discuss the global power struggle over the control of the weather and how it’s being used as a weapon.

www.redicecreations.com...

reply to post by Mary Rose


As I think about what this poor man has gone through, I cannot help but think, perhaps it was contrails all along, and he is just not smart enough NOT to be misled. His issue is that his solar panels didn't get enough sun. Too many clouds and contrails. Since contrails have been around for quite some time, you would have thought this "smart person" would have looked into the flight paths of airliners to ensure he wasn't in the middle of a whole bunch of them.

I compare that to where I live. We see a contrail or two, but never a complete cover that I can remember. I think he just built his house in the wrong spot. Poor guy, and then on top of all that , he is misled down a path of unicorns and fake snow.

reply to post by Mary Rose

He is the lead researcher for geoengineeringwatch.org and has investigated all levels of geo engineering from chemtrails to HAARP. We’ll discuss geoengineering, weather warfare, chemtrails and the collapse of civilization. Dane talks about the chemtrails spraying program and what compounds and particles are in it

You see this is where Mr. Wigington hurts himself.

As I have said before, how does he know what compounds and particles are in a chemtrail without actually testing one when it is sprayed?

It comes down to where he is taking some guess as to what he thinks could be in what he calls chemtrails, yet he has no verifiable evidence to back his claims.

Whenever any chemtrail pusher can do that then you may have something, but since that has yet to happen we can only go by what scientific evidence has shown us.

Lastly why is it that most if not all chemtrail pushers try to align HAARP with chemtrails when there is no proof that the two are related, also the fact that HAARP has been shutdown pretty much puts that myth to bed.

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?

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.

In modern engines more stuff isn't burned up though. There is less. The high bypass ratio of modern turbofans means that anything from 50% to 90% (depending on engine size and type) of the air drawn in by the front fan goes around the outside of the combustion chamber and is not burned at all, deriving propulsive thrust from compression within the duct by the fan. This low proportion of combusted jet thrust from the total thrust produced by the engine is what makes today's engines more efficient as older engines combusted almost all the air they took in. With today's aircraft and engine sizes and thrust requirements it would mean a ridiculous amount of fuel burn and resulting pollution to try and go back to the old way. A transatlantic VC10 in 1970 was powered by four engines, each producing about 20,000lbs of thrust. The total thrust of all four is less than the amount produced by ONE of the engines on an A380 or 777 today.

Mary Rose
reply to post by waynos

 

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

Firstly I'd like to apologise to you for my disdainful tone. It was my gut reaction from reading your post, but it could have been put better.

Your question as to what exactly I know about aviation is impossible to answer in a brief forum post, but I have built up my understanding over 40 years, from a boyhood fascination that has stayed with me all my life. Through study, and through practical considerations, I have learned enough to know, with absolute certainty, that statements along the lines of 'contrails are so rare most people will never see one' are pure ignorance and the way you amended your general outlook on them just because someone said it was the reason I reacted the way I did.

The picture in your post since you amended it shows an aerodynamic contrail, something I capture in photographs fairly often (I got a couple last Sunday when the air was very moist). For him to use that and reason that because it is so small and brief in its existence proves that engine contrails are not real is either very dishonest or very stupid.

reply to post by waynos

For him to use that and reason that because it is so small and brief in its existence proves that engine contrails are not real is either very dishonest or very stupid.

The former.

waynos
The picture in your post since you amended it shows an aerodynamic contrail, something I capture in photographs fairly often (I got a couple last Sunday when the air was very moist).

How do you know whether or not what you captured had chemicals in it?

reply to post by Mary Rose


He doesn't. And neither do you. BUT.......based on what we know for absolute certain about how contrails form, look, act, and react, we can look at a white line in the sky and be of the opinion that it's a contrail. In order for anyone to believe differently, there would have to be something to show otherwise.

Just like if you and I walked up to a brick wall, how much convincing would it take for you to believe it was actually made of hamburger patties? You might like to touch it, or at least take some samples right? Or do you just believe people who sound right?

Maybe chemtrails are real. But, until you can show proof, they are and will remain contrails. No matter how much you wish them to be otherwise.

Mary Rose
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

Tanner describes a change that he observed in chemtrails, "Chemtrails Get Short in Jamestown":

I first began seeing daily chemtrail spraying in Jamestown, New York in 2005. Spraying occurred on a consistent daily schedule.

When daily spraying started (originally at 3pm every afternoon), I tasted a strong salty-metallic taste in the air, my sinuses would burn, and I experienced a predictable and consistent array of symptoms beginning within 30 seconds. Enormous, persistent plumes visibly covered the sky on a consistent schedule, every day, for years. I watched and photographed this activity on a daily basis from my large office windows that had a view of downtown and of half the sky.

In 2007, spraying suddenly stopped. After 2 years of painful suffering, I was desperately hoping this was the end of the aerial assault. Four days later, the spraying began again, but there was a fundamental change. The plumes were no longer long and persistent. They were short, non-persistent plumes that dissipated within seconds.

They still sprayed on the same schedules. The salty-metallic taste and odors that occurred during spraying events were identical. The symptoms caused by the spraying were also identical. The only thing that changed was the size of the trails.

Let me be clear: The trails had changed from persistent (long and lingering) to non-persistent (short and quickly dissipating).

Incidentally, 3 or 4 days-per-month, the long persistent trails would be sprayed for part of a day, but this was in blatant contrast to the daily, sky-saturating spraying we had witnessed before the change.

urlbam.com...

Note also his personal testimony about symptoms he experienced.

In my opinion, name-calling of witnesses who share their information on the internet does not constitute sound reasoning.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Aren't you concerned that it appears that this person was the only one to be suffering painfully for 2 years?

Wouldn't all of Jamestown suffer the same symptoms?

reply to post by AlphaHawk


Why are you assuming others in his area did not notice the same thing?

Do you expect people who voluntarily use their time to compose posts sharing their own experience to also take the time to walk door to door and do a survey?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yea, I suppose going door to door, looking for the truth is pointless when you can go on the talk circuit and make millions.

After a while, the truth is the last thing this guy wants. It would cut his income to nothing. It's good that you care enough to support him and those like him. Please don't miss the donate button on his site, and buy a shirt please.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Actually, I'm assuming that an entire town painfully suffering would see a doctor about it...and thusly some sort of report about a population of 30,000 all suffering the same symptoms.

Why didn't he discuss this sickness with his co-workers in his office with big windows?

30 minutes for the chemicals to leave the plane, fall 30,000 feet, enter his office's air conditioning unit and still strong enough to make him suffer, painfully. Wouldn't the people on the street be more affected??

From "Chemtrails, Nanoaluminum and Neurodegenerative and Neurodevelopmental Effects," by Russell L. Blaylock, M.D., April 17, 2012:

The Internet is littered with stories of “chemtrails” and geoengineering to combat “global warming” and until recently I took these stories with a grain of salt. One of the main reasons for my skepticism was that I rarely saw what they were describing in the skies. But over the past several years I have notice a great number of these trails and I have to admit they are not like the contrails I grew up seeing in the skies. They are extensive, quite broad, are laid in a definite pattern and slowly evolve into artificial clouds. Of particular concern is that there are now so many­ dozens every day are littering the skies.

My major concern is that there is evidence that they are spraying tons of nanosized aluminum compounds. It has been demonstrated in the scientific and medical literature that nanosized particles are infinitely more reactive and induce intense inflammation in a number of tissues. Of special concern is the effect of these nanoparticles on the brain and spinal cord, as a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental aluminum. . . .

www.thenhf.com...