Interview of Dane Wigington of GeoEngineering Watch

Witness2008
reply to post by network dude

 

Another good laugh. Thanks

Contrail Science? I did my teething on that site. Kindergarten level propaganda? That's all you've got?

Did you ever find anything on it that is actually WRONG?

Or is this just another "fly by" (sic) condemnation because you can't argue with any of it?

reply to post by waynos


Unlike you, I'm not attempting to change your mind about what you believe, and I am certainly not going to take you up on your oh so coy invitation to jump on your gerbil wheel.

I know what I know, and all the psuedo experts in the world won't change that.

reply to post by Mary Rose

A video Wigington has posted, "High Bypass Turbofan Jet Engines & Contrails,"

Here you may or may not enjoy these...



Just in case you want to use the WITWATS video.







I am pretty sure that you will see Dane Wigington is nothing more than a man that enjoys taking gullible peoples money and not feel guilty about it.

reply to post by Witness2008

I know what I know, and all the psuedo experts in the world won't change that.

And what is it you know that you think someone would want to change your mind about?

Witness2008
reply to post by network dude

 

Another good laugh. Thanks

Contrail Science? I did my teething on that site. Kindergarten level propaganda? That's all you've got?

Alright! now I can finally see what I have been missing. See, I believe the stuff on that site. All you need to do show me what's wrong. I'll wait here. Thanks!

SmikeS

network dude
Keep up the good fight sport.

edit on 18-3-2014 by network dude because: chemtrails are fantasy

Thank you Ma'am , your mother must be very proud of you...

How very mature of you. I am a miss, not a ma'am. And yea, she's real proud. Thanks!

reply to post by Witness2008


I don't want to change your mind, I just want to hear a cogent argument, just for once, as to why I have it wrong. You are dismissive of contrailscience as a source of information, yet you haven't provided ONE instance of something that is factually wrong.

I stopped using the "I know, but I'm not telling you" gambit when I was about seven because I realised it just made me look a twat. It insults EVERY readers intelligence when it is used on here.

If you are going to say something is rubbish then you should also say why. Otherwise it's just hollow nonsense. If the claims of Dane Wigington as raised in the OP, are valid, then my one simple question should be easy for you to answer, shouldn't it?

And yet you cannot. Typical. But just keep believing in chemtrails everyone, you don't need facts when you have faith that strangers on the internet would never lie to you, lol indeed.

reply to post by network dude

All you need to do show me what's wrong. I'll wait here. Thanks!

Why do I need to show you what is wrong? Is this some kind of subconscious plea for help? Or are you wanting to get another gerbil wheel spinning?

reply to post by Witness2008



Very disappointing. This is a discussion forum, so you should at least try to discuss instead of sniping like a coward. Or just keep digging that big hole you're disappearing into.

reply to post by waynos


It comes down to the fact that I trust my own eyes, and reasoning skills over yours.

I am simply amusing myself with discovering the patterns of those that spend inordinate amounts of time and energy trying to keep this subject knotted up and heated with obsolete information and arguments.

I am thankful for the multitudes of people that are finally looking up and questioning what it is they are seeing. In the end it may be the "chemmies" that save the planet from the maniacal nut jobs that think they can and should alter the climate of the only inhabitable planet that we know of.

Witness2008
reply to post by network dude

 

All you need to do show me what's wrong. I'll wait here. Thanks!

Why do I need to show you what is wrong? Is this some kind of subconscious plea for help? Or are you wanting to get another gerbil wheel spinning?

you say it is propaganda - but it seems perfectly supportable and factually correct to me.

What about it is propaganda? What do you think is wrong?

If you cannot show that something is wrong then presumably you agree that it is all correct - and if it is all correct what is the problem with it??

You make an accusation so it seems perfectly reasonable that you then justify that accusation - even if others disagree with you you must have some reasons for it.

Witness2008
reply to post by waynos

 

I know what I know, and all the psuedo experts in the world won't change that.

Except for Dane Wigingtom of course......

Witness2008
reply to post by waynos

 

It comes down to the fact that I trust my own eyes, and reasoning skills over yours.

I am simply amusing myself with discovering the patterns of those that spend inordinate amounts of time and energy trying to keep this subject knotted up and heated with obsolete information and arguments.

I am thankful for the multitudes of people that are finally looking up and questioning what it is they are seeing. In the end it may be the "chemmies" that save the planet from the maniacal nut jobs that think they can and should alter the climate of the only inhabitable planet that we know of.

edit on 18-3-2014 by Witness2008 because: (no reason given)

Not a chance. The chemmies are all looking the wrong way, with their magic spectroscopic eyes.

reply to post by waynos

The chemmies are all looking the wrong way, with their magic spectroscopic eyes.

It's not magic, they're all cyborgs I tell ya!

Now on a serious note about looking the wrong way. One more reason that I don't believe contrails are chemtrails for SRM purposes is the trails are strongly believed (if not known) to have a net warming effect. That seems a bit counterproductive to say the least.

Somewhere I got it in my head that SRM proposals would call for the planes to fly at around 65,000 feet but have had trouble finding a source for that, until today. Earlier today I (again) saw a clip from the somewhat recent David Keith segment on "The Colbert Report" where Keith mentioned putting the sulfuric acid(?) at 20 km which is about 65,000 feet.

Anyway, the reason I think that's important is contrail formation would almost never occur at that altitude alleviating the negative effects of contrails on climate.

And of course at 20 km with no contrails who in the world could see it going on IF someone is up there now doing something they're not supposed to be doing?

Is this what you meant about looking the wrong way?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Yes, that's exactly what I meant, I mentioned in a discussion quite a long time ago that the only aircraft available that could engage in trials for aerial SRM dispersal, as they are proposed, are the Martin WB-57F, Of which two are in use, the Myasischev M-55, of which there were 5 built, and the Lockheed TR-1. One thing all three have in common is a tiny load capacity.

As you say, at the height this activity would need to be carried out contrails do not normally form, therefore there is zero reason to assume aerial SRM activity would resemble a contrail, or even be visible from the ground, in any way.

Meanwhile power stations, industry and road transport all continue to choke us while these "aware" "researchers" get their knickers in a twist over lines of frozen water 7 miles over their heads. And these people think they are helping to save the planet!

Witness2008
reply to post by network dude

 

All you need to do show me what's wrong. I'll wait here. Thanks!

Why do I need to show you what is wrong? Is this some kind of subconscious plea for help? Or are you wanting to get another gerbil wheel spinning?

No, I knew you couldn't. I have already double checked the things I repeat on this site. It was kind of a trick. See, you just like to complain about the main source of factual information because it cannot be proven wrong. It's why I believe in contrails. And also why I laugh at whatever new lies the chemtrail pushers are making up. (seriously, the story changes all the damn time) I admit, I enjoy it too. For different reasons. Predictability. And you never disappoint. Have a nice day.

This is from Wigington's Facebook page, a place where people can post their personal experience:

reply to post by Mary Rose


I hope you asked Tiffany's permission to post her name and face for all to see.

Pretty ignorant and rude if you haven't!

reply to post by Mary Rose

That woman is very fortunate to have only photographed a contrail. Even taking pics of "chemtrails" inadvertently is risky business.

On Nov. 20,1999, Brendt was admitted to hospital with a gushing nosebleed and pains in her chest after inadvertently photographing dozens of chemtrails over Parsonsfield, Maine. Nosebleeds are a common symptom of chemtrail exposure. "Now I know what this is," Brendt says. "I never get nosebleeds."

www.rense.com...

IMO, anyone who buys that deserves to be fooled.

Mary Rose
This is from Wigington's Facebook page, a place where people can post their personal experience:

Ma'am, you have posted a picture of what appears to be a NORMAL Contrail, which will have absolutely no adverse reactions to the sheeple below.
Admin please have this thread moved to the Hoax bin, and all members exiled, and or terminated from existence ...