Transcript of a debate held between Mick West and Dane Wigington regarding the evidence to support a theory of covert geoengineering and/or weather modification (sometimes referred to as "chemtrails")
Contents by topic:
Introduction and backgrounds of Mick and Dane
Do either of you do what you do for any compensation?
Do you have children
The debate was held on August 6th, 2013, at 6PM PDT.
John: = John Massaria. Moderator.
Dane: = Dane Wigington of Geoengineeringwatch.org
Mick: = Mick West of Metabunk.org
Fillers ("um", "er", etc), and some irrelevant repetitions have been removed.
Overlapping is indicated with ... at the start and/or end of lines
[crosstalk] indicates where multiple people were speaking and transcription was impossible.
[inaudible] indicates where audio is garbled or unclear.
[MM:SS] indicates time, relative to the start of the first sentence spoken by John.
John: Okay, so ah, thank you everybody for joining us. Thank you Dane Wigington and Mick West for joining us for this long overdue debate, I want to let you I want to let you know tonight's debate is being recorded, and shall not be modified in any way. It'll be for public domain, copyrighted but shall not be modified at all. Okay, ah, is everybody in agreement with that?
Dane: I'm in full agreement John
John: okay that's Dane, and Mick?
Mick: yes, sure
John: Okay great. Alright I want to give a special thanks to Madison Star Moon for putting this all together and with that we will start our conversation
Alright for my first question we will try to keep the answers under 2 minutes, I mean obviously you can go over a bit, I'm hoping each of you will get approximately equal time, you know 30 approximately with 10 min worth of questions. Is that okay?
Mick: sounds good
John: Mick, can you tell me about yourself, and why you feel compelled to do what you do
Mick: Right, so my background is I'm a computer programmer, I'm from England, you can probably tell that by my accent, and I came to America about 20 years ago, and I started a software company that did fairly well, and about 10 years ago I kind of went into semi-retirement so I have a lot of spare time now and I just kind of do a bit of consulting work, and, one of the things I do with my spare time is debunking, which has always been a hobby of mine. I've always found it really interesting the science behind the claims, things like chemtrails, various other things like that, 9/11 debunking, things like that.
I'm very, primarily interested in the science behind it, and trying to figure out, you know, why people think the way they do about certain things, and how you can, kind of, convince them of what actually the real science is behind things - if it is in fact incorrect, there are obviously conspiracies that are true, so I don't just go round debunking conspiracy theories. What I like to do is focus on individual claims of evidence within those theories, like the chemtrail thing for example, I focus on "can contrails persist or not", which is a big misconception that people have.
So basically, you know, it's kind of been an interest of mine. It started out more of a hobby, but now it's taking up more and more of my free time. And I have my two websites, which you know, and the contrail one came first, then I did the forum which now I spend a lot of time on just kind of discussing various topics. Okay, that's basically it.
[Discussion of phone audio going in and out]
John: So you're into this for basically: correcting people when they are wrong, I guess? Is that right?
Mick: Yes.... I would say that, but it's not just simply that, it's, you know there's a greater issue here which I think is that things that are incorrect, that people believe in, are distracting from real issues, like there's lots of really bad things going on the world and in our country, everywhere, that are not getting the attention they deserve from some people because these people are focussing on conspiracy theories which are wrong things like the chemtrail conspiracy theory[John: Okay] So I think that [John: Understood] there's more to it than simply correcting people
Mick: Okay. Dane, can you tell me why you feel like what you're doing, ah, is, well first of all tell me about yourself, and tell me why you feel compelled to do what you do.
Dane: I'll make this very brief. But, with a background in renewable energy, former Bechtel power employee, home was on the cover of the world's largest renewable energy magazine, moved to the Pacific Northwest, to try to find clean air. When intermittent gid patterns were appearing in the skies above my home on various day, blocking 60, 70, 80% of my solar power uptake, clearly something was going on. I dove in research, quickly came on the subject of geoengineering, which is a term we use because that is, Mick likes, Mick mentioned the science and we like to use the scientific term on that, which is GE so uh, so, Solar Radiation Management, Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering. Began to do testing, at the state certified lab, came up with the exact same primary ingredients listed in numerous GE patents, Aluminum, Barium, Strontium, Manganese, and, quite simply after examining and researching the gravity of having these material fall down from the sky, the effect on the soils, waters, breathable air column. and the damage to the atmosphere that's known to be caused from dispersement of particulates in the atmosphere, I felt the gravity was so immense that there was simply no greater, or no more, not a more logical priority than to focus on this issue because the ramifications were so dire. So this is why I've spent the last decade plus in research on this issue and trying to educate the public on the science behind geoengineering which is the term that leads to science
John: Okay. Mick, do you do this for any sort of compensation or money?
Mick: No, not at all, like I said I semi-retired about ten years ago, I did fairly well in the video game industry, so I don't really need to have an income. I'm not like super rich, but I don't need to, you know, pull in money. You'll notice there's no adverts on my website or anything like that. And no one is paying me to do it
John: Okay, Dane, Same question, are you doing this for money
Dane: Not only is it not for profit, it has only been at my own expense, something in the realm of 40 to 50K in the last 10 years, so absolutely not for profit, only at great personal expense, economic expense.
John: Okay, that leads me into the next question, Mick, don't take this personally, but sometimes people think a little bit differently when they have children. And I'd like to know, do you have children?
Mick: I don't have children, no, but I know a lot of people who do, and I have children in my family, not personally. So, I am very concerned about the future of this planet and that is certainly something that is in my thoughts all the time. I'm not just doing this without consideration for the next generation. I very much care about them.
John: And Dane, [Dane: Yes], do you have any children of your own?
Dane: Two, seven year old - eight year old son, fourteen year old daughter
John: So obviously both of you, I mean, maybe one more than the other has a little bit of a different feeling about how they go about their lives every day. I know I have two children and I think continuously about my two children and what the future is going to hold, and that's why I do what I do. It seems like both of you feel ... similarly, but again having children you see your life going beyond that.
And er, anyway why do you think ... let's see, sorry, many listeners want to know what your thoughts are on God. Okay, so Mick, I'm going to ask you that, faith in an almighty creator or keeping religion out of the equations and just asking you if you believe in God or a supreme creator?
Mick: No I don't, I'm an atheist, I don't see any evidence for there being a god. But I don't think that really has any bearing upon the matter at hand, which is really pure science.
John: That's up to our listeners to listen for ...
Mick: Oh yeah I know people have different opinions on that but...
John: I understand and I respect your agnostic kind of view [Mick: Atheist] atheist view. Dane, how about you
Dane: I do, in a non-denominational undefined sense John, the forest is my cathedral if you will. I don't believe we are alone, but again I respect Mick's views on his position as well, I do respect that.
Mick: Thank you
John: Alright, let's get into the debate on geoengineering, Mick I understand you have an under... understand that geoengineering is global, you know, weather modification, am I right in saying that?
Mick: Ah, I don't know what the question is.
John: Geoengineering as a term, meaning man made wh....
Mick: Ah right, er, no. Well, geoengineering will be more climate modification. Weather modification generally applies to more local things, such as cloud seeding. Cloud seeding is the primary form of weather modification. Geoengineering would be something like spraying stuff into the upper atmosphere to block out the sun, or painting roofs white all round the world to reflect the sun, and there are various other proposals. But they are all just proposals at this point at this moment.
Weather modification is obviously real, that's been going on for 50 years but geoengineering is still that the proposal stage, right now.
John: Okay, Dane, how would you respond
Dane: If we can go back and forth, I would like to ask, and Mick you can ask me questions as well [Mick: Okay], on what do you base the statement that you know they are all just proposals.
Mick: right, well I don't know. But I don't see any evidence otherwise. I've talked to lots of geoengineers like David Keith and Ken Caldeira and they've given me no indication that there's anything ongoing and if you look at the evidence from the, say the Mauna Loa (I think that's how you pronounce it) observatory, there's been no real change in the solar irradiance. And there's really basically, I mean I know that you think, you claim to have have various pieces of evidence, from my perspective though I don't see any evidence that geoengineering is ongoing, and we can get into the actual claims of evidence later.
Dane: What would you consider a global dimming figure that's not disputed in the scientific community of 22%? What do you think is causing 22% of the sun's direct rays to not reach the surface of the planet?
Mick: Well, that's an interesting point because global dimming has actually decreased since the early 90's, there's been, you know, there's been lots or articles about global dimming, but if you look at the actual figures, there hasn't been a dimming effect since Mt Pinatubo and if you...
Dane: I would implore people to investigate that because I think you'll find data quite to the contrary, so we can leave that there but I would implore...
Mick: All I, I would also encourage people to look that up because I know you bring it up quite often and I'm quite bemused as to why you do because really it's, the science says there hasn't been any global dimming for the last 20 years.
Dane: Actually there's programs from, a study from almost every major institution that says there is, now you said that you haven't seen the evidence to the contrary, ... heard that these program are not going. Are you familiar Mick with anything in the way of government documents that might outline anything that might far exceed any, quote, local weather modification programs, are you aware of any such government document that might indicate actual verifiable existing programs.
Mick: Not that's an existing program no, I know obviously people talk about geoengineering ...
Dane: Historically, that this has gone on, anything historically that...
Mick: That it's gone on?
Dane: ... that the US government is involved with weather modification, is there anything that you've seen historically...
Mick: well, I know that there is
Dane: ... the US government has engaged in weather modification programs on a national level?
Mick: The US government is involved in monitoring weather modification levels, particularly recording what weather modification happens and where, so in that sense I guess you could say that they have. But the US government itself doesn't actually do very much in terms of weather modification, it's mostly local governments, local water boards who actually do it because it's all about increasing rainfall. There's lots and lots of government documents about it, because it's water, which is a very important resource, so there's lots of documentation about it. but there's no large scale federal government...
Dane: So you not aware of anything historically though that the US government has been involved in national weather modification programs?
Mick: I'm not aware of it, no.
Dane: Okay, I'd like to refer people to a document we found in the NASA archived from 1966, a document from the interdepartmental committee for atmospheric scientists, scientists, a presidential document, are you aware of any agencies that would be involved in this, I'd like to go over that real quick if I may John, [John: Sure] on this document which people can look up on our web site and elsewhere. US weather modification document from 1966, 80 pages long, existing program [...] called and termed "national weather modification programs", which amounts to, this is what geoengineering is, this is what the term implies and these are the programs that existed as of 1966.
We had dept of defense, dept of energy, dept of commerce, dept of health and education, dept of interior, dept of state, federal aviation agency, council of economic advisors, atomic energy commission, National Science Foundation, NASA, Dept of Agriculture, Bureau of Budgets, Universities involved, University of California LA, Institute for advanced studies,MIT, University of Wisconsin, UC California Livermore, Colorado State University, State University of Minnesota, Woods Hole (sp) Oceanographic Institute.
Now these are programs that existed. This is not monitoring. These programs actually existed. So, you know, perhaps that a document you might want to take a look at Mick, Because [crosstalk]
Mick: I just had a quick look at it, and all it is is basically a list of Silver Iodide cloud seeding programs.
Dane: It's actually [laughs] much, much more than that, and I would encourage anyone to look, examine that document. I don't want to get caught on one point but, John, whatever you next question is for Mick or me, I'm ready to go for that.
John: Yeah, Mick, some of the things that you and I actually talked about on your web site, and one of the reasons why I left was, I couldn't really talk too much to you about documentation. There's tons of documentation on geoengineering. Now whether or not you use that terminology, it is modifying the weather, for some other reason. And I'm not sure if you understand that that term could be used in a broad sense, just the word "chemtrails". A lot of people hate that word it's kind of a taboo term [Mick: uh huh], what's your term, I mean I can't even use "chemtrails" on my autocorrect and try to add it to my dictionary, yet that word was used, I count more than four times in official documentation. The bill HR2977, I believe it was. It was used in the united states Air Force document in 1991, and it was also just recently used by a NASA scientist this year, I think it was last month, with the rocket launching in, I don't remember the name right now [Mick: Wallops] I actually had this but, he actually used it as a term because he uses, he basically says they use chemtrails for certain things.
Mick: Yeah, well he was .... rocket,... chemical trail from a rocket ...
John: I understand, I know what he was using it about, but he also used the word. So my question to you is, Mick, how is it that a government congress, and don't say that the guy was a UFO guy or whatever. It's a document that was printed and given to the United States Congress, I know it didn't get approved, how can you say that it isn't a real term.
Mick: Well, it is a real term. It's a term of a theoretical, device I guess, In the context of that particular document they were using it as a "space based weapon", because it was a list of space based weapons, so it's not entirely clear what they actually meant by that because obviously the things...
John: But he still used the term!
Mick: oh yeah, he used the term. But you know who actually wrote that? ... It wasn't Kucinich ...
John: ... I do know who wrote it, and it's not important. What's important is that it was used in an official document and also it was used in the United States Air Force Paper, You want to tell me why people refuse, why is that term so taboo?
Mick: Because it refers to a theory that most people think is groundless...
John: It's not a theory!
Dane: Let's let Mick go John. I want to, I mean if we're talking about that term I honestly...
Mick: Yeah, I think it's actually kind of besides the point what the term ....
Dane: .. [inaudible] term as well
John: I just don't understand how that term, is a legitimate term that was used by, not me, by the United States Air Force, by a NASA weather man.
Mick: The air force things was the title of a chemistry manual. And the NASA man was talking about chemtrails spray from a rocket ...
John: It's referred to in the manual, as adding fuel additives to the jet fuel, so I'm not sure, you know there's lots of terms here that are going around, and you know, Dane was trying to bring up geoengineering, there's tons of papers and documents and patents that refer to geoengineering.
Mick: Well, let's talk about geoengineering them,
Dane: Let's let Mick get onto a specific, perhaps John we can go ahead just, the ability to defend whether it's going on and if Mick want's to present his position on why he think's it's not going on, I can perhaps can present data to the contrary
John: Okay. Sure. Let's go there.
Mick: Well, maybe we should start the UV issue? If that's alright Dane?
Dane: Go right ahead
Mick: Alright, I was looking at the figures you've posted on your web site. Now, I don't know if you look at at the email I sent you the other day? But basically it looks like you are using the figure UV A/B [A slash B] to mean A+B [A plus B]?
Dane: [pause] UV is measured, Mick, in milliwatts per centimeter squared on the meters [Mick: Aha], they measure it in the same manner, and we have two meters to measure the delineation between A and B, and I don't know exactly what kind of equation you're trying to build, because it's very straightforward, UVA is measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared, UVB is measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared, and UVB is about 70% of the total UV. ...
Mick: ... let me explain ...
Dane: ... you have to explain the math, and you can't get it and clearer than that. So.. I don't know where you are going with this:
Mick: I'll explain. You have, basically there's two columns, well three columns, there's UVA, there's UV A/B, and there's UVC in that table that you have on your web site, would you agree with that?
Dane: [pause] Make your equation Mick, because look, we measure UVA and we measure UVB, and these measurements are extremely straightforward, and I don't know exactly where you are going with it.
Mick: Okay, let me try to explain. On the table you didn't list UVB. On the table. You have a column labeled UV A/B, which, in normal UV measurements is the UVA divided by UVB, and it seems from your calculations and percentages you've used that as being the sum of UVA plus UVB and then you've calculated UVB by subtracting UVA from that. Which means that you are getting a vastly higher result, and if you actually take that as a ratio rather than a sum
Dane: How do you determine if UVA, and the combination of UVA and UVB is the same measurement milliwatts per centimeter squared, I don't understand you attempt to explain why we can't subtract UVA from the total equation, you know this is done by a 40 year environmental monitoring veteran, it's very straightforward, it's very simple. And by what premise do you suggest we can't take a known measurement for UVA and and deduct it for a combination of UVA and B?
Mick: Because the column you list, UV A slash B, the slash means divide, it does not mean add.
Dane: Do you have a problem with the particular symbol, it might, you're interpreting some other way, I don't know, but the bottom line is we have a calculate..., we have a measurement for the combination of UVA .... you know we are getting caught in semantics here Mick. UVA, UVB, we have a total combine measurement, and we have the ability with a very specialized meter to measure UVA only and that is the deduction of that leaves a remaining of UVB and some of that even spans to UVC, which we are now getting on the ground as well, which is supposed to be stopped 100,000 feet up, so make your point, because I want to get on to the fact the geoengineering is going on, but this is very straightforward math Mick. It's two plus two equals four equation.
Mick: Okay, well I'm just thinking that maybe you do have the ratio instead of the sum. But if in fact that is correct, what I would like to ask you is: why don't you do something...
[phone breaking up]
Mick: Okay, assuming you're correct, and that column is in fact A+B and not A divided by B, then the numbers that you are showing are really really incredible. They are incredibly large. You are showing UVB at a rate which is higher than UVA when UVB should actually be about 5% of UVA.
Dane: ... suggest as low.... some studies suggest as low as 1% but a maximum of 5% is generally accepted...
Mick: Yeah, I've around 5%, a bit over isn't..., anyway let's say around five. But, that's an incredible thing. That right there I think that would be proof that something is going on, and I think that if those numbers are correct, I think what you should do is demonstrate that clearly to the world. I think what you've done now you've just put this table up, and it's a bit confusing and it's not clear. So, why don't you do something that would make it completely clear, like, take your meters out. Go out into the sun with a video camera, and then video yourself taking the readings and show the readings close up, show the units.
Dane: You know, that a great suggestion! I appreciate that suggestion, we'll do that, not just here, because we're already arranging meters for Norway, Maine, New Mexico, and Florida. So we'll do that in each location. And you know one that that makes it quite clear that the numbers are that bad Mick, and again, your suggestion is a good one and we will follow that up. The bark in the pacific Northwest is literally being fried off the trees. Completely fried off to the core wood. Trees are dying everywhere up here. It takes a tremendous amount of UV to do that. Nothing grows here, which is a known consequence of excessive UV. I mean the UV seems so staggeringly high that leaves are literally falling the trees right now. The started falling off in July. So, we see every single sign of excessive UV. Massive insect decline, we just a US forest service biologist, re-survey the terrestrial insects - 90% decline. Bark being burned off the trees. You can't stand in the sun here. So we believe those numbers. We are actually trying to use conservative math, because if you take the UVA and if you calculate 5% of the UVA measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared, you would come out with 3.5, and if you divide that into the ten, which is UVB you'd get a number that's close to 3000%
Mick: Yes, they are very high numbers. I think they are really actually might be physically impossible to get, because it's not just ozone that absorbs UV B and C, it's the oxygen in the air, and ...
John: Mick, what's your understanding of what's going on, with the UVB readings, what,
Dane: While Mick's on that though, he does have a point, he is correct, Mick is correct in saying that oxygen is part of what blocks UV and UVB. But Mick are you aware that global oxygen percentages are dropping dramatically, are you aware of that?
Mick: No, I ... that's rather unlikely, what do you mean by dramatically? About 25% normally ... or 20%.
Dane: I encourage people to look that up. The atmospheric oxygen content is in fact plummeting rapidly, and some consider it to be the greatest threat we face. So..
Mick: I doubt that's been more that 1% though, and that's not going to make any difference to the UV absorption rate.
John: Again, just answer this question, [inaudible] everybody, can you just tell us, what are the implications of what Dane's saying? And what problems do you have with it? I want everyone to have an equal time here.
Mick: Okay, the implications to what Dane is saying is: that there's something seriously messed up with the atmosphere, and I think that he has his figures wrong, because I do not think that it's physically possible to get that type of ratio between UVA and UVB, and I think the most likely thing is just.
John: Hold on a second, Dane, are you taking the measurements yourself?
Dane: No, there's a 40 year environmental monitoring veteran, he's done 20 years for the government, he's about as qualified as they come in this field, and we actually ordered a second meter to confirm the calibration of the first. The meter is guaranteed to be within 4%, plus or minus, both meters are, they are both brand new. They were donated by an anonymous supporter and again Mick has a great suggestion, we will certainly do that back up those readings. We'll put it on video. I think it's a great idea, and we will definitely do that, and we'll do that not just in this location, but in Florida, and Maine and New Mexico, and Norway, we'll do it in all locations, no problem.
And again, one thing people should look up also, Mick, I know you know this, that particulates in the atmosphere, I'm not painting you into a corner, you know, to admit on Geoengineering or change your opinion, but the science is clear on particulates in the atmosphere, they do have an ozone diminishing effect, so people can look that up, again, the science that would say that from geoengineering source, or sources of study that if they did this, it would diminishes the ozone layer erratically, so anyway, those dots do connect.
Anyway Mick, your suggestion filming is great, and we will definitely follow up on that.
John: ... anything else to add to that... I'm sorry, I'm not regulating you enough Mick, I want to you to have more conversation about that so just go ahead.
Mick: Oh, no, that's fine, I think that that probably covers it because, I personally think that the numbers are wrong and I think that doing this, I think that basically the guy you've got doing the tests is just putting the wrong numbers into a spreadsheet.
Dane: What would you say Mick, could burn the bark off trees on the south west side of native trees, all over....
Mick: ...I don't know, I would ask the local forestry department and see what's going on...
Dane: ... they are, they're investigating the issue now, as well....
Mick: I think you'd see a lot worse things than that with the levels you're talking about, you see people with burnt...
Dane: pretty bad, when you have a tree, when you have a native oak tree for example, and we've just filmed this in the forest, and this can be seen on Skyder Alert, but it is bad. I agree, I mean it's hard to fathom it could be that bad. But it appears to be, the readings, and these meters are very straightforward...
Mick: ...Do you happen to know, excuse me, do you happen to know the model of the meter that's being used?
Dane: I believe it's Omega Instruments. It was one that was specifically preferred by this metering expert, who again continues to do it, he's still on the field right now, but he's a 40 year veteran, so I believe it's an Omega Instruments meter. And we're seeing native oak trees, with the bark literally cooked off the tree, down to bare wood, around half to three quarters of the tree where there's only a strip of cambrian layer left behind the tree, it's literally burning native vegetation like manzanitas, it's singeing the leaves right off the bushes. I mean, we're seeing some absolutely profound things here, so. But your advice is well taken, on filming that, so that people can see that meter, I think it's an excellent suggestion, and I understand your skepticism on that I truly do [Mick: Okay], because we were shocked as well, but we will film that and we will put it out. So I think that that question, you know, we can maybe put to rest John? If Mick thinks so
John: You guys both good on that?
John: For now
Dane: On the aluminum test, which I know has been a concern of Mick's for a long time...
Mick: ... Okay ...
John: ... I was just going to get into that...
Dane: ...yeah, go ahead...
John: ...a while back it's been a conversation on Metabunk that some of the test that were done in Why In The World Are You Spraying, what, sorry, I even said it wrong [laughs] What in the World Are They Spraying, those two movies, they basically brought out, they did some sludge testing, and there was some question about the validity of the results, so, am I right Mick, you have some problems with....
Mick: Yes, [crosstalk, inaudible], those test, the issue basically is that sludge contains dirt and dirt is 7% aluminum, and so you are going to get high aluminum rate in those tests. And yet those tests were used in the film as evidence of spraying.
Dane: Now at face value Mick, again, if those tests, if that material had any contact with dirt, any form of dirt, I would fully agree with you. But, this sample came from a pond that is lined with not one liner but two, this is Firestone EPDM pond liner. It's biologically safe for fish, there is no water source into this pond except rainwater and well water. It has virtually no contact with dirt, soil or any type, kind, and that reading was high because it was taken near the bottom of the pond where there's some of the fish feces and so forth that are down at the bottom of the pond, but that was no less reassuring to us that that sort of fish sludge could contain that much aluminum, but, on that test there is absolutely no contact with the earth in any way, shape, or form. [inaudible] this is the best...
Mick: ... sorry.. the pond is an open surface, it's a very large open surface, and the dust in the air just naturally settles on the pond. There's actually, if you look at the figures for big lakes, thousands of tons of dirt every year settle in the lakes, and that's how you get sediment, in...
Dane: ... that's a fair enough question to pose as well, this is a very unique location, in that this catchment basin was very meticulously placed on the top of a forested hill in the middle of a massively forested area. We simply do not have... it's considered a filtered location by the labs. It's ... it does not have blowing dust period.
Mick: What is it filtered through?
Dane: It's filtered through miles and miles of very very thick boreal forest, you don't have dust storms in the middle of a boreal forest. And that's what we have in every direction.
Mick: Yes, but you have dirt in the ground in a boreal forest. So the water flow through this forest and into your pond, it's flowing through dirt.
Dane: well, again mick, we don't have blowing dust, per se, I'm not saying there's not particles in the air, but [inaudible]...dust
Mick: ... you have soil...
Dane ... okay, let's take you argument further, let's say that somehow we have a dust storm up here, that we have not witnessed but, let's go back to strictly rain samples then that we've had up to 3,450 parts per billion, certainly if it's in the rain, we know it's going to be in the pond, it has to be in the pond if it's in the rain. So we've had tests as high as 3,450 ppb of aluminum, in a single rain event, now, what is your perspective on that much metal in rain in the Pacific Northwest. ... not talking about a thunderstorm, you know, something in the Sahara desert where maybe some dust is whipped up or something, we're talking about rain over the Pacific Northwest.
Mick: I think there's two or three possible reasons why you'd be getting such large levels. One is that it could be that there was some dust in the air. The rain just fell through the dust. You will always get some aluminum in rain samples because there is dust in the air. And dust is basically dry soil and rock that has been blown into the air. The other is that you could get some kind of contamination of the sampling device. Dust could be blown directly into that device. ... The third is, user error, basically.
Dane: I think to blanket dismiss 60-70 lab tests, some taken by the state certified lab techs themselves, which we paid them to take, some taken by US Forest Service biologists....
Mick: ... I'm not dismissing them at all, I'm explaining the reasons why you would get those particular levels
John: I hate to interrupt, but wouldn't that be true of anything? ... There has to be a base, and these were done by qualified people who took the samples.
Dane: Mick has a legitimate question, it does but, it's a legitimate question so let me add a little bit to that, I want to clarify this. If this material had always been there, the soil pHs over the last ten years would not have just changed 12-14 times toward alkaline. The aquatic insect population would not have just declined some 90%, and according to ... biologists....
Mick...I think there's two different issues here though, like aluminum itself is not going to do anything to soil pH. So if you are finding aluminum in samples its...
Dane: Well Mick, the science doesn't hold up for that. Not at all. if you have acidic soils and and you have aluminum oxide, it absolutely raises pH. The chemistry on that is very clear. It raises pH, if you have acidic soil. If you have normal alkaline soils, you're not going to see that change. But our soils here, we have a solid baseline. We have a USDA soil study, very extensive, and this is testing done in the field with USDA soil scientists, and we've seen pH changes here 10 to 12 to even 14 times towards alkaline, and that's exactly what you would get with aluminum oxide saturation.
Mick: I think that there's a lot of factors that affect soil pH, and I think you're not really taking that many samples. You taking things like in Francis Mangels back yard, a test underneath a tree...
Dane: These tests were taken with a USDA soil scientist, it has nothing to do with Francis.
Mick: right, but how many test have you done, and what is the location?
[phone breaking up]
Mick: I was just wondering how many tests you have done of the soil pH? And whether they are actually statistically meaningful.
Dane: Well, basically meaningful...
John: ... repeat again for everybody so that they can hear it, and I'm not sure if everybody heard it. How many samples did you take?
Dane: We probably have two dozen. Something in that range. And the pH is again, they are so astoundingly high, so consistently high, they match the rain. Because the rain pH again, rain pH should be 5.4 5.5, when we get rain pH of 6.6, 6.8, which is 10-12 times higher than it should be, that high pH rain contains aluminum, we know this from 3-4 dozen tests taken in Shasta county, about the same amount in Siskiyou county, so when the rain pH is high, almost towards neutral, there's a tremendous amount of aluminum in that rain. During the same period we'll hear probably aircraft traffic 10-15 fold normal, and we see the soil pH going up accordingly. When the rain pH is high the soil pHs have to follow at some point.
Mick: Well, again, I think what you've got there would be a correlation between aircraft traffic and soil pH. That's what you are claiming basically? So, I think there why....
Dane: ... I'm just pointing out an observations, I'm not
Mick: ...right, yeah, but...
Dane: ... pinning our argument, the metal is coming from somewhere, it's raining down in very copious quantities. It's definitely there, that part is really beyond dispute.
Mick: I don't... I think though that you've obviously convinced yourself of this, and some other people, but I think like the problem here is: why can't you convince the the broader population? I think like...
Dane: ... I think we are, I absolutely think we are Mick. I think we are gaining ground by the day. I truly do. I mean, I think the statistics show that, I mean we're, you know we have 20,000 people a day on Geoengineering Watch, something in that realm, and we have the whole Northern California population now is starting to connect these dots because they can't grow anything. One in 50 kids have autism now. A known ailment that's connected to aluminum. One in three seniors in the continental US now dies with Alzheimer's or dementia - also known to be connected with aluminum, we known the aluminum's in the rain, we know it's in the air, we know it's a primary geoengineering ingredient. It's been named on film, on record, by David Keith, and again, with people like David Keith, if that's the premise that geoengineering is not going on for you because David Keith says it's not. I mean, he's all over the board with everything he says. In 2000....
Mick:...well, no, I think David Keith is actually very consistent in what he says and I think you have very badly misrepresented what he actually says.
Dane: then, fair enough, I hear your statement, then let me have people compare two things he has said. First he said in 2010 he proposed dumping 20 million tons of alumina into the atmosphere annually, and his latest statements says just just two private aircraft could fix everything for us. So that a pretty big span. Going from proposing 20 million tons annually, to saying only two aircraft could do it, that's a huge span. And I personally saw emails between David Keith and a professor at Stanford, asking Keith if he knew anything about human microphages, the effects on these metals, you know he had no knowledge of that, he admitted on the record. This is on film for people to see in Michael Murphy's film What In the World Are They Spraying. He's been on the record that: have we studied the effects of these materials? No. Could terrible things happen tomorrow? We don't know. I just don't feel that's a responsible statement for a scientist that's proposing dumping 20 million tons of aluminum
Mick: The thing is, in those two statements, that you made, they're not incompatible. You could actually dump that amount of aluminum with just two aircraft if they made two or three flights a day, with a couple of hundred tons each.
Dane: How many flights a day?
Mick: Two or three, with a couple of hundred tons.
Dane: [pause] twenty million tons annually, you could be done with two aircraft? I..private
Mick:.. Yeah, that's twenty million divided by 365 by 2 is 27,000 tons, ...I just did the math....
Dane: ...People should do the math on that one... because mathematically that is not even remotely possible
Mick: It's in the same ballpark. But, the point is that these are just proposals, they are ideas for what might be done for geoengineering. These aren't things that he is actually proposing to do....it's what they might do.....
John: .... Mick, ... that's actually what I'm going to ask you the next question.
John: As far as government conspiracies, obviously, you know, there are a lot of people that have given, have been given confidential documents, after the fact. There are very many government programs such as MKULTRA, and the spray programs that went on with, where they sprayed innocent civilians with radiation. Over 280,000 people
Mick: They were not actually radioactive, that is just a theory.
John: I'm sorry, that is not a theory, I have the documentation on it.
Mick: Yes, I know, but that documentation is based on one number being the same for two types of chemicals. There's no actually evidence of it being radioactive. But it's kind of getting a bit off topic.
John: Wait, so you're saying that 280,000 did not get sprayed on, and die from cancer, from radiation that was sprayed from the...
Mick: ... they got sprayed on, but they didn't die of cancer because of that spraying.
Dane: I don't know what we are talking about, are we talking about geoengineering now John?...
John: No, we are talking about government conspiracy.
Mick: ...Zinc Cadmium Sulphide...
John ... and if they have done this in, my point is if they've done this in the past, on unsuspecting citizens...
Mick: ... yes, but what you are claiming though is not what actually happened. You're claiming that they sprayed thousands of people with radiation and they died of cancer. That's not what happened. They sprayed some people with what they thought was a harmless substance.
John: ... tell me how these people got sprayed.
Mick: They sprayed Zinc Cadmium Sulphide, which basically it's a substance that fluoresces so it can be very easily detected, and they just sprayed it from planes, and from boats, and things, and they wanted to see how far it would blow in the wind. They chose Zinc Campinum Sulphate because it was detectable, but also because it was a safe substance. There's been tests done, research done now, because people got worried about it, and they found that the effects of it was perhaps the same as a bit of second hand smoking. Now, there a theory...
John: You seem to be [inaudible]
John: Yeah, I know you wanted to stay on the subject there Dane.
Dane: I don't want Mick ...to.. [inaudible]
Mick: Yeah, but you can't make claims about something ... [inaudible]
John: No, I don't mean to steer this conversation one way or the other, but basically what you are saying is: that the government has performed tests on unsuspecting citizens.
Mick: No, they weren't performing tests on citizens. They were testing to see how far this stuff blew on the wind. It was harmless stuff. They were not testing it on ....
Dane: John, hey John, if I could suggest something you know, and I, and Mick, instead of it getting caught on a particular instance, I think if people Google that they could decide for themselves if there has....
John: ...Sure, that's a great idea....
Dane: ... documented cases of this. I don't want Mick to feel that you know, we're, that we're venturing off target here.
Mick: it is a theory, so let's, ... can go look it up
John: The point I just wanted to make was that the government has done scientific on the population.
Mick: Not like that though. They are not testing things on people, in fact there's laws to prevent it.
John: There are laws to protect it, you are correct.
Dane: I think if people look it up....
John: So what you are saying is that the government is doing nothing wrong. Ever?
Mick: No, that is absolutely not what I'm saying. The government does wrong things all the time. Look at Iraq.
Dane: on that one maybe people can look up government testing that has been disclosed. There's quite a long list there in fact. And I think maybe they could make up their own mind. With everything you're. You know I, Mick, what he cites for data does exist, even for example, let's got to the beginning of the conversation, global dimming, you can find data that says it isn't happening. He's right about that. But you can also find a mountain of data that says it is, in fact I'll read you an excerpt from just published from BBC Science and Nature: "we are all rather less of the sun, scientists looking at five decades of sunshine measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface has been gradually falling, paradoxically the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater a threat to society than previously thought". Now, back to my own experience being in the renewable energy industry. When planes put something in the air, whatever that may be, that blocks, at times 70-80% of my solar uptake, the sun is being blocked most definitely. But, you know in Mick's defense, you can find things that say it's not happening, and people simply have to look at sources of data and decide which they feel is of substance, which they feel is true, what they feel might be causing this massive spike alzheimer's, autism, ADD, why things won't grow, why the sun feels so hot, I think people need to decide for themselves. But you know there are sides to indicate, on any subject, be it global warming, you can find a lot of different opinions, but it's up to people to look and decide.
Mick: Yeah, just real quick on that one test you did, that was an article from 2005
Dane: ...which test? I'm sorry Mick...
Mick: The BBC article that you just quoted. That was published in 2005, and it was about research from 2001, between 2001 and 2005, but it's all based on studies of old data. So, more recently, recently in the last like seven or eight years better studies have been done that show that there isn't, actually, there's been a great increase in the transparency of the atmosphere, specifically because....
Dane: [inaudible] those studies are....
Mick: ... of clean air acts....
Dane: I think studies compare with agencies like, those that monitor the Nuclear situation, when the nuclear levels, for example Fukushima, got through the roof, and suddenly they can't hide that any more, the simply change the safe levels, they change the science around that, and again...
Mick: It's an actual level, it's not a safe level, it's like: is there more sun now, you know, and the fact is the studies that goes go back over the last 10-20 years do actually show a slight decrease. The reasons they showed an increase in the 90s was because of Mount Pinatubo, which, you know, you are familiar with that, was a big eruption, it put lots of particulates in the atmosphere, but because the clean-air acts came into effect in 90 or 91, the particulates over America in particular, have been decreased, the car emissions, and factory emissions have been going down. And it has actually started to go up a little bit now because of China.
Dane: Look, you said it's going down though, so, let's cite another article though Mick, NOAA, 2011, NOAA study, increase in particulates high in Earth's atmosphere has offset recent climate warming. This is July 21st, 2011. There's plenty of data out there to indicate the atmosphere's full of particulates. And they just can't figure out where they are coming from. And as a very first hand experience again, when plane grid patterns over our home, we pulled flight data. There are no east west fights, but yet we see them, and when these....
Mick: There are actually a couple of east-west flights over you area, I've looked them up.
Dane: Well, you should tell the pilots who we, we've just interviewed they're commercial pilots and military, because they've done the same, and we don't find it, but when these planes block...
Mick: ... I can find some for you, they are flying to Hawaii, I believe from Chicago, or somewhere like that.
Dane: Well let me finish the point then, because we have not found that data, but, when these flights block, 70-80% on some days, as much as 70-80% of my solar uptake. That's a very direct first-hand experience. That's an absolute fact. So, this is something that its hard to deny, and on the UV readings, again, when we see the bark being fried off the trees, all over the forest, native trees, that's a very alarming, very alarming sign...
Mick: You'd saying two separate things there, you're saying there's like and increase in radiation, and a decrease
Mick: You are saying the bark is fried off the trees because there's more radiation, and you are also saying that there's global dimming, which is reducing radiation. Wouldn't global dimming also reduce the UVB and UVA?
Dane: If it's a particular day, your question is valid, and yes it does in fact on a particular day when there's heavy spraying, yes. It does in fact decrease the overall, we're posting updated charts now, and we've just had a heavy spray day, and the total UV AB combination dropped about 25% with massive spraying. But, with that spraying, as geoengineering data shows, these particulates do shred ozone, there's no debate in the scientific community, so, on the days where there is not massive spraying overhead, the UV is incredibly intense, so it's not an all-this all-that equation, one you damage or decimate the protective layers, when you have days when this particulate is not up there blocking anything, when the UV radiation is absolutely horrific, so.
Mick: Can I just go back to something you said earlier, the NOAA study that you just quoted, that's the one on sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere. That is showing a variability in the sulphate aerosols, it's not showing an increase, it's showing that it's gone up over the last ten year, but in the previous ten years, it actually went down.
Dane: Well, that's confusing, because in 2003 we just talked about that article, and you said the particulates were up but that was from Pinatubo, if it's gone down ... [inaudible]
Mick: ... they are talking about sulphate aerosols, which is a very different thing from what you you are talking about. You are talking about global dimming from particulates in, which would mostly be the troposphere, which would pollution, things like that. Sulphate aerosols are in the higher stratosphere.
Dane: I think we have an acronym, called SAG Stratospheric. Aerosol. Geoengineering. I mean this is the very proposal that were are talking about here, Stratospheric, not tropospheric geoengineering, but stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, SAG
Mick: Right, but
Dane: If I could ask one question to Mick, and I would ask this. Given that we have documents going back, even to the mid-60s, outlining massive weather modification programs by the US government, and people can look that up, given we have mountains of scientific data, proposals, not just cautious proposal, but very urgent proposals by scientific communities to geoengineer immediately because we are in a planetary catastrophe, we have governments setting up massive frameworks for global governance of geoengineering, we see in the sky exactly what the patents describe, the express goal of blocking the sun. I know it blocks the sun because it decreases solar uptake
Dane: I'll finish the question and you can answer. There are the same material showing up in the ground that these patents call for. Virtually, every... we have a shredded ozone layer, which scientific studies say would happen if they geoengineered, when every single dot connects, why wouldn't we believe this is going on Mick? Why wouldn't we believe, why shouldn't we believe, it's going, not going on. You know, why wouldn't we believe it?
Mick: Well, basically because I don't think you have that evidence. You're saying that you see things in the sky, now, the patents for stratospheric sulphate engineering, geoengineering of some kind in the stratosphere would not leave tails that are visible. The trails that people are pointing to...
Dane: What do you base that on?
Mick: They would be spraying a powder, or a gas basically, like sulphur dioxide.
Dane: I've never seen any geoengineering patents that say they spray a gas, they speak of nano particulates.
Mick: well, nano particulates basically it's almost a gas, it's very very small particulates, so, because they are nanosized, you can't actually see them. They are invisible to....
Dane: But water accretes on these particles. Water accretes on them and then you can see them. This is the whole premise of solar obscuration. You have Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering, Solar Radiation Management, and SAI - Stratospheric Aerosol Injection. I mean all these describe the same thing, spraying the particulates in the stratosphere to block the sun
Mick: the thing is but, all of the
John: Hold on, I just want to say one thing. I understand what both of you are saying, and I think I have found something here that maybe Mick could take a look at, it's called "Aircraft Technology and its Relation to Emissions" it clear states that jet engines emit metal particles, including Aluminum, Ti, I don't know what that is, Cr, I guess that is, and Ni, Ba, and these are in parts per volume, which is, at a level through the nozzle of the airplanes, and I'm looking at the document right now, so I'm not sure what the argument is there. It says that these are jet exhaust plumes, and chemtrails, right in the document.
Mick: They are just normal jet exhaust. It's no different from what you get out of the back of your car.
Dane: Okay, so if it's normal jet exhaust, then why do we have films of KC-10s and KC-135s spraying at altitude with the nozzles visible? And turning on and off, how can that be considered normal exhaust.
Mick: You don't have video of the them spraying. You have video of KC-10s leaving contrails. and they turn on and off because they are moving through areas of high and low humidity.
Dane: [laughs] Mick, you could chop this stuff with a knife, I mean, we have video of trails that look like they were cut with a knife. Absolutely...
Mick: ... yes, but, that's what contrails...
Dane: ... you think an air mass changes that meteorologically, you think an air mass changes, in the span of, ...
Mick: ... alright, let me ask you a question about that then, have you ever seen the edge of a cloud?
Dane: the edge of a...? Mick, a cloud is a different formation, than even the definition of a condensation trail, it's completely different. A cloud is, you're comparing an apple with an orange.
John: Hold on, let Mick go
Mick: alright, a clouds is an area of high humidity. A cloud is just an area, it's a volume the air made visible, as someone said a few hundred years ago, it's visible because because the humidity is such the the water vapor in it condenses out.
Dane: what is necessary for that cloud to form though Mick? Particulate matter. Right?
Mick: Yes particulate matter, but ...
Dane: ... it can't form without particulate matter can it?
Mick: ... the air is full of particulate matter. Everywhere, even in the clouds or not in the clouds, there's particulate matter everywhere, there's no shortage of particulate matter. The stuff that comes out of the black of the plane helps the contrails to form a little bit, but if it was perfectly clean, if it was just spraying water out of the back of the plane, you'd still get a contrail, because there's particulates in the atmosphere.
But the point we were talking about here is that there's a gap in a contrail, now, all the contrail is doing is revealing where in the sky the areas of humidity are. So if there are area of humidity that are shaped like clouds, which have very sharp edges, you've see cumulus clouds with incredibly sharp edges, why wouldn't a trail flying, a plane flying through area of humidity start and stop at exactly where those boundaries are? If it was flying through...
Dane: ... the turbulence alone around a passing aircraft could never make possible what you describe, it is absolutely impossible. And if you describe, what you described is true Mick, then how come as the same time we see an aircraft leaving a trail from horizon to horizon, we can spot, and we have on film, aircrafts flying at the same approximate altitude, leaving virtually nothing. Why is that? How is that explained?
Mick: because, it's the same approximate altitude, it only takes a few hundred feet in difference for you to be in a different layer of the atmosphere. And it can be very different humidity. There have been tests done in Germany where they have two planes flying side by side. One of them leaves a trail, and the other one doesn't leave a tail, because they have slightly different engines.
Dane: How come at the same time there's film of one the two shutting off, and leaving nothing, again, and starting up
Mick: because, they are flying out of a region of
Mick: it's basically the same answer as before, there's regions of humidity, they are like clouds, if you can see, you can see lots different shapes of clouds and that's how the regions of humidity are, they are exactly the same shapes as clouds, they come in layers, they come in holes...
John: ... so what I understand is that there are pockets of air, that are creating and not creating the the stratospheric [inaudible]
Mick: Pockets of air which are suitable for contrail formation....
Dane: ... let's take that to another level then, how come we see three-engined jet aircraft leaving a single trail. How come we have aircrafts that have have one, maybe they have a jet engine that is mounted crooked on the plane, because you can see the plume shoots far off to one side. And it really is not a jet engine....
Mick: Three engined lanes appear to leave one contrail because the engines are basically very close together, and they merge very quickly, after, like DC-8s, I think.
Dane: [laughs] Well, we have close-up video of nozzles on planes with these plumes coming out, how is that explained?...
Mick: ...I very much doubt that, but I would like to see it do you have the name of the....
Dane: ... there for everyone to see, and if Mick, if all this is natural, contrails that look like they were cut with a knife, X in the sky, grid patterns, aluminum falling on us in absolutely copious amounts, shredded ozone layer, patents, geoengineering global governance, if all this is simply normal, then, why do they need to, what's the purpose of geoengineering? Why have so many institutions tried to come up with a way to make these artificial trails if they just naturally form by themselves all the time. Why is David Keith discussing dumping aluminum in the atmosphere specifically to make these lingering expanding trails, and why is that when condensation, and again this is a very simple example, but it's accurate, if this condensation just spreads out for days and days, why doesn't this happen when we are walking around on extremely cold mornings, out breath should it hand in a trail behind us for ten miles, is that normal? Really? Do we see that?
Mick: ... why, why it' doesn't do that, it doesn't do it because you breath doesn't freeze. The reason .... it's a little complicated, it's a little complicated the science behind it, but basically the difference between a contrail and condensation from your breath is that the air isn't cold enough to freeze your breath in a way which is called homogeneously, which means without nuclei, ...
John: You know Mick, I want to ask you, you have one video on you web site where the guy is throwing cold water in a freezing cold environment, and it leaves sort of a contrail.
John: And obviously it seems like it's pretty cold there, why doesn't that just stay in the air?
Mick: Because, [laughs, pause], because it's falling, basically. You're looking at a very small thing. A jet plane's contrail is very very large, if you imagine it heats up that thing, and it wasn't just a simple cup of water, it was huge train load of water, and threw that up in the air, you would get cloud that would kind of hang around for a lot longer. There are also other reasons as well, the particles that form from....
John: as long as I've been around, I've been to the arctic region, I've been to Lapland, and Finland, I've never seen anything remotely close to anything like that
Mick: It's a problem of scale, it's a problem of scale. You do actually see if you go to places like Fairbanks, you will see a thing called "ice fog", cars will actually leave a trail behind them, but because they are just tiny little things, compared to a jet plane, they just leave this very little faint trail, and a person, they are not really going to leave a trail, because that's even smaller than the car in terms of how much water they expire. But basically the difference is just because it's freezing, and it's -40 degrees is the temperature you need for a contrail to form, and you don't get that very often, and you don't get jet planes on the ground. Actually, jet planes on the ground do leave contrails sometimes, in Alaska.
Dane: Mick, you know, atmospherically, you describe for example that there's always an explanation that a few feet of difference in elevation would explain why one jet leaves no trail, and one leaves on from horizon to horizon...
Mick: ... a few hundred feet...
Dane:... even though they're changing altitude as well. You describe that this is all perfectly natural phenomenon, when we see, we have films of aircraft, you know, clear shutting on and off with dispersement that's coming from, we see rear engined jets with trails coming from the front wing. ... we see patterns
Mick: ... that can be explained completely...
John: I think he knows, ..., you're going to say ice is on the wing? Right.
Mick: No. That's a, what's called an "aerodynamic" contrail. The decrease in pressure on the top of the wing causes water to condense. It's a well known phenomena.
Dane: So why would that shut on and off then? Because there's video of that shutting on and off...
Mick: ... same reason. It's going in and out of areas of high and low humidity...
Dane: ... why do they need nozzles? Why do they need nozzles on the wings?
Mick: They don't have nozzles on the wings. What you are looking at in that video is flap fairings. Which are, basically little pods on the wings which contain the mechanism, like it's a big hinge, which raises and lowers the flaps for landing. It looks a bit like a nozzle, but it's not. So, it's a flap fairing. Ask any pilot what it is. Show them that video, and they'll tell you what it is.
John: I've seen Evergreen airplanes with nozzles on them.
Dane: Wait a minute, yes,
Dane: If all this is the case, why does Evergreen openly advertise for their 747 supertanker for weather modification? Mick? ... again, if all this metal falling on the ground, if it was always there, the dust was always there. It's always been falling, and it's just normal, then why is everything dying, in the last...
Mick: I don't know why everything is dying. But you know things, local environments get messed up for all kinds of reasons. There's pollution, there's changes in the water supply..
Dane: why would all that metal suddenly be falling? That's my point....
Mick: ... it's not, it's not, the metal isn't falling. What you are seeing is, it's just dust.
Dane: No Mick, you know what, .... metal is falling....
John: I want to move on. I want to ask one more question.
John: Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding for reduction of cumulus clouds and such. You want to respond on that?
Mick: That's a patent, a proposal for geoengineering basically. So, one of many....
John: ... talk about Spec Aid 8Q462 and JP-8+100, can you tell us what those are for?
Mick: I don't know
Dane: You know what, John, I hate to wander off course, because the bottom line is the metal counts here have gone up some 50,000% over 10 years. 50,000% in a single rain event. So, again, the notion that the dust is suddenly blowing, or that something's changed it doesn't hold water, the metal come...
John: Well, you guys may not be familiar with these terms, but I think that our viewers should listen and, look these terms up. It's called Spec-Air 8Q462 and JP-8+100, which is a jet additive. And there's also carbon black, which is carbon black dust. You want to comment on that Mick?
Mick: Well, carbon black isn't really an additive, it's....
John: It's an anti-coking device, I understand, but...
Mick: ... it's a byproduct...
John: ... what does it usually do?
Mick: These thing are just like very very small additives that are put in jet fuel, and they basically contain, you know, just some chemicals that do things like: they stop things getting clogged up, and stop static from building up...
John ...[inaudible] talking about coking in the engine ....
Mick: ... yeah, in the jet engine, they are basically, they are fuel additives like you add to your car sometimes. There is nothing unusual about them, they are usually like very complex hydrocarbons, with a few chemicals in them, but they are just
John: ... are you familiar with ethanol?
John: do you know what ethanol does to your gas engine?
Mick: I, not off-hand, no.
John: Okay, I mean obviously all of us are kind of being affected by ethanol in our gas tanks, but we don't know exactly what it does. A lot of theories are, that what's added to the jet fuel, we don't know what it does either. I know what ethanol does, because I researched it and maybe other people can look it up to, but what it does is it gives you worse gas mileage. And it gives you, the BTUs are not as high, and we are all driving around in our cars, and we don't even know what driving, what the effect of that 10% or 15% ethanol does...
Mick: ... right, but you are just speculating about what could be in jet fuel, I don't think there's really ...
John: ... No, no, I'm not speculating, there are trademarked additives that we can't get access to.
Mick: Well, so you are speculating about ...
John: Why are they trademarked?
Dane: I think...
Mick: So people won't copy them.
Dane: I want to give a closing statement, because I know we could chase this around a long time, and, you know, there's some issues here that
John: There are a lot of issues that are not disclosed to the public, and I want to know what Mick thinks about that.
Dane: I know, I know, I mean, I need to....
John: Can he finish?
Dane: Yeah, go ahead John.
John: Just tell me what you think, why are they keeping these additives, that are in the jet fuel, confidential.
Mick: Because they are trade secret, and they don't want people to steal their formula. It's like....
John: ... who would steal that exactly?
Mick: their competitors.
John. how many competitors, how many manufacturers actually make jet fuel?
Mick: how many manufacturers make cola? There's Coke and there's Pepsi, and neither of them are giving each other their trademarks, their trade secrets, it's the same things, they are just, it's just a ....
John: There's not that many people making jet fuel. So, and they are all regulated by the FAA. And my thought is, that if they are spraying it in our skies, we should know what it is. Don't you agree...
Mick: Well, you were talking about jet additives, there are actually a lot of jet fuel manufacturers, jet fuel is just kerosene.
John: See, when you buy a can of coke, it says that it has trade secrets in it, but those are just amounts, they still have to tell you what the ingredients are.
Mick: No they don't.
John: ... you know what I mean, so, when we're breathing this...
Mick: ... for trace amounts they don't have to tell you what they are.
John: Right, so they don't have to tell you what they are. And, we are breathing them.
Mick: In the coke...flavoring, they don't....
John: no, they do have to disclose it, and the amounts don't have to be disclosed.
John: I think if we are talking about the Food and Drug Administration, they have to be disclosed. But, anyway. I'm basically done with that, and I'm just going to say, I'll leave the word up to Mick, on that, so.
Dane: If we can have a closing statement, from each, John, maybe Mick can do a closing statement, and I could.
Dane: just a sixty second short closing statement, that's all.
John: who wants to start
Mick: I can go. I just want to say I want to thank Dane and John for this, and I think that what we need to do is focus on the evidence, and verifiable evidence, which is where I think the video of the meters would be a good idea, and I encourage people to look up all the things that we have talked about here. I'd just like to read one thing that I just saw today on an article, it was an article in the Daily Mail about contrails, and someone commented on it and they said:
"I was a jet engine mechanic in the Navy, and I can assure you there was no such thing as excess water coming from jet engines. Gas turbines operate on principles described by Bernoulli, and only have infinitesimal H2O content, if at all."
So, my point here's someone who's a jet engine mechanic from the Navy, who doesn't know that jet engine exhaust has water in it. ... So be very careful about taking expert's words at face value.
John: I understand, I understand that.
Dane: Okay, and with that, with that advice then, for the government who tells us they are not doing this then I would finish with this: we have patents that describe exactly what we see in the sky. The same materials falling on the ground, we have documents going back almost five decades describing this sort of program going on. We have a shredding of the ozone layer which I will document as Mick suggested on film, so people can see the actual readings, although there's not a person in Northern California who doesn't feel this sun on their face. We have escalating metals in our rain, have gone up some 50,000% in some cases, in the last ten years. We have virtually every single dot connecting.
And there can always be found a benign explanation for anything, everything, that sounds very plausible, but if the reality on the ground shows effects that cannot be denied, I think that's what people need to base their opinion on, so I hope that anyone who would listen to this does their own investigation, and starts to connect the science that they find, and the information on geoengineering, and obviously that term is science, and not the chemtrail term, so. We have every dot connecting that indicates these programs are going on. I don't think we would expect our government to to ask our permission if they could do this to us, because we know them better at this point. Anyway, thank you for participating Mick. I will definitely follow up with you suggestion to show the readings we are getting, which again the math is correct. I think that's one thing we cleared up from the earlier conversation, the math that we are using is a very straightforward reading from the meter, but I will film this so that you can see it and we'll film it in each location we do it, and people can compare that data on their own to add to their picture.
John: Alright, mick, do you have anything else you want to add quick?
Mick: No, I do not think I do. I...
John: Thanks very much for joining us, and Dane, thank you so much
Dane: Thank you
John: I think this went well, ...
Dane: .. thank you Mick...
John: .. I think that everyone is here for the truth, and I hope that our listeners do their own research, and find their truth.
Mick: Indeed, yes
John: Have a great night guys, thank you.
Rabu, 11 September 2013
Chemtrails Debate between Mick West and Dane Wigington
Bellow is a copy from Metabunk. I know that this debate is real because I see someone at faceboook chemtrails group promise to post the audio for this discussion. But so far I do not see it published yet.