Profile image
Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Two Disinfo Sites Run by "Just Some Guy" - Mick West

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Mick West  claims to be just “some guy” who hosts two websites that claim to use science to debunk what he calls the “pseudoscience” of covert aerosol geoengineering (aka chemtrails).   West admits he’s not a scientist or meteorologist but is working on his private pilot license out of Santa Monica airport in California.

His Youtube Channel is EPOXYNOUS.

The posts on ContrailScience are a mixture of fact-based and biased information with enough good content to lead the gullible down the wrong path.  

West’s darker motives are revealed he doesn’t hesitate to insult anyone who disagrees with him. He claims Michael Murphy is dishonest and goes so far as to misrepresent Murphy’s statements to support his bias. Instead of challenging the scientific merit of issues, West prefers character assasination and inuendo

The Metabunk forum is a watering hole for hardened deniers, educationally challenged, gullible and disinfo agents who spend too much time at attempting to debunk supportable evidence  to suspect they’re not on some payroll.

With the September approach of Michael Murphy’s documentary “Why In The World Are They Sprayiing” the disinfo trolls seem to be out in full, preemptive force.

Personal attacks against those who post evidence in support of covert geoengineering is a strong clue.

Protesting Too Much?:  It’s not rational that someone who didn’t know or care that chemtrails was a “real” issue would adopt a hostile and ad hominem posting style and resort to verbal abuse and insults to beat down a theory they think doesn’t exist.

Based on long experience, I  calculate there’s a network of deniers and disinfo trolls who are actively engaged in interfering with a story that reveals a mammoth and global covert weather manipulation project in plane sight.

While it’s not certain that Mr. West is acting as a deliberate disinfo agent, his websites serves as a safe house for the gullibible and manipulative.

Report abuse
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite
Prodovite

    Comments

    Your Comments
    Question Razz Sad Evil Exclaim Smile Redface Biggrin Surprised Eek Confused Cool LOL Mad Twisted Rolleyes Wink Idea Arrow Neutral Cry Mr. Green

    Total 17 comments
    • Mick West

      I do hesitate very much to insult anyone who disagrees with me. In fact I have a fairly strict politeness policy. It’s true that I have described Michael Murphy as dishonest, but this is based on repeated attempts by myself and other to correct errors in his film and his statements, and him simply ignoring this, and continuing to repeat the falsehoods. I think Michael Murphy is a nice guy, but I think his continuing to say things that have been shown to be false is essentially dishonest.

      I would very much like to discuss the scientific merits of issues, and I have done this at great length in numerous posts and discussions. I invite anyone to point out any error in any of my posts, and I will immediately fix that error. If I have misrepresented statements, then please explain where I have done this, and I will issue an apology and retraction.

      I am not on any payroll. I do this as a hobby, and like many hobbies I spend more time on it than on other things.

      • gerrycan

        Mick, you are a total shill and you know it. You have been debunked on 911 by myself and others repeatedly on your own site. All you can do in response is to split threads and delete posts that show you for the fake that you are. You say that you are all about truth and science but nothing could be further from the truth. You are a stranger to both.
        You fear open debate outside of your own highly controlled forum, and with good reason. You have repeatedly refused an open debate with myself and others re 911 because you know you would be exposed for the liar that you are. Once again, why do you refuse an open debate if you are, as you claim to be, all about truth and science?

        • RayAdverb

          Actually, Mick has participated in a debate with Dane Wigington on the subject of chemtrails: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wigington-west-geoengineering-debate.2211/#post-60979.

          He does not “fear debate.” Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. Don’t yell about how he’s a liar and a coward; either prove him wrong or stop talking about it.

          Consider the possibility that someone could actually be interested enough in the science of contrails to try to debunk some of the misconceptions surrounding them, rather than just being a “shill.” To jump immediately to this conclusion seems irrational and self-centered.

    • Anonymous

      You don’t think that the effect of lambasting the guy for doing character assassinations is slightly compromised by doing a character assassination on him??

      I mean let’s face it – his site calls Murphy dishonest but has quite a lot of evidence to support that conclusion. In fact it contains quit a lot of evidence full stop – as you say.

      whereas your own character assassination has none.

      Thanks for identifying him – he’s a lot more credible than you are.

    • Anonymous

      Harold Saive wrote:
      “He claims Michael Murphy is dishonest and goes so far as to misrepresent Murphy’s statements to support his bias. Instead of challenging the scientific merit of issues, West prefers character assasination and inuendo”

      At the contrailscience.com website, I do find a large body of work challenging the scientific merit of the issues. I don’t find Michael J. Murphy responding to any of these challenges.

      Here is the main challenge to Murphy:
      http://contrailscience.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying/

      What I find there isn’t at all an example of character asassination, but rather a fact based discussion of some significant problems found in Murphy’s film. No character assassination or innuendo to be found.

      You would think that Murphy would avail himself of polite and fact based criticisms of his work, but it looks like he is nowhere to be found. Mr. Saive, can you point out even one instance where Mick West has done any of the things you accuse him of?

      You won’t, because it simply hasn’t happened.

    • Anonymous

      really? this is a fairly transparent exercise, isn’t it?

      writing an obviously incorrect article specifically attacking people with the peer-reviewed scientific fact disproving the conspiracy theory that your site’s advertisers get rich from?

      the death-throws of a failing hoax in place of journalism.

    • Anonymous

      Mr. Saive has been a topic of discussion at metabunk.org.

      You can view this here:
      http://metabunk.org/threads/313-Debunked-quot-Rainwater-Samples-From-Alachua-County-Florida-Test-Positive-for-Aluminum-quot?highlight=alachua

      West and others looked at his claims then politely and without ad hominem had a discussion which showed how he was factually wrong. Saive had no factual argument in response, but rather complained that Mick West had done something illegal by examining his claims, and demanded that his publicly posted Youtube video be removed from examination.

      These are not the actions of a man interested in honest debate over the scientific issues of his claims. These are the actions of a man desperate to avoid any sort of discussion.

      Now, in a very blatant and public way, Saive himself is using ad hominen and innuendo against Mick West when the facts show that West hasn’t done any of that.

      Saive should go to the thread above and enter into a non-emotional and fact based response to what West wrote, rather than try to berate West for something he did not do. Unless he does, it is clear that Saive can only be described as a hypocrite.

      • Anonymous

        here is another example of metabunk looking at one of Harold Saive’s videos, found that he deliberately manipulated a video and misrepresented an ordinary event as something other than it was.

        http://metabunk.org/threads/620-Outrageously-fake-chemtrails-video?highlight=saive

        These are not the actions of a man interested in the truth, these are the actions of a deceiver. Harold Saive, how do you respond, with fact and reason, or not at all?

    • SeriouslyDebatable

      I have had to deal with this “Mick West” Individual. I had registered for his forum at metabunk.org. but I am banned now for no reason. He does all kinds of impolite things. I won’t list them all because it would take too long.

      When I first joined his members would insult me directly, and all Mick would do is edit their posts and remove their insults. Then when I got sick of it, I posted in a reply and said in an indirect way that SOME of the posters were ignorant. I was banned instantly for making an indirect mention of some peoples ignorance. I sent an email to Mick and said that he was being unreasonable and he had a moment of reasoning and unbanned me at that time.

      Weeks later, one of his main posters Jay Reynolds had been calling me names, and he called me an idiot directly, and even sent FU to my pm box and nothing was done about it. Fair? Hardly.

      He likes to rename your thread titles too. Pretty impolite if you ask me.
      http://metabunk.org/threads/782-Did-FBI-Director-Robert-Mueller-Really-Say-There-Was-No-Legal-Proof-of-hijackers-ID?p=15303&viewfull=1#post15303

      I was finally banned for asking a question
      http://metabunk.org/threads/833-When-does-something-become-debunked-on-metabunk?p=16901&viewfull=1#post16901

      I sent Mick a few emails to ask him why and this is what happened.

      MICK: “You don’t win by having the last word. You mistake people getting tired of you for people being unable to counter your arguments. I do understand how this can seem from your perspective.

      This is not a debating forum. It’s a debunking forum. We find out what’s right and wrong about the evidence behind various theories, and then we explain what is right and wrong.

      Nobody argued about the WTC7 freefall point because it was a nonsensical point. NIST noted that a portion of the collapse was effectively at freefall and THEY EXPLAINED WHY. You just ignore this, and ignore people attempting to tell you this.

      I think your problem is that you focus almost entirely on trying to find “evidence” that supports what you already believe. Instead you should be looking to learn more about what is actually happening. People stop arguing with you after a while because they eventually recognize that you are in fact just “debating” and not really interested in the truth.

      I’ve given you a one week ban to consider this. ”

      SERIOUSLYDEBATABLE: “”You don’t win by having the last word.”
      Correct. My facts win by having the last word.

      “You mistake people getting tired of you for people being unable to counter your arguments.”
      You assume that people are able to counter my arguments, even though they do not reply. It is your opinion and that people are getting tired of me, and it is an irrelevant point. They can put me on ignore if they are tired of me. I am tired of Jay. I put him on ignore even though he broke the rules multiple times and deserves a ban. I deserve no ban.

      “This is not a debating forum. It’s a debunking forum. We find out what’s right and wrong about the evidence behind various theories, and then we explain what is right and wrong.”

      Facts which are not agreed upon are not debatable? When is explaining what is right and wrong not considered a debate?

      “Nobody argued about the WTC7 freefall point because it was a nonsensical point.”

      Opinionated. I need argue nothing more on this point.

      “NIST noted that a portion of the collapse was effectively at freefall and THEY EXPLAINED WHY.”
      No, they did not. They explained how free fall velocity was impossible in a collapse, then in the final report they admitted that there was free fall velocity, but did not explain why they still considered the wtc7 a collapse.

      “You just ignore this, and ignore people attempting to tell you this.”
      I am not ignoring anything. I post immediately with any objections that I may have. There are no objections.

      “I think your problem is that you focus almost entirely on trying to find “evidence” that supports what you already believe. Instead you should be looking to learn more about what is actually happening. People stop arguing with you after a while because they eventually recognize that you are in fact just “debating” and not really interested in the truth.”
      Your assumption is wrong. I have an open mind. I don’t KNOW what happened to building 7. I claim that the evidence proves collapse can be eliminated as a factor.. Collapse is impossible with free fall velocity. .

      “I’ve given you a one week ban to consider this.”
      I don’t shy away from controversy. You assume you have made a valid decision without consulting me. Membership requires both parties to approve. I am willing to discuss this now. The ban is not important to me. Can you convince me why I should come back?? While you may consider it a privilege for me to post on your forum, I consider it a privilege for you to have me as a member. I am giving you one day to consider this…. Remove my ban immediately, or give me a good reason that I can agree with for banning me. I simply will not return if you can not do so. So far it’s not cutting it Mick.”

      MICK: “Think about it for a week. ”

      SERIOUSLYDEBATABLE:” “Think about it for a week. ”

      Or else what? You will continue to do what you have already implemented? No teeth Mick. No teeth. Why should I take your suggestion? Here is a reason why you should take MY suggestion:

      1) You assume you have been proven to be correct, and are carrying out the punishment of a one week ban without discussion. There is nothing to think about. After one week you claim the ban will be lifted automatically with no discussion needed.

      2) You are not in the position to offer for me to think about it for a week. This is a reciprocal contract and I am offering you an ultimatum.

      Think about it for a day Mick, OR ELSE I am using my authority to remove myself from your forums, and will use my influence to discredit them.”

      He did not wait and think about it for a day. He felt the need to make a public announcement about banning me, and then posted the private contents of our email and misquoted me by removing the first part of my sentence. Not very polite if you ask me, also hypocritical since Jay Reynolds had posted a reply to a private message I made to him and Mick had removed that when I complained to Mick…
      but now Mick does the same thing?
      http://metabunk.org/threads/833-When-does-something-become-debunked-on-metabunk?p=16926&viewfull=1#post16926

      Metabunk is a total disinfo site that is run by “some guy” with an agenda, Mick West.
      I sent him this final email:

      SERIOUSLYDEBATABLE: “YOU did not ban me permanently. I LEFT.

      I did not say I am using my authority to remove myself from your forums, and will use my influence to discredit them.

      You are misquoting me in the forums.

      I said Think about it for a day Mick, OR ELSE I am using my authority to remove myself from your forums, and will use my influence to discredit them.

      You could not even think about it for a day now could you. Permanent ban as soon as you read it huh? Oh well you are only hurting yourself with the negative exposure you will now receive. So much for being fair… I will send you a link to the article I write about your website when it is finished. Enjoy making a fool of yourself trying to debunk it.”

      • Micke Westis

        Hey. It’s really pointless and stupid to put energy into a man who Mick West (if his name is right, doubtful.’ll Get back with that)
        He can not take up the place he does on all www pages unless there is big money involved. So the best thing is really to remain silent death on such a man. But it’s hard, I know! But as usual, money controls all the immoral people unfortunately! :sad:

    • SeriouslyDebatable

      “If I have misrepresented statements, then please explain where I have done this, and I will issue an apology and retraction. ”

      Posting a comment on your forums that was sent to you in an email, and leaving out the first part of my sentence, was misrepresenting my statement. I put a link to it in the article, and explained it thoroughly.

      I am waiting for my apology and retraction, Mick.

    • Bergstrom

      I looked at the sky when I was a child, and compare it to what I see now — there are questions which deserve answers. The same aircraft fly over head, in the same numbers, in my region. But the sky is abysmally hazy from lingering “contrails” (not sure what they are, but they don’t behave like contrails). And the bright blue of summer skies has not been seen for years. One can see that despite the movement of water vapor formation known as clouds, the “non-terminating ‘contrails’” do not budge much. Clouds in the same region of the sky travel many times faster. Despite my typing these basic, plainly observable facts, I know that vehement twits will descend on this site to shout “scientific” rhetoric. The rhetoric of science is ever-present, it seems, when someone says, “look around you, brother”. Empiricism is needed more than ever.

    • berforeitsnewsdebunker

      I see contrails all the time that disappear very quickly like i have seen for years. Now on the other had chem-trails leave streaks across the sky from one side to the other that spread out wider over time and create a haze or over cast in what was a clear blue sky. I use to not believe it until I looked for myself. If this is what our passenger planes are doing to our sky then they need to be stopped. But I have also came to the conclusion that these chem-trails are the work of chemical warfare on the population. All anyone has to do is study them for themselves.

    • conscious soul

      Mick West what despicable guy you are!

    • Lizardkiller

      This guy debunks anything that challenges the establishment narrative. The only sources he deems credible are establishment sources. Mick is a classic disinfo agent, and a knowing one…this guy gets paid, make no mistake.
      If it were possible to still “debunk” the existence of the Russell Trust, he would be all over it.

    • Micke Westis

      I am convinced that Mick West is paid!
      There is nothing that matches his collected facts. Actually. Firstly, it is very easy to change the photos to begin with. I’m a photographer. Micks other theories are also bad. I do not think Mick really knows how much fuel a Boingplan consume per mil, unless he gets help from someone or read it in wikipedia. Even less water and particles. Nice words will not help you, Mick. For k streaks to occur, the saturation (over ice) of water vapor at the temperature prevailing. For example, assume that the flight is at 8-10 km altitude (pressure surface 300 hPa) and the temperature there is -40 ° C. At this temperature requires approximately 0.26 grams of water vapor per kg of air to saturation over ice will occur. Near the earth’s surface (1000 hPa) is considering a cubic meter of air around 1.2 kg while at 300 hPa weighs about 0.44 kg. We therefore need more than two cubic meters to get together for one kilo of air at this altitude.
      If the plane emits 25 liters of water ie 25 kg = 25000 grams per 10 km = 10000m, this is equivalent to 2.5 grams per meter it travels.
      This is enough to form a contrails. But not a persistent contrails that last for up to 20-24 hours. Why do you think the EU, the UN and the ETC Group warns of spread chemtrails. It’s just ridiculous to keep on as you do, but money control some people. You probably have no problem with ignoring future generations. Poor you! PS. Excuse my bad English.

    • Theboss

      After having several encounters with this Mick West gentleman on the subject of geoengineering I would have to say 100% that he is an extremely closed minded shill. This was the info we added to his Metabukn website that he immediately removed as ‘too much info’ and far too much for readers to digest- make of it what you will…

      MIT admit they want to do this:
      https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603349/geoengineering-gets-green-light-from-federal-scientists/

      And this is how they plan on doing it:
      https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

    SignUp

    Login

    Newsletter

    Email this story
    Email this story

    If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

    If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.