A very worthwhile interview with Bruce Lee

Many people may be unaware that the idea for the influential television series Kung Fu almost certainly originated with Bruce Lee.  

In Bruce Lee's 1971 interview on the Pierre Berton Show from Hong Kong, shown above (here are the links to part 1 and part 2)*, he discusses the fact that he had the idea for a television series in which a Shaolin monk comes to North America during the days of the wild west, and that the studios told him they would prefer a modern setting.  Bruce Lee insisted that it would work better in an old west setting.  

It has been suggested that the studios stole this idea from him without proper acknowledgement or compensation.

This interview is worth watching carefully in its entirety, for the insights that Bruce Lee offers in his answers.  In part 2 of the interview (below), he laments the fact that motion pictures typically only glorify violence, saying:  "Unfortunately, the pictures -- most of them here -- are done mainly for the sake of violence."

One of the most significant aspects of the television series Kung Fu which grew out of the idea that Bruce Lee brought the studios is the fact that physical force is only used to stop violence, and never over name-calling, taunts, insults, or even worse intentionally humiliating forms of behavior which do not actually lead to the possibility of serious bodily harm.  In this way it is very different from almost all the other movies and television shows which glorify violence in a way that Bruce Lee called unfortunate in the interview in 1971.

Some of that idea comes through in a well-known scene from Bruce Lee's most famous motion picture, Enter the Dragon, released only a few days after his death.  In that scene, he illustrates the art of "fighting without fighting." 

Bruce Lee's contribution to the world went far beyond his unquestionable martial arts mastery.  The issues probed in the interviews above are important ones, however dated the questions Pierre Berton asks  might appear on the surface.

* The Pierre Berton interview sequences linked and embedded above have now been removed from YouTube (as of 12/2013).  The same interview can be seen here, broken into three parts rather than two: part one, part two, part three.

Bruce Lee, 1940 - 1973

This July 20 is the 40th anniversary of the mysterious death of Bruce Lee, who inspired fans around the world and who is almost single-handedly responsible for the tremendous increase in interest in the martial arts that took place as a result of his movies.

Respect.

















previous related post

Who's unscientific? Vicious critics of Jenny McCarthy and her new role as co-host of The View

This week, it was announced that Jenny McCarthy, a well-known and outspoken critic of the safety of vaccines for some children, has been selected as a co-host of the popular daytime television talk show The View, sparking immediate howls of outrage from those who apparently believe that such opinions should be banned from being broadcast to the masses, whom they do not deem worthy of making their own decisions on important subjects such as vaccinations.

Here is a link to a segment broadcast today on taxpayer-supported National Public Radio, in which only quotations from those calling McCarthy's concerns "baseless" are given airtime, and which ends with the smug observation that View host Barbara Walters had taken some time off this year due to chicken pox, which is now preventable with a vaccine.  The written transcript of that segment can be found here.

During the segment, a university professor calls McCarthy's views "baseless" and says her information "has no scientific support whatsoever."  The author of a book critical of those who question the safety of vaccines is reported to have said that "McCarthy's celebrity ensured her books receive coverage even as the link between autism and vaccines is given credence by no medical authority."  

The university professor adds that it ends up being pretty irresponsible to propound a course of action that actually can endanger the children of your listeners," which presumably means that he is against the selection of McCarthy as a regular co-host on a popular television show, because airing differences of opinion "can endanger" children.

Other popular media outlets did not just imply that those who hold different views about vaccinations should not be given a voice on popular television shows: they came right out and said it directly, often with a great deal of vitriol.  Time magazine's TV critic James Poniewozik published an article entitled "Viruses Don't Care About Your View: Why ABC Shouldn't Have Hired Jenny McCarthy."  In it, he says that, "to legitimize McCarthy’s dangerous anti-science because she will probably get crazy attention and ratings is irresponsible and shameful."  

He then goes further and states that "muddying a vital question of public health by framing it as a 'controversy' that you can hash out in a roundtable" may be the most dangerous aspect of having McCarthy on The View.  In other words, according to Time's TV critic, viewers cannot be allowed to believe that there is any debate about this issue, and to even so much as hire someone who has an alternative belief on a "vital question" is irresponsible.  According to those who see themselves as the gatekeepers of what subjects are open for debate, certain questions are off-limits, and they will decide which questions may be debated and which cannot.

Poniewozik ends his article by referring to Galileo and saying that some questions are already settled, as scientific fact, including the link between viruses and disease.  But this argument is disingenuous -- McCarthy is not necessarily arguing that a virus cannot cause a disease.  She is arguing that there may be a link between some vaccines and harm to some of those who receive them, and that parents should become informed on the issue.  

Furthermore, while one can point to Galileo and say, as Poniewozik does, that "The Earth didn’t revolve around the sun only for Galileo," there have been other beliefs that once had "no scientific support whatsoever" and which were argued only by a tiny minority which later became mainstream.  For example, see this previous post on the scorn that was heaped upon Alfred Wegener just a hundred years ago when he proposed his theory of continental drift, or this post from 2011 entitled "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasi-scientists," which was a withering barb leveled by a fellow scientist at the work of a man who later became the 2011 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry for his work proving the existence of quasicrystals.

Here are some other scornful articles from around the media world blasting McCarthy and the idea that the safety of vaccines can be questioned: one from Slate calling her a "notorious anti-vaxxer," one from someone calling herself "MD Mama" at Boston.com who says that McCarthy's "claims" are "made up," and one from New Yorker entitled "Jenny McCarthy's dangerous views" which concludes that "Executives at ABC should be ashamed of themselves for offering McCarthy a regular platform on which she can peddle denialism and fear to the parents of young children who may have legitimate questions about vaccine safety."  The author of the Slate article made the added point that, even if McCarthy does not mention her vaccine views, the very fact that she is now a co-host on The View will give her "a tacit credibility to the viewer."

Such virulence reveals the low opinion that those who consider themselves "opinion-makers" have of the general public.  It also reveals their view of the proper role of the media, including daytime talk shows such as The View that purport to discuss subjects from various perspectives.  They clearly see their fellow media outlets (and presumably their own media outlets) as platforms for disseminating the right view of certain important subjects, and wish to make sure that no "dangerous" dissent on certain topics is ever given even "tacit credibility."  

In other words, their view of mainstream media outlets is as organs for the dissemination of propaganda, speaking with one voice on some subjects so that the watchers do not get any ideas or look into certain issues for themselves.  We can identify vaccines as one of these subjects on which many in the media apparently believe no alternative views can afford to be heard.  What might some of the others be?

For her part, Jenny McCarthy's non-profit organization, Generation Rescue, has a website on which an FAQ page gives what appear to be her actual positions on the subject.  There, the organization's position on vaccination is stated in this manner:

Generation Rescue firmly believes that all parents have the power of choice – to vaccinate or not – and should be armed with the right questions to make an informed decision. We encourage all new parents to educate themselves about vaccinations so they can stand with confidence behind their decisions. Parents need to discuss vaccination options directly with their child’s pediatrician.

Now there's a set of assertions that critics can rightly label as "dangerous views" and "irresponsible" -- the idea that "all parents have the power of choice -- to vaccinate or not -- and should be armed with the right questions to make an informed decision."  

As noted above, one need not deny that there is a link between virus and disease to want more information on the safety issues surrounding a specific vaccine, or the preservatives used for a specific vaccine, or the vaccine schedule currently being recommended for young children.  For instance, one could believe that certain vaccines are important, but that others which are recommended (such as the chicken pox vaccine) might not be worth the potential risk.  Or, one could believe that certain vaccines are important, but that the number of vaccines that are now given to infants in rapid succession might be safer if the vaccinations were spread out over a period of months instead of all being given on a single day.  Or, one could believe that certain vaccines are important, but that combining three different vaccines into a single shot administered all at once (such as the DPT vaccine) might be dangerous, and they might wish to seek ways to have these vaccines administered separately instead of all together.

The idea that parents should become more informed on this subject should not be controversial, but some people apparently believe that the mere sight of McCarthy on The View is intolerable because it could cause viewers to start to investigate such issues on their own, and to think for themselves instead of listening to the unified message that they and their fellow media outlets are trying to shape for their audiences.

Finally, many of the critics referenced above condescendingly come right out and say that McCarthy has no right to speak out on this subject because she is not a doctor and because she is an actress and a model.  In just about every crime mystery, this type of argument is put forward by "the authorities" who think they have the crime all figured out, and are upset when an "outsider" such as Sherlock Holmes or the gang from Scooby Doo show up.  They want to marginalize and attack outside voices that threaten the establishment (which they represent, and from which they derive all of their authority and livelihood). 

Jenny McCarthy has just as much right to speak out about this subject as any other human being, and as she is also a mother and someone who believes her child may have been harmed by a vaccine, she has every right to try to become as informed as possible on all sides of the issue, and to share what she believes with other parents of children who are concerned about these issues.  

Additionally, to imply that no medical doctors have any questions at all about the safety of vaccines is simply untrue.  Here are several links to doctors raising various concerns about the safety of the current vaccine methodology, from the website of Dr. Joseph Mercola (another figure that the establishment would like to marginalize and discredit): 

• an article on issues surrounding the DPT vaccine, with discussion of the work of Dr. Peter Aaby.
• an article on issues related to vaccines containing aluminum, with discussion of the work of Dr. David  Ayoub.
• an article discussing safety issues related to mercury derivatives in flu shots, with links to articles saying that the government of Finland suspects a connection between health problems in some children given a flu vaccine and the contents of the vaccine.
• an article discussing studies conducted by university researchers demonstrating that the effectiveness of an HPV vaccine had been fraudulently overstated, and linking to a list of adverse events associated with individuals who received that vaccination reported in the US Health and Human Services Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (which lists all events reported, some of which may be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine).

The data in these articles suggests that the vaccine question may not be such a "closed case" as the authorities -- and those in the media who for some reason want to control all debate on this subject -- want people to believe.  This subject is an outstanding example of a subject in which certain parties do not want anyone to question the official story, and in which those seeking to quell independent investigation on the part of parents or other concerned citizens will resort to throwing around the term "science" to imply that their position is unassailable and that any men or women who question their position are akin to those who believe the earth is flat or that it does not revolve around the sun.

Whatever your position on this particular issue, we should all agree that this kind of name-calling and stifling of debate is reprehensible and ugly.  In fact, it may well be termed "irresponsible" and even "dangerous" -- the very terms the media critics are using to describe Jenny McCarthy's selection as a co-host of The View.  This type of behavior threatens open inquiry and the search for the truth in a wide variety of subjects, from medicine to history to geology and biology, as discussed in this blog in many other posts.  In this way, it is also extremely unscientific -- yet another term that the critics are applying to Jenny McCarthy, but which actually applies to them.

Centeredness is the cure for impulsiveness

Centeredness is the cure for impulsiveness.
Serenity is the master of restlessness.
Knowing this, one of universal nature is placid
     and never departs from the center of his own being.
Tao Teh Ching 26

It is generally the nature of weapons 
     to turn against their wielders.
[. . .]
to be excessively strong
     is to hasten decay [. . .] violence
     is against the integral nature of the universe.
Tao Teh Ching 30

Weapons are instruments of killing
     and destruction,
     which are contrary to the nature of life.
Thus, they are avoided by those who follow
     the subtle Way of the universe.
Tao Teh Ching 31

One of subtle universal virtue
     is not conscious of being virtuous,
     therefore, he is truly virtuous.
One of partial virtue attempts to live up to
     an external standard of virtue.
Therefore, he is not truly virtuous.
Tao Teh Ching 38

All translations from The Complete Works of Lao Tzu: Tao Teh Ching and Hua Hu Ching, An Enlightening New Translation and Elucidation by Hua Ching Ni.

New study on human-induced seismic activity due to fracking wastewater injection

A brand-new study published in the journal Science entitled "Injection-Induced Earthquakes" by William Ellsworth of the US Geological Survey's Earthquake Science Center in California has concluded that deep wastewater injection wells may have played a role in the increase of earthquakes in the central US during the years 2011 and 2012.

The high volumes of wastewater being injected deep underground in these disposal wells are a by-product of the process of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."  While the injection of this wastewater had previously been suspected as a possible cause of human-induced seismic activity, no study had yet concluded with a high degree of certainty that this injection was actually causing the increased seismic activity.  The newly-published study concludes that there is a connection between the injection of large volumes of wastewater from fracking and the increase of seismic activity, including earthquakes measuring over 3.0.

The study includes a graph showing the cumulative count of earthquakes with magnitudes of 3.0 or greater in the US "midcontinent."  The cumulative count increases steadily from 1970 through 2000 and then jumps in 2001 and increases at a more rapid pace from 2001 to the present -- an increased rate that coincides with the advent of aggressive hydraulic fracturing in the mid-continental US.

The study concludes that the fracking itself, long known to induce minor earthquakes that usually measure below 3.0, is not the probable cause of the increased number of magnitude 3.0+ earthquakes, but the practice of injecting wastewater from fracking operations into deep disposal wells is probably a contributing factor.  A quotation from the structured abstract of the study explains:

More than 100,000 wells have been subjected to fracking in recent years, and the largest induced earthquake was magnitude 3.6, which is too small to pose a serious risk. Yet, wastewater disposal by injection into deep wells poses a higher risk, because this practice can induce larger earthquakes. For example, several of the largest earthquakes in the U.S. midcontinent in 2011 and 2012 may have been triggered by nearby disposal wells. The largest of these was a magnitude 5.6 event in central Oklahoma that destroyed 14 homes and injured two people. The mechanism responsible for inducing these events appears to be the well-understood process of weakening a preexisting fault by elevating the fluid pressure. However, only a small fraction of the more than 30,000 wastewater disposal wells appears to be problematic—typically those that dispose of very large volumes of water and/or communicate pressure perturbations directly into basement faults. 

Again, although this connection had been suspected previously, it had not been studied enough for scientists in the US government to conclusively admit to a connection.  In fact, this statement from the Secretary of the US Department of the Interior (which includes the USGS) published on 04/11/2012 concludes by saying in the penultimate paragraph: "Although we cannot eliminate the possibility, there have been no conclusive examples linking wastewater injection activity to triggering of large, major earthquakes even when located near a known fault."  We can assume that the Department of the Interior will issue a new statement now that further study has demonstrated more evidence of a conclusive connection.

The process by which the injection of wastewater into the ground can trigger earthquakes is illustrated in the video above, as well as in the animated gif at the bottom of this article in Mother Jones magazine discussing the newly-published study.

The process is also discussed in some detail in a blog post that was published here on 04/11/2012 (the same date as the date of publication for the Department of the Interior statement referenced above).  The reason that post was published on the same day that the Department of the Interior chose to release a statement is the fact that at that time Bill Ellsworth, the author of this most-recent study, was beginning to suggest that the rise in seismic activity shown in the graph above may have been connected to the process of wastewater injection.  The blog post explains that this conclusion is perfectly aligned with the hydroplate theory of Dr. Walt Brown, and that Dr. Brown has in fact long predicted that the injection of water deep underground could trigger earthquakes (see for instance note 69 on this page of his book's online version -- published physical versions of his book have contained similar warnings for years prior to 2011).

As that post also explains, the presence and direction of the numerous faults found all over the earth, including in the middle of plates, is not well explained by the existing tectonic theory but is explained by the hydroplate theory.  He notes that the faults and fracture zones on the earth (including on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean) do not conform to the explanation that they were caused over millions of years by tectonic movement, because they are sometimes many degrees out of parallel, sometimes curved, and sometimes even intersect one another (see for example his discussion on this page).

The hydroplate theory proposes that faults and fracture zones were the result of the tremendous mass imbalances in the earth during the events surrounding a global flood, which included the dramatic rise of the basement mantle under what is today the Atlantic Ocean when the escaping water eroded overlying crust and removed the weight of that crust, followed by an even more dramatic collapse of the area that now form the basin of the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, as mass moved towards the Atlantic, accompanied by tremendous friction, melting, and magma production.  Thus, the very faults themselves which are discussed in this most-recent study of the possible connection between wastewater injection and earthquakes are important pieces of geological evidence which support the hydroplate theory's explanation of earth's geology.

Note that the connection between earthquakes and wastewater injection does not mean that all earthquakes in the center of plates, far from plate boundaries, are the product of human-induced activity.  Numerous previous posts have discussed the reasons that earthquakes can take place far from plate boundaries -- a phenomenon that the hydroplate theory explains quite satisfactorily, but one that the tectonic theory has some difficulty with.  Powerful earthquakes far from plate boundaries have been reported in previous centuries (such as the powerful New Madrid earthquake in Missouri in 1811), when no fracking was taking place, and earthquakes have been measured far from plate boundaries in the middle of Antarctica where no fracking operations are being conducted (as far as we know).

The editor's summary of this most-recent study also notes that the deep fluid injection of wastewater near faults may trigger earthquakes when powerful seismic waves from far-off earthquakes reach the faults in question.  Unfortunately, the hydroplate theory's explanation of earthquakes appears to support the likelihood that the number of such earthquakes may increase in the future.  This possibility is discussed at the end of this previous post which goes into more detail on the mechanisms that cause "deep earthquakes."

The study of earthquakes is very important, and the hydroplate theory's explanation of the cause of faults and earthquakes appears in many ways to be superior to the conventional tectonic models that most scientists are using today as the foundation for their understanding of these phenomena.  This most-recent study appears to be yet another example of research that confirms assertions that Dr. Walt Brown has been making for years based on his hydroplate theory.

Pacific volcanoes and the problems with the plate tectonic theory

Above is a diagram of the conventional tectonic view of "subduction" -- the action of one plate supposedly diving beneath another plate.  This diagram can be found on Wikimedia commons, and there are many more like it which all show roughly the same concept.

According to the conventional view, when one plate runs into another, it will sometimes dive beneath the other plate, creating a trench (marked in the diagram above) along the line of subduction.  Additionally, the conventional theory asserts that the diving or subducting plate is subjected to intense heat and pressure, which often causes it to melt as it dives deeper and deeper, turning into magma which then works its way towards the surface and creates a chain of volcanoes (these are also shown in the diagram above). 

Note that these volcanoes, according to the conventional theory, should be located on the side of the trench belonging to the plate that is not diving.  The magma is coming up from the melting of the front edge of the subducting plate, which is now underneath the non-diving plate (the edge of the diving plate is now on the far side of the trench from its plate, and as it melts its magma bubbles upward on the side of the non-diving plate).  

In other words, in the diagram above, we see a subducting plate coming from the left, and a non-diving plate on the right.  The volcanoes should form on the right of the trench, in the plate on the right, but they are the product of the front edge of the plate coming from the left.  The front edge of the left plate, which is subducting and is now under the right plate, creates the magma that forms the volcanoes.

Below is another diagram showing almost the same process, but this time instead of taking place near a coast, it is taking place at sea and the volcanoes are forming on the ocean floor instead of on the continent.

Again, this diagram comes from Wikimedia commons, and again there are many other variations on this diagram that one can find on the internet, all illustrating the same general concept.  

Most people learn these fundamentals of the conventional plate tectonic theory in school, and the explanation sounds fairly reasonable.  However, there are many reasons to challenge this basic explanation for the formation of ocean trenches, and to question the very existence of such a process as "subduction."  

Dr. Walt Brown, the originator of the hydroplate theory, has challenged this conventional explanation and provided numerous examples of evidence which argues against this explanation.  He discusses these reasons in depth, along with his alternative explanation for the evidence, in this chapter of his book on the hydroplate theory, which is available online in its entirety (and available for purchase from Dr. Brown and other book-sale channels).  In fact, he lists seventeen reasons that subduction is an extremely questionable explanation for the evidence that we actually find in the deep oceans, where most of the supposed subduction zones are located on our planet.

Some of the problems with the subduction theory of tectonics have been addressed in previous blog posts, such as this one, this one and this one.  Another problem with the tectonic explanation that has not been addressed directly on this blog before is the existence of volcanoes on the Pacific floor that do not appear to fit the theory -- or the diagrams above -- at all.

As Dr. Brown writes in his book, 

On the western Pacific floor are 40,000 volcanoes taller than 1 kilometer.  They lie among trenches, not on only one side of trenches. [. . .]  If subducting plates generate magma that forms volcanoes, then volcanoes should lie on the side of the trench above the descending plate.  [See Figure 85 on page 150].  Actually, most volcanoes in the western Pacific lie on the opposite side of trenches.  Also most volcanoes in the western Pacific are interior to a plate -- contradicting plate tectonics, which says volcanoes should usually form near plate boundaries.  

The above quotation comes from pages 154-155 of his 8th edition, and can also be found online about a third of the way down this webpage, under the heading "Scattered volcanoes."

Below is an image from Google maps showing the southwestern area of the Pacific ocean floor.  You can see for yourself the volcanoes which Dr. Brown is discussing in the quotation above, and consider whether the plate tectonic explanation is a good one for the evidence that we actually find, and whether the reality looks anything like the subduction diagrams shown above:

In the map, you can clearly see trenches toward the west (left) side of the image -- some of the deepest ocean trenches on our planet, in fact.  The conventional view is that the plate to the right is subducting under the plate to the left to create these trenches, although how it makes those arcs and cusps is another huge problem with the tectonic theory.  However, more to the point of the volcano-location discussion, notice all the volcanoes scattered across the floor of the Pacific to the right of the trenches, some of them extremely far away from any supposed "subducting" activity.  The Hawaiian Island chain is one series of volcanoes in the image, but there are many others that you can see, none of which look like they support the subduction description of events at all.

Dr. Brown believes that the magma that created these volcanoes does not come from a subducting plate -- the magma came from the catastrophic events surrounding a past global flood on our planet.  According to his theory, the entire floor of the Pacific was pulled towards the center of the earth by the physics involved in the flood event.  When this happened, the intense shearing and heat generated magma around the entire edge of the subsidence -- a ring of magma known today as the "Ring of Fire."  The same forces also "depressed, cracked, and distorted the entire western Pacific.  Frictional melting produced large volumes of magma that spilled out on top of the Pacific plate.  Some of that magma formed volcanoes" (154).

This explanation does a much better job of accounting for all the evidence that we actually find in the Pacific.  The tectonic theory, while better than what came before it, has enormous problems.  The "subduction" explanation is one major problem with the tectonic theory, but it is not alone.  Scientists should overcome their aversion to "catastrophic" explanations and consider the hydroplate theory of Dr. Walt Brown, which provides very comprehensive and satisfactory explanations for the evidence we find on our amazing planet Earth.

Utterance 245: transformation into a hawk

Above is an image from Wikimedia commons of an Olmec figurine, discovered in what is now Mexico, and thought to date from the 6th century BC to as far back as the 10th century BC.  It is made of greenstone, which is a material that is notably treasured by the Maori of Aotearoa and used by them for centuries to make figurines and jewelry, as discussed in this previous post.  

This particular Olmec figurine displays features of a man, but also of a bird of prey, possibly an eagle, including a plume between two wide-spread eyes, and a beak-like mouth.  Here is a link to the page at the Metropolitan Museum of Art describing the figurine.  The discussion there notes that some scholars believe that:

such figures are representations of a shaman's transfiguration into his nahual, or powerful animal counterpart. It is believed that, in this altered state, a shaman is able to interact with the spirit world and use his abilities to heal, punish, or predict the future.

In the Pyramid Texts of ancient Egypt, the king is described as transforming into a bird of prey as well.  Scholar Jeremy Naydler has argued that the Pyramid Texts do not describe the hoped-for journey of the soul of a departed king, but rather that they describe a deliberate out-of-body journey taken by a living king.  In other words, he believes the Pyramid Texts are primarily shamanic rather than funerary.  See this previous post and this previous post for further discussion of Jeremy Naydler's important thesis.

You can visit the Pyramid Texts online through an outstanding website called the Pyramid Texts Online.  There, you can read the texts as they are laid out in the pyramid of Unas, last king of the Fifth Dynasty of ancient Egypt, whose reign ended circa 2345 BC.  On the south wall of the passageway between the sarcophagus chamber and the antechamber, you can find Utterance 245, in which Unas is transformed into a hawk:

This Unas comes to you, O Nut,
this Unas comes to you, O Nut!
He has thrown his father down to earth
he has left a Horus behind him.
His two wings have grown as those of a hawk,
(his) two feathers (are those) of a holy hawk.
His soul has brought him (here),
his magical power has adorned him.

May you open your place in heaven amongst the stars of heaven!
You are indeed the unique star, the comrade of Hu.
May you look down on Osiris, when he gives orders to the spirits!
You stand high up, far from him.
You are not of them, you shall not be of them. 

Do your own due diligence: Geoengineering

Here is a topic which positively begs for due diligence.  The phrase "due diligence" is shorthand for the following general idea: On subjects that could seriously impact your life, you should take the time to look into those subjects yourself, rather than simply taking someone else's word for it.

For example, if someone comes up to you and asks you to invest what to you would be a substantial sum of money in some business venture that they have heard about, you should probably conduct some of your own "due diligence" rather than simply basing your decision on hearsay. 

The above video makes assertions which, if true, could seriously impact people's lives in a very negative way.  The assertions are so serious, in fact, that it is worth taking the time to watch the entire presentation.

The video presents substantial evidence to support its assertions.  It is, of course, possible that for some reason the video is presenting false information, made to sound plausible through the creation of false charts, photographs, and other deception.  While it is difficult to imagine a motive for creating such a deception, it is certainly possible.  Readers are encouraged to watch the video, and then look into the issue for themselves. 

Some websites have emerged to "debunk" the information in the above video.  Here is one list of counterpoints offered by critics of the above assertions.  Many of the arguments on that page appear to be challenging technical details of some of the assertions made in the video regarding impacts and effects, while ignoring the bigger question of whether deliberate geoengineering is actually underway.  If deliberate geoengineering is actually being conducted, and being conducted without the knowledge of the populations being exposed to that activity, that would seem to be the bigger issue.  That question should be addressed, rather than haggling over whether or not some of the compounds allegedly being used for such geoengineering are harmful or not.

Elsewhere, the same "debunkers" actually do appear to argue that deliberate geoengineering is not taking place, saying that aerial spraying is a myth and blaming "ship trails" caused by ocean-going vessels for the cloud patterns discussed in the above video.  Again, this is a very important topic, and readers should examine competing explanations for themselves and decide which proposed explanations best fit the evidence at hand.  

If in fact no deliberate geoengineering is taking place, then perhaps there is no cause for concern in that area.  On the other hand, if deliberate geoengineering is taking place without informing the human beings who are potentially impacted by that activity, then there are potentially enormous ramifications.  Because the potential ramifications are so severe, everyone should take the time to investigate this issue for himself or herself.  The video above is a good place to start, followed by the counter-arguments presented in the pages linked above (and elsewhere on the internet).  

After that, the documents library at the Geoengineering Watch website presents numerous papers published over the years relating to this subject.  A visit to that library to read some of those documents would certainly seem to be in order.  After all, prior to making a monetary investment in an company, it is advisable to spend at least as much time as the above research would take, examining the financial statements and other filings and materials related to that company prior to investing money in it.  That's because "due diligence" is called for regarding subjects that could seriously impact one's life (such as the potential loss of money from a careless investment).  It would seem that the subject discussed above is deserving of at least that much due diligence, and possibly more.