Debunked: Dane Wigington's- “Heavy Wet Snow” Is Now Often The Norm

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
At geoengineeringwatch.com, on 2 Nov. 2012, Dane Wigington has published an article titled “Heavy Wet Snow” Is Now Often The Norm

The Claim

Wigington begins by asking these questions:

Why does it now so often start snowing at temperatures far above freezing temperatures?
Why does the Weather Channel now so often refer to snow events as “heavy wet snow” events?
Have the laws of physics changed?
Does ice now nucleate in the clouds at temperatures far higher than what natural laws have always dictated?
Why does this “heavy wet snow” now occur so often in locations where the trees have not even begun to drop their leaves thus decimating them?
If the trees have not even started dropping their leaves, wouldn’t that indicate it has not yet become cold?
How can it begin to snow at temps in the 40s, high 40s, and even sometimes in the low 50′s?
To all of these questions, he offers one answer:
Artificial ice nucleation is how.

Did you notice that his leading questions all have a slight similarity? He uses the word "now" in all but the last one, implying that "now" is different from "then", some time back in the past. He repeats this over and over to drum that thought into your mind. Hey, it worked when he claimed hat contrails never persisted before, that aluminum in rain water wasn't there before, that Mt. Shasta didn't have much ordinary air traffic, and that soil pH is much higher than it used to be. Why not try it again? It worked (for some people) before.

One probem. Same problem. Big problem.

In each of these cases, and once again here, Dane offers no evidence for any such change. None at all.
Nothing about snow "then" and in fact, nothing about snow "now" either!
Instead, he jumps straight to the conclusion. "Artificial ice nucleation" is his answer, and that is his claim.

Examine the Claims

1. Q. "Why does the Weather Channel now so often refer to snow events as “heavy wet snow” events?"
A. Dane gives us no evidence for any change, and in fact doesn't cite any examples from the "Weather Channel".

2. Q."Have the laws of physics changed?"
A. No. Dane cites no changes.

3. Q. "Does ice now nucleate in the clouds at temperatures far higher than what natural laws have always dictated?"
A. Again, Dane cites no evidence.

4. Q. "Why does this “heavy wet snow” now occur so often in locations where the trees have not even begun to drop their leaves thus decimating them?"
A. While he again cites no evidence, there is a basis on which to dispute this claim as being abnormal.

Snow can be rated as "wet" or "dry" by measuring the amount of water contained in the snow.
http://www.scienceiq.com/facts/howmuchwaterinaninchofsnow.cfm
You may have experienced wet and dry snow before, but in case you haven't, dry snow is powdery, blows around, and is hard to form into a snowball with the hands or to shovel because it slips off the shovel very easy. Wet snow is nothing new. Dry snow tends to form when temperatures are well below freezing, perhaps below 14F (-10C), while wet snow forms most commonly closer to freezing 32F (0C).

But why is this? Warmer air holds more moisture, colder air holds less. Warmer means wetter, colder means dryer, right? Well, getting back to his question, what sort of snowfall might you expect in early fall before the leaves fall, a warmer snow event, or an extremely cold snow event? If you guessed warmer, you got points, because you might expect warmer temperatures in the fall than you would in the dead of winter.

5. Q. "How can it begin to snow at temps in the 40s, high 40s, and even sometimes in the low 50′s?"
A. Well, for that one I will let accuweather answer in this short video, you may have to listen twice, as it goes very fast:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I wonder if this is yet another thing that will become accepted "fact" among the believers, and they will decide that they don't remember a single time in their childhood when it snowed and it was above freezing at ground level.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Dane Wigington tries to support his claim by displaying a document about which he says, "NASA has a patent titled “Ice Nucleation For Weather Modification”"

What he shows is not a NASA patent, but rather a paper from the Journal of Applied Meteorology forty years ago describing a device which can create smoke which could be used for weather modification. The actual link to the patent for the device was assigned not to NASA, an independent Agency, but to the Deparment of the Interior Secretary. The patent has long expired, and weather modification by cloud seeding to get more rain is a publicly licensed and regulated activity in most western states. Oklahoma Texas Nevada Colorado
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
While Dane Wigington is frequently described as a "Climate Researcher", he has no formal education in any field. He is a former home-builder/contractor.

Even though I am also not a "Climate Researcher", I sought out information relevant to this claim. I asked myself this question:

Q. Is there any empirical data showing historical wet/dry snow levels from which one could determine if any change has occurred over time?

A. Yes, the Western Regional Climate Center, part of the Desert Research Institute, based in Reno, NV produces regular graphs of it's SNOTEL dataset which tracks the water equivalent of snow. I display below graphs from two locations, one at extreme northeastern California above Mt. Shasta, and the closest one south of Mt. Shasta.
From the graphs, it appears that generally the more recent snows near Wigington's area have been dryer, containing less inches of water since the 1980's, directly opposite of what Dane Wigington is claiming.

snotel adinmtn.JPGsnotelindcamp.JPG
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A well known bacteria
 

gisellewilding

New Member
I will reply as I am personally concerned re a potential form of terrorism. Now a warning; any insults to me calling me delusional; low IQ etc. will be dealt with under the rules of the forum. My father developed a method using soil microorganisms to break certain pollutants that appeared as substrates for the organism. This technology uses bonds that the organisms recognizes as part of it's substrate.As many microbes are found after chemtrail spraying I fear certain ones will be sprayed that have been genetically engineered to attack or eat substances such as plastics; polymers etc that have organic or carbon chain molecules. This could cause a rapid breakdown of infrastructure. I have not read of this and this is my original thought and please refrain from insults unless like myself you are trained in biochemisty and organic chemistry. I am a daughter of a Whos Who visionary and world class conservationist.I have been a member of Mensa and have NO endogenous mood disorders but yes I am female and some think fodder for abuse but I will give it back and win.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I will reply as I am personally concerned re a potential form of terrorism. Now a warning; any insults to me calling me delusional; low IQ etc. will be dealt with under the rules of the forum. My father developed a method using soil microorganisms to break certain pollutants that appeared as substrates for the organism. This technology uses bonds that the organisms recognizes as part of it's substrate.As many microbes are found after chemtrail spraying I fear certain ones will be sprayed that have been genetically engineered to attack or eat substances such as plastics; polymers etc that have organic or carbon chain molecules. This could cause a rapid breakdown of infrastructure. I have not read of this and this is my original thought and please refrain from insults unless like myself you are trained in biochemisty and organic chemistry. I am a daughter of a Whos Who visionary and world class conservationist.I have been a member of Mensa and have NO endogenous mood disorders but yes I am female and some think fodder for abuse but I will give it back and win.
Interesting concept . . . since the aerosol material would be self - replicating the necessary payload and spray concentration would be minimal. . .
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
As many microbes are found after chemtrail spraying

Microorganisms are abundant regardless of what aircraft are doing. Do you have evidence that the abundance or composition of microbial populations changes in association with "chemtrail" activity?
 

gisellewilding

New Member
No I do not. I know what La Trobe University was working on with my father's discoveries and I see no reason why microbes could not be sprayed. My father was doing it for good and it would have cleaned up terrible environmental mess. There is no reason why the military would not use his ideas and apply it for evil. Plastics, etc, have many organic type bonds (organic here refers to carbon) and a modified microbe could easily use plastic as a substrate. This is basic genetic engineering. My own son is adding human genes to fish to induce human disease in them; far advanced beyond what was done in the eighties and nineties.Microbes reproduce as a massive rate given the right food supply.Yes they may die quickly in the wild but after they have done their damage and just spray more.
 

gisellewilding

New Member
It is alleged mycoplasm type single cell organisms are found after spraying. This is a nasty bug that only responds to antibiotics that inhibit the ribosomal RNA in the cytoplasm (most antibiotics attack the cell wall of the bacteria but mycoplasma do not have a cell wall). This causes a nasty pneumonia.Also found, allegedly, are red blood cells but I have no idea why.The military will have developed hundreds of modified microorganisms and a lot of spraying must be experimental.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
It is alleged mycoplasm type single cell organisms are found after spraying. Also found, allegedly, are red blood cells

Those are all William Thomas and Clifford Carnicom Hoaxes.
In a dozen years, none of those claims have ever been documented scientifically.
Both of those men spoke at length at the recent chemtrails conference in LA, but neither showed any evidence
for those claims. That ust be because they don't have anything.

I could allege that I spray moonbeams out my butt, but that doesn't make any of it true.
Why do you bring up unfounded allegations?
This only hurts your personal credibility and makes it seem as if you are a rumormonger.
It certainly helps no one to repeat false claims.
Why do you do so?
 

Ernie Lee

New Member
It is alleged mycoplasm type single cell organisms are found after spraying. This is a nasty bug that only responds to antibiotics that inhibit the ribosomal RNA in the cytoplasm (most antibiotics attack the cell wall of the bacteria but mycoplasma do not have a cell wall). This causes a nasty pneumonia.Also found, allegedly, are red blood cells but I have no idea why.The military will have developed hundreds of modified microorganisms and a lot of spraying must be experimental.
Sorry, you and PEEKAY are both delusional PARANOIDS and need to be exposed as such !
PKBOGAN has been fully exposed by me and others on You Tube
[h=1]Analysis of RAIN WATER and HAIR SAMPLES- CHEMISTRY DEFEATS PKBOGAN.[/h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UUFwjEk2_s&list=UUxBDvNySAWvIjNzPlyu_3Cw&index=1&feature=plpp_video
 

Ernie Lee

New Member
Those are all William Thomas and Clifford Carnicom Hoaxes.
In a dozen years, none of those claims have ever been documented scientifically.
Both of those men spoke at length at the recent chemtrails conference in LA, but neither showed any evidence
for those claims. That ust be because they don't have anything.

I could allege that I spray moonbeams out my butt, but that doesn't make any of it true.
Why do you bring up unfounded allegations?
This only hurts your personal credibility and makes it seem as if you are a rumormonger.
It certainly helps no one to repeat false claims.
Why do you do so?
I think the best paper to come from this nonsense "conference" this unqualified idiot contributed to was[h=1]Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails Conference - Mark "Dr "Dream" Peebler Preview[/h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFjYbxUje3M
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
My father developed a method using soil microorganisms to break certain pollutants
That was a slam dunk.

There are more types of bacteria than all the separate species of plants and animals together. They were in full swing for two billion years before multi-celled creatures became a twinkle in each other's eye. Pollutants will be separated (chelated) in any compost heap which has been allowed to reach 50 deg C. The thermophilic bacteria don't have to be collected: they are already there...

If you wish to harvest bacteria for a specific function all you have to do is put the job out into the world, and the specific bacteria will beat a path to it. It only took about twenty years for a bacterium to discover how to eat nylon - a material never found previously on Earth. They adapted...

It's almost impossible to sterilize a horizontal surface for more than a few seconds: bacteria will find it.

That is also why it isn't very smart to claim bacteria are sprayed from several miles up.

It took years for the MoD to determine the delivery capabilities of missile warheads containing anthrax. If it had been easy to do they would have done it in moments. It wasn't that easy...
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
It is alleged mycoplasm type single cell organisms are found after spraying. This is a nasty bug that only responds to antibiotics that inhibit the ribosomal RNA in the cytoplasm (most antibiotics attack the cell wall of the bacteria but mycoplasma do not have a cell wall). This causes a nasty pneumonia.Also found, allegedly, are red blood cells but I have no idea why.The military will have developed hundreds of modified microorganisms and a lot of spraying must be experimental.

"Alleged"? Who has done the isolation and identification? Were they sampled for before both before and after "spraying"?

The red blood cell claim I've run into before - it's from Carnicom, who (by his own admission) has no expertise to make that determination ("I have no medical expertise and I claim none"). It's based on just about the weakest evidence you could ask for (stuff found in air samples which Carnicom thought looked sorta like RBCs) - are you sure you want to associate yourself with this?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Dane Wigington tried to save 2000 acres of trees from heavy wet snow on 12/21/12. He blamed the snow on jet contrails.

Dane Wigington said:
Waking up at 5 am, I could already see broken trees from the massively heavy concrete snow that had apparently started some hours earlier in the night though the temperatures were still slightly above freezing. I quickly bundled up and went outside to beat the “snow” off the drooping lims of countless trees. This is easier said than done in the case of such “heavy wet snow”. It sticks like glue to everything it hits as it is in the process of melting even as it is still falling. It is not like the snow of my youth, fluffy powdery snow which easily came off the trees. There was, as predicted, no more wind. In the silence of the woods, jet after jet could be heard flying slow and low above the clouds. The snow kept falling.

Into the night of 12/21, though soaked to the bone from the soggy snow, I kept up my attempt to save the trees on our mountain. As the night went on, a sound that is very painful to me could be heard in increasing frequency on distant ridges and in deep canyons, somewhere in the darkness, the sound of trees crackling and snapping, being crushed under the weight of the “heavy wet snow”.

These are native trees. Trees that have adapted to the historical conditions in this region. I have been through snow events here that dropped twice the depth of snow with no damage, but this snow is different. Even the Canyon Live Oak, the strongest oak in the region, buckles under the weight and adhesion of this snow. It does not sluff off the trees but only sticks and builds.

Later in the night, the frequency of collapsing trees somewhere in the distant dark was almost overwhelming. The only other sound that broke the silence constantly was the continual parade of jets overhead in the clouds, so close and low during the storm.

By morning, half of the 20 inch depth of cement snow had already melted. The temperatures were still in the upper 30s and the snow had stopped. Countless broken and uprooted trees lay on the forest floor. Why?
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineered-snow-storms-wreaking-havoc-around-the-globe/
 

solrey

Senior Member.
By morning, half of the 20 inch depth of cement snow had already melted. The temperatures were still in the upper 30s and the snow had stopped. Countless broken and uprooted trees lay on the forest floor. Why?

Why? Because that weather is typical for where 'ole Wiggi lives near Mt. Shasta. Peh, as if he's never seen heavy, wet snow before... whatever. I know it's pretty common there so he's either purposefully lying or has extremely poor memory on the level of alzheimers.

A record snowfall on Mt. Shasta in 1959, described in the Mt. Shasta Herald (note the description of lead-heavy snow and slush, and rapid melting):

http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/env/storm/

The article stated that the 5-day storm began on Friday (February 13). The paper noted that the first two days of the storm brought 33 inches of snow to Mount Shasta City while the following days "lead-heavy snow and slush" fell. The 20-24 foot drifts on Everitt road could only be cleared by a rotary snow plow. By February 18th, only 12 inches of snow remained on the ground in Mount Shasta City, 25 inches in McCloud, 9 inches in Dunsmuir, and only patches of snow were left on the ground in Weed.


John Muir describes getting caught in a spring snow storm on Mt. Shasta in 1877:

http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/lit/mui/jmuir13.htm

We learned from Sisson that when our terrific storm was in progress, only a calm, mild-looking cloud cap was observed on the mountain, that excited no solicitude for our safety. We estimated the snow-fall on the summit of two feet or more; at camp, some 5000 feet lower, we found only three inches, while down on the sloping base only a light shower had fallen, sufficient to freshen the grass.

Heavy, wet snow is often forecasted days in advance in that region:

http://www.fireengineering.com/news/2012/12/23/northern-california-braces-for-deep-snow.html

Several inches of heavy, wet snow was forecast for the Coastal Range and Northeast Foothills, with snow reaching down to the northern Sacramento Valley, including the city of Redding.

cheers
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have relatives in Oregon, and for the past 15 years I've been driving up from California, passing through Dane's area (just to the South of Mt. Shasta) on the I-5. So today (Christmas Day) I saw the snow first hand. It really looked nothing unusual - sure it was wet snow - but that's just how snow falls sometimes, depending on the weather. These images were taken from the car with my iPhone, you can check the GPS coordinates. This was by Dunsmuir airport.

Altitude: 954.513 m (3131.6 ft)
Altitude Reference: above sea level
Image Direction: 147.3094
Image Direction Reference: True direction
Latitude: 41° 15' 49.2" N
Longitude: 122° 16' 30" W
Time Stamp: 21:33:19.56 (GMT)


Just ordinary snow.
 

Attachments

  • photo (1) trees.jpg
    photo (1) trees.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 235
  • photo road.jpg
    photo road.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 205

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
I can confirm that it was not wet snow in Mt. Shasta City. My place is at 3700 feet. It was fluffy enough that the snowblower would throw it 40 feet. We have about three feet deep now. I was debating whether or not to take some samples. The readings would probably be pretty low since whe have had a series of closely spaced storms. But maybe if Dane thinks these were chemical storms I should send a couple of samples to the lab. The surface of shasta lake is about 1060 feet when full. Dane's house is probably not more than 2,000 feet, so much wetter and more ephemeral snow would be expected there. Mick, look me up if you're not in a hurry on your way back.
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
This is incorrect and maybe it's important to clear it up...

In the original post:
4. Q. "Why does this “heavy wet snow” now occur so often in locations where the trees have not even begun to drop their leaves thus decimating them?"
A. While he again cites no evidence, there is a basis on which to dispute this claim as being abnormal.
Snow can be rated as "wet" or "dry" by measuring the amount of liquid contained in the snow. "Dry" snow, when melted, has 10 inches liquid water for every 1 inch of snow. "Wet" snow can have 10-30 or more inches of meltwater for every inch of snow.

This should read:
Snow can be rated as "wet" or "dry" by measuring the amount of liquid water produced when the snow melts. "Wet" snow, when melted, has 1 inch liquid water for every 10 inches of snow. "Dry" snow can have 10-30 or more inches of snow for every inch of meltwater.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
The patents Dane is referencing use, in one case, ammonium nitrate, ammonium nitrite, and urea to nucleate snow. These could be tested for at basic labs, but I have no idea what a normal value is. The second patent uses metaldehyde and/or 1,5 dihydroxynapthalene. I haven't seen tests for these so far.
Dane's effort to answer the question of why anyone would want to change rain to wet snow is pretty lame. (because they can) It is true that water managers want to have a substantial proportion of the winter precipitation saved as snowpack for summer release, but snow at his elevation is always transient, and never figures into the snowpack.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
This is incorrect and maybe it's important to clear it up...

In the original post:


This should read:
Snow can be rated as "wet" or "dry" by measuring the amount of liquid water produced when the snow melts. "Wet" snow, when melted, has 1 inch liquid water for every 10 inches of snow. "Dry" snow can have 10-30 or more inches of snow for every inch of meltwater.

Thanks, Ross for the correction.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The whole memory thing is fascinating. I think we get overly fixated on a very small number of events from our childhood, and somehow spread those out to represent far more years than they actually do. It's interesting how people harken back to their childhoods, and not their teenage years, or their 20's. The memories formed in childhood are more vibrant than later memories.

If I think back to my memories of snow, I remember driving 2 days ago, and skiing 2 years ago, and I remember sledding and building snowmen 35 years ago. I don't really remember much about snow from 10-30 years ago.

It's hard to talk to people about their memories though. One has to tread gently there.

Thought experiment: count the number of distinct memories you have of being outside with snow falling.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
These are native trees. Trees that have adapted to the historical conditions in this region. I have been through snow events here that dropped twice the depth of snow with no damage, but this snow is different. Even the Canyon Live Oak, the strongest oak in the region, buckles under the weight and adhesion of this snow. It does not sluff off the trees but only sticks and builds
LiveOak1.jpgLiveOak2.jpgThese pictures are from a live oak in Millville, 12 miles south of Dane Wigington's place. They show that live oak, like most trees, is susceptible to heart rot fungi which can cause the loss of the tree in stress conditions. This tree was at 510 ft elevation, where there was hardly any snow. It was probably broken by a wind event.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Dane Wigington said:
It is not like the snow of my youth, fluffy powdery snow which easily came off the trees.
As I understand it, Dane Wigington's youth was spent in Southern California's Upland, CA, nearLos Angeles where snow is a rare event which may have easily come off the trees as this very light dusting seems remarkableto the folks down there. So, it is not like Dane's youth was in a place that often got snow
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
There seems to be a minor issue within some UK chemtrail groups with regards to snow, especially strange snow. I came across this video.






Now you can put me in a dress and call me Susan if I am wrong but that looks just like Graupel to me.

http://weather.about.com/od/g/g/graupel.htm


I was not going to bother much about it but you know how these things tend to snowball. Already someone has claimed that we have never seen snow like that before. Anyway I started looking around and came across this video.



Again I tend to think that it is Grauple but may be rimed flakes. However I did a search of the video maker and came across a cople of interesting things. Firstly a newspaper article, albeit a local one, claiming that he is about to lift the lid on chemtrails.

http://www.thisisblackmorevale.co.u...-lid-weather/story-18423796-detail/story.html


All interesting stuff so far, and then I came across a FB page advertising a meeting he is giving.

meeting david lim.jpg




Again he mentions being a researcher but more importantly a doctoral researcher. He was challenged on FB about his credentials and he gave the following reply.

david lim.GIF


I have checked the Reading website and he is indeed doing a Phd

http://www.reading.ac.uk/CME/pg-research/cme-PhDstudents/d-v-lim.aspx

However in his Facebook comment he makes inference to shady goings on at the university. Now I know that Reading was one of the universities involved in the SPICE project that had its experiment cancelled http://www.bris.ac.uk/volcanology/research/spice/ To be frank I don't know what to make of him. If he is privy to information then why not reveal it except to protect his Phd, especially if talking bollocks. I am tempted to email the University of Reading press office with the information above and ask them directly seeing has he is trying to take a position of authority.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It seems that his degree is not in an area that deals with weather or the climate. Sort of like asking you orthopedic surgeon to do your brain surgery.

My hubby is a geophysical engineer, I have a background in geology and there is a big difference in our knowledge bases
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I am a little annoyed over this "privy information that will shake the hell out of what is going within the university arena". If he has information there are loads of avenues to get it out there. Having bummed around various universities for nearly 10 years I find it hard to believe that there is some secret stuff going on. But it is accusations like this that make it seem that academia as a whole are in on chemtrails. I wished I lived closer to Dorset as I would pop over to this meeting.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I think he's instinctively following Jay's rules on how to develop a full-blown conspiracy business, which starts with "never ever show any evidence".

Don't ever be wrong, Dave. Exactly how big are you? :)
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I think he's instinctively following Jay's rules on how to develop a full-blown conspiracy business, which starts with "never ever show any evidence".

Don't ever be wrong, Dave. Exactly how big are you? :)

I only usually get asked that question towards the end of a date ;-)
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Just sent to David Lim:
David,
I am a 57 year old engineer from Arkansas, USA and some of us are interested in conversing with you about chemtrails.
I invite you to join in the discussion at metabunk.org.
here is some discussion about your video and regarding your chemtrails claims:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/32263

You need to understand that the chemtrails claims you may have been starting to accept are simply a hoax. We have proven every element within this belief system to be based on flawed arguments unsupported by fact or logic.

Furthermore, the leaders of the chemtrails movement have actively been covering up that they know what they are putting out has these flaws and seek to keep those facts from becoming known by you.

It is logical that as a scientist you should test a theory against strong logical thinking and a full examination of the facts. This is what we do at metabunk.

We have the information you have NOT been told, the information which you need to know.

As an example of one item which you seem interested in, the VTRPE, here is a sample of what we know which you haven't been told, my own research into the subject spanning over a decade:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/210-How-did-barium-get-into-chemtrails

So, please accept this invitation to come over to metabunk and discuss these issues. I'd suggest you begin a new thread by making a positive statement explaining the best, most irrefutable evidence for geoengineering you have found.
Stick to that single point until we exhaust it, then move on to the next. We can work through them in turn which has been found to be better than a scattershot which tends to stray off topic. We have participants from all over the world, from laymen to atmospheric scientists at the PhD level, several active pilots, Air Traffic Controllers, biologists, and engineers like myself.

All the best,
Jay Reynolds
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I was wondering how long we should wait for a reply. I have been blocked from most the FB pages that have been promoting his stuff. I am in the process of drawing up an email to Reading with regards to this to as to enquire what their position is. For various reasons, mostly former work related, I am possessive about my privacy but I feel quite strongly about this. Many UK pages are now awash with strange snow, all because Wigington mentioned neucleation in a pod broadcast.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I was wondering how long we should wait for a reply. I have been blocked from most the FB pages that have been promoting his stuff. I am in the process of drawing up an email to Reading with regards to this to as to enquire what their position is. For various reasons, mostly former work related, I am possessive about my privacy but I feel quite strongly about this. Many UK pages are now awash with strange snow, all because Wigington mentioned neucleation in a pod broadcast.
Dave, This morning I sent the same email to his FB and school addresses. My first was to his youtube address. Try emailing him directly, perhaps mine went in spam folder.
I doubt that Reading knows anything about what he is doing or even cares. He has probably just been exposed to the myths and we know that the promoters and some believers ruthlessly shut themselves off and even try and cover up their errors, so it is no wonder he hasn't been exposed to what we know.

That is a big part of the problem. people get a false sense that just because an idea is popular and gets a movie made it might be true, but that is only when the folks who put out the story control what the viewer sees and shows only one side. To put it bluntly, people like Dane Wigington and so many others, we have never seen them answer hardball questions, they only play in yards where they can be the boss and not be questioned. They won't even throw stones on the other believers whose stories contradict their own because of glass house syndrome. It is a vicious circle which is specifically designed to snare people like David Lim. They just want to use him anyways, and at the first hint of doubt they will turn back and eat him alive. I've seen this plenty of times already.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
They just want to use him anyways, and at the first hint of doubt they will turn back and eat him alive. I've seen this plenty of times already.
Oo-arr... Thee be a crusty old salt. Step into my Tardis...

I don't know where we'd be without you. :)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Rico Debunked: Dane Wigington's Undeniable Footage of Jet Aircraft Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 42
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Dane Wigington's Claims That UV is "Off The Charts" Contrails and Chemtrails 207
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Dane Wigington's Video for CBC Conference Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Jay Reynolds Debunked- Dane Wigington's 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 34
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website Conspiracy Theories 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 5
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 32
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top