Debunked: Fake Snow, Burning Snow.

I feed the squirrels in my yard GMO crops. They are all 2 and 1/2 feet tall and seem to be making stone tools. Some of the younger ones hang around in groups and make the older ones nervous. I'm not about to try and set one on fire.
All my neighborhood has are nano-squirrels.
 
Has anyone collected and tested the melted snow? Seems like if it had weird non solubles or organic film on top or bottom it would even be visible without testing? I guess once they proclaim it so no proof is needed?
 
Has anyone collected and tested the melted snow? Seems like if it had weird non solubles or organic film on top or bottom it would even be visible without testing? I guess once they proclaim it so no proof is needed?
Mine has giant squirrels in it. I'm leaving it alone.
 
Has anyone collected and tested the melted snow? Seems like if it had weird non solubles or organic film on top or bottom it would even be visible without testing? I guess once they proclaim it so no proof is needed?

They will just claim the fake nano-toxic-whatever has vaporised. Directly into their lungs presumably to give them cancer or make them infertile or wire them up for constant transmission.
 
So this lady is lying?

"Geoengineering Whistleblower ~ Ex-Military ~ Kristen Meghan, Hauppauge, NY, January 18th, 2014"

She's certainly mistaken about a large number of things. I'm not sure if she's lying. She accuses me of being a paid shill, which is false.

And snow in Norway melts different than snow in the USA?

"How melting snow with a lighter looks like in Norway"
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=snow not melting norway&sm=12

No. It melts the same. In the norway example the lighter is held above the snow, and for a longer period, and the snow already looks rather wet.
 
She's certainly mistaken about a large number of things. I'm not sure if she'd lying. She accuses me of being a paid shill, which is false.



No. It melts the same. In the norway example the lighter is held above the snow, and for a longer period, and the snow already looks rather wet.
you gotta click the "Norway follow up" under the first one. he makes a little seahorse.

seahirse.JPG
 

Attachments

  • upload_2014-2-12_18-15-22.png
    upload_2014-2-12_18-15-22.png
    91.6 KB · Views: 450
She's certainly mistaken about a large number of things. I'm not sure if she'd lying. She accuses me of being a paid shill, which is false.

No. It melts the same. In the norway example the lighter is held above the snow, and for a longer period, and the snow already looks rather wet.

She might be mistaken about you being a paid shill -I sure give you the benefit of the doubt- but if she is not lying about her job and what she discovered, and about how she was treated... maybe she did discover that they are indeed spraying the air with chemicals. I would give her the benefit of the doubt also.

Besides that, I just found these 2 videos that show the difference. In one of the videos the "snow" doesn't melt into water while being filmed, while the ice does, and in the other just one drop comes of the "snow" after more than 6 minutes held above a hot stove, while another sample scraped from an ice box begins to melt almost right away: first drop at 11 seconds.

"The Day the Snow Wouldn't Melt"


"Shouldn't Snowballs Melt?!?"


I find that strange.

I had posted on YouTube shorty after that documentary came out called "What on Earth are They Spaying?" that it must be a mistake. Otherwise, why had not one single pilot or handler of the chemicals come forth an blow the whistle on it. I even referred to this site:

"Contrail Science"
http://contrailscience.com/

But now after hearing that ex-military lady I send the maker of that documentary an email apologizing for having called him naive in our email exchange.

So I can say still I'm not 100% convinced, but it does look like "something" is out of the ordinary.
 
Last edited:
She might be mistaken about you being a paid shill -I sure give you the benefit of the doubt- but if she is not lying about her job and what she discovered, and about how she was treated... maybe she did discover that they are indeed spraying the air with chemicals. I would give her the benefit of the doubt also.

Besides that, I just found these 2 videos that show the difference. In one videos the "snow" doesn't melt into water while being filmed, in the other just one drop after many minutes held above a hot stove, while another sample scraped from an ice box begins to melt right awa
y.
you should maybe read through the thread. those videos have already been discussed. and theres a whole thread on Kristen Meghan already. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/kr...-force-whistle-blower.1066/page-19#post-88639
 
"Shouldn't Snowballs Melt?!?"

They do melt - what they do not always do is DRIP - most of the space in "snow" is actually air - so as they melt the liquid fills in the airspaces.

Check out the snowball in the pan at 4 minutes in this:

 
OK, so the water is absorbed by the snow. Makes sense. It proves that those claims of "plastic snow" etc. were mistaken. But it does not prove that no chemicals are being sprayed, and/or that no geo-engineering is taking place. Unless all those claims of found chemicals etc. in lab tests of rainwater, snow and soil samples are mistaken too. Or made up.
 
OK, so the water is absorbed by the snow. Makes sense. It proves that those claims of "plastic snow" etc. were mistaken. But it does not prove that no chemicals are being sprayed, and/or that no geo-engineering is taking place. Unless all those claims of found chemicals etc. in lab tests of rainwater, snow and soil samples are mistaken too. Or made up.

Generally mistaken. See, eg,
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-shasta-snow-and-water-aluminum-tests.137/
and
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/what-are-the-normal-levels-of-barium-in-soil-and-water.247/

If you've got a specific test in mind, have a search, and then start a new thread if you can't find it, and think it proves something. Read a few of the debunking thread first though, so you understand the science.
 
Thanks Mick.

I much prefer chemtrails being just contrails of course. As anyone in his sane mind does.

I noticed that my post on using psychological knowledge about the masses and how it is being used was deleted. (It was off topic, I admit.) But since it is so well documented I find it important, and so might many others here. Can I start a new thread on that just posting the video, and if so, where would be an appropriate place?

Kristen Meghan doesn't strike me as dishonest, so she might be mistaken and misinterpreted things. But until I'm 100% sure of that I give her the benefit of the doubt. We know that there are many things governments and corporations do that they hide -or try to hide, until a whistle blower spills the beans- from the masses. And at least some of it is not exactly in the best interest of the people, to put it mildly...
 
Last edited:
OK, so the water is absorbed by the snow. Makes sense. It proves that those claims of "plastic snow" etc. were mistaken. But it does not prove that no chemicals are being sprayed, and/or that no geo-engineering is taking place. Unless all those claims of found chemicals etc. in lab tests of rainwater, snow and soil samples are mistaken too. Or made up.

no - but given that there is no evidence of any of that stuff ACTUALLY EXISTING, why bother believing it??

There are numerous cases of "mistaken" evidence (as per Micks post above) - but there are also cases of outright deliberate lying - one recent one is Rady Ananda of ThePeoplesVoice.com
Writing an article titled IPCC warns not to stop chemtrailing Rady states this:
External Quote:
The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that, despite global side effects and long-term consequences, geoengineering techniques involving solar radiation management (SRM) should be maintained:
“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.” [emphasis in original]
Trouble is he has cherry picked from a longer paragraph:
External Quote:
Methods that aim to deliberately alter the climate system to counter climate change, termed geoengineering, have been proposed. Limited evidence precludes a comprehensive quantitative assessment of both Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and their impact on the climate system. CDR methods have biogeochemical and technological limitations to their potential on a global scale. There is insufficient knowledge to quantify how much CO2 emissions could be partially offset by CDR on a century timescale. Modelling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale. {6.5, 7.7}
- taken from the version that TPV has archived for itself as linked in the article.
Here you can clearly see that the IPCC is saying that IF SM is started then it would have to be maintained lest any gains achieved were rapidly lost.
You may or may not agree that global warming exists, or is "man made" or has a "man made" component - but everyone should be able to see that this guy has been blatantly dishonest with his cherry picking here!
then there are the experiments he lists -
External Quote:
One of the programs listed, the Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment, covered the Northern Hemisphere, measuring aerosols originating in Asia and crossing the Pacific into North America, then continuing across the continent, across the Atlantic Ocean and into Europe. Headed by the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Project, these flights ran in 2004 and 2006, and reportedly numbered less than four dozen.
Another “experiment,” the European Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality Interactions Project, started in January 2007 and ended in December 2010 – running for a full four years, and included Africa.
In addition to the joint regional projects, several nations also perform smaller field trials within their own borders. India admits to running SRM programs for over ten years.
Surely, field trials move way beyond “experiments” when they cover continents and cross oceans and are performed over a period of years.
I am unsure what the Indians have "admitted to", but the 2 other experiments listed -
Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment home page - a quick look at the platforms (aircraft and satellites) used shows that this "experiment" consists of MEASURING aerosols.
The European Integrated project on Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality interactions (EUCAARI) is similarly measurement -
External Quote:
In this paper we describe and summarize the main achievements of the European Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality Interactions project (EUCAARI). EUCAARI started on 1 January 2007 and ended on 31 December 2010 leaving a rich legacy including: (a) a comprehensive database with a year of observations of the physical, chemical and optical properties of aerosol particles over Europe, (b) comprehensive aerosol measurements in four developing countries, (c) a database of airborne measurements of aerosols and clouds over Europe during May 2008, (d) comprehensive modeling tools to study aerosol processes from nano to global scale and their effects on climate and air quality. In addition a new Pan-European aerosol emissions inventory was developed and evaluated, a new cluster spectrometer was built and tested in the field and several new aerosol parameterizations and computations modules for chemical transport and global climate models were developed and evaluated. These achievements and related studies have substantially improved our understanding and reduced the uncertainties of aerosol radiative forcing and air quality-climate interactions. The EUCAARI results can be utilized in European and global environmental policy to assess the aerosol impacts and the corresponding abatement strategies.
Apparently Rady is stuck in high school mode where "experiment" can only mean pouring chemicals into and out of beakers and test tubes!
 
Here's another piece of rubbish - Global Skywatch has published something that I am sure they think is the definitive http://gsw.bz/contrails]Truth about Contrails[/url], but the truth about this is that it serves only as an illustration of how many "facts" can someone get wrong in a short bit of writing!
External Quote:
Every Condition is Wrong for Contrail Formation
The formation of condensation trails requires high vacuum,
there is no such thing as "high vacuum" - perhaps he means "low pressure"? And of course that is wrong- contrails will form at sea level if the humidity and temperature are suitable - hence "ice fog" in Alaska!
External Quote:
cold temperatures, and high humidity, however, the output side of a jet engine contains mostly outside air that has been pushed through the engine by the large ducted fan (The ducted fan is the set of spinning blades that you see when you look at the front of the engine). This high-pressure at the output of the engine is contrary for the formation of condensation trails because pressurized air has the ability to hold much more water in suspension, without condensation.
Actually this is more-or-less correct - albeit in a pidgin-technical manner - denser air such as that compressed by a turbo fan will hold more moisture. As long as it remains denser of course....which isn't very long once it leaves the engine!
External Quote:
A fraction of the air that enters the engine is taken in by the turbine engine. This air is mixed with jet fuel (essentially kerosene), combusted, and then exits the engine under very high pressure and high temperature. Condensation formation requires a decrease in ambient air pressure to form, but the output of the turbine is under very high pressure which prohibits the formation of condensation trails.
Physics also tells us that condensation forms when air is cooled, but since the exhaust of the turbine engine within a jet is very hot, condensation formation is - once again - prohibited.
lol - and that is why the contrails do not form at the output of the turbine, and why they form some distance behind - when the pressure is rapidly reducing - thus also rapidly reducing the temperature!
External Quote:
Furthermore, the ratio of air-to-fuel used in turbofan engines is as high as possible (lots of air but relatively little fuel) so as to keep engines efficient and cost-effective, and this lack of fuel in this ratio results in a lack of water vapor; yet another reason jet turbofans cannot produce condensation trails.
There is no lack of fuel "in this ratio" - all jet engines seek a "perfect" mixture, which IIRC is about 14:1 air to fuel - some get closer than others, but there is always fuel!!
External Quote:
In short, the more efficient the engine, the less fuel it uses per unit of air moved, and this renders turbofans incapable of producing condensation trails, unless they use water injection (see section below).
Using less fuel does not render them "incapable" even by his own reasoning - it should render them less LIKELY by simplistic reasoning - however other considerations actually make it MORE likely- put simply the higher the efficiency of the engine, the higher the temperature at which contrails can form, and so the more likely they are to do so - the math is in the link if you want to examine it closely.
External Quote:
Simply said, every condition necessary for contrail formation is absent in a high-bypass turbofan engine.
simply said this guy is ignorant, or a liar - ignorant if he actually believes this rubbish and has not been told otherwise, or a liar if he has.
External Quote:
If you go to an airport and watch jets take off, you will see that they emit a faint trail of black soot, which is typical of burnt jet fuel (kerosene), but you will not see water vapor.
WATER VAPOR IS INVISIBLE - YOU NEVER SEE IT!!
Sorry for shouting, but the level of ignorance or disinfo in just this short piece is appalling!
 
I noticed that my post on using psychological knowledge about the masses and how it is being used was deleted. (It was off topic, I admit.) But since it is so well documented I find it important, and so might many others here. Can I start a new thread on that just posting the video, and if so, where would be an appropriate place?

No. See posting guidelines.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
 
MikeC,

it does make sense that those in charge would not want to be sprayed themselves -nor their families etc.- with harmful chemicals and compounds, so unless they would believe spraying is harmless -or harmless enough to outweigh the benefits- they would be against it. Still that does not prove it's not happening. Even though some might make false claims and selectively present texts out of context.

But I'm not going to have sleepless nights over it. And I'm glad to see the "fake snow" hype debunked.
 
Mick, these are the main rules as you know (you might even have written them):

1. To find and expose bunk
2. To prevent bunk from forming and spreading.
3. To develop and promote efficient methods of finding, exposing, and preventing bunk
4. To create re-usable debunkings (antibunk)

On this website many issues that have been presented to the public as true are being debunked. So a very well documented report about how the corporations are telling the public things that aren't so in an effort to get that public to accept things that are not true, in order that the interest of those corporations are served, in many cases to the detriment of the wellbeing of people, would certainly deserve a little niche on a Maga-Debunking website. Especially because the documentary is showing the scientific methods used by the corporations, based on decades of psychological research. Posting it on this website would help alert debunkers to recognize bunk spread by those who do so on a literally massive scale.
 
Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the claimants though? I hear this a lot and wonder...

Yes, of course it should. They are convinced -or believe it, which is their right- but to convince others might take a lot more... which is understandable.
 
Mick, these are the main rules as you know (you might even have written them):

1. To find and expose bunk
2. To prevent bunk from forming and spreading.
3. To develop and promote efficient methods of finding, exposing, and preventing bunk
4. To create re-usable debunkings (antibunk)

On this website many issues that have been presented to the public as true are being debunked. So a very well documented report about how the corporations are telling the public things that aren't so in an effort to get that public to accept things that are not true, in order that the interest of those corporations are served, in many cases to the detriment of the wellbeing of people, would certainly deserve a little niche on a Maga-Debunking website. Especially because the documentary is showing the scientific methods used by the corporations, based on decades of psychological research. Posting it on this website would help alert debunkers to recognize bunk spread by those who do so on a literally massive scale.

There are other guidelines. Feel free to start a thread if you think you can conform to the guidelines.
 
MikeC,

it does make sense that those in charge would not want to be sprayed themselves -nor their families etc.- with harmful chemicals and compounds, so unless they would believe spraying is harmless -or harmless enough to outweigh the benefits- they would be against it. Still that does not prove it's not happening.

Indeed - however it is also a logical fallacy to claim that - known as argument from ignorance - it is quite common to encounter it.

However the way to counter it is to not claim that there is no spraying - but to claim that there is not evidence that there is spraying, and since there is no such evidence the claims that it IS happening (not that it COULD BE happening) can be characterized as myth and legend.

And that is exactly what I do - if someone says to me "well you don't know that it isn't happening" then I reply exactly like that - indeed I do not know that - but there's no evidence that it IS happening so why bother about it.

Also relevant is evidence of absence - any such spraying MUST leave some evidence. There is no such evidence....therefore it is reasonable to conclude there is no such spraying.
 
maybe she did discover that they are indeed spraying the air with chemicals. I would give her the benefit of the doubt also.

If she did discover that, where does she talk about how she made the discovery or show any specific evidence of it?
 
Thanks Mick.

I much prefer chemtrails being just contrails of course. As anyone in his sane mind does.

I noticed that my post on using psychological knowledge about the masses and how it is being used was deleted. (It was off topic, I admit.) But since it is so well documented I find it important, and so might many others here. Can I start a new thread on that just posting the video, and if so, where would be an appropriate place?

Kristen Meghan doesn't strike me as dishonest, so she might be mistaken and misinterpreted things. But until I'm 100% sure of that I give her the benefit of the doubt. We know that there are many things governments and corporations do that they hide -or try to hide, until a whistle blower spills the beans- from the masses. And at least some of it is not exactly in the best interest of the people, to put it mildly...

The element of "doubt" in her story is because she does't provide any actual evidence to support her claims. She claimed to have done testing, but refused to show the testing methods or results. Why?
 
If my memory serves me well, she talks about discovering large amounts of specific substances without the regular data referring to those substances while she worked in the military, in her function of overseeing safety issues.

But -again- I don't know if she misinterpreted her findings o not. I hope she did, so it isn't true. That's all.
 
If my memory serves me well, she talks about discovering large amounts of specific substances without the regular data referring to those substances while she worked in the military, in her function of overseeing safety issues.

But -again- I don't know if she misinterpreted her findings o not. I hope she did, so it isn't true. That's all.

All of that is discussed in this thread https://www.metabunk.org/threads/kristen-meghan-former-us-air-force-whistle-blower.1066/

If you have any more comments about Kristens evidence you should post them there, prevent this snow thread drifitng
 
In the continuing "fake snow" saga, Aircrap.org is now attempting to make a connection with superabsorbent polymers; Specifically Insta-Snow Powder from Steve Spangler Science. Of course, except for the color, SAP does not even remotely resemble snow.

EDIT: For me, this claim is so ridiculous on so many levels, it's hard to figure out where to begin debunking it. It's 'not even wrong' or maybe 'wronger that wrong' or just plain wrong.

sp_snow.jpg
 
Last edited:
In the continuing "fake snow" saga, Aircrap.org is now attempting to make a connection with superabsorbent polymers; Specifically Insta-Snow Powder from Steve Spangler Science. Of course, except for the color, SAP does not even remotely resemble snow.

EDIT: For me, this claim is so ridiculous on so many levels, it's hard to figure out where to begin debunking it. It's 'not even wrong' or maybe 'wronger that wrong' or just plain wrong.

oh yea that looks a lot less messy then real snow.

88452cd133931afad2cf806e87fc9ab363a1ebfc.jpg on an upnote its non toxic.
External Quote:

Can I eat Insta Snow?
Although Insta Snow fake snow is non-toxic and environmentally safe, you shouldn't eat it. We tried putting some of the powder on our tongues to see if fake snow would erupt. It didn't. And we're still alive. However, we still don't recommend trying this at home
http://www.vat19.com/dvds/instasnow.cfm
 
Yeah but what if one of those kiddies saw mummy or daddy burning snow once and junior knows where the lighters are kept?
 
I bet insta-snow doesn't melt the the same as snow does either. Or look and taste like water after you melt it.
 
Mother nature is stranger than we think:


Not really stranger, just more varied than people generally think.

External Quote:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
 
Okay, so we all had a lot of fun in February as the science-challenged demanded
to be heard re. their declarations of non-melting "fake" snow.

It's early September now...I haven't seen retractions or apologies,
so I presume the fake snow is still blanketing Atlanta, etc. (?)

Screen Shot 2014-09-04 at 10.14.23 AM.png
 
It's early September now...I haven't seen retractions or apologies,
so I presume the fake snow is still blanketing Atlanta, etc. (?)
Some of them are still insisting they were right because reasons.

One of the reasons is a giant snow pile in Winnipeg that's still 60 feet tall and probably won't melt on its own before they start piling this year's snow on top.

Of course, most of that snow has melted (the pile was a lot bigger originally), and what melted deposited all the dirt and debris that was picked up with it into a thick insulating layer on top of the snow. Winnipeg has had this problem five times in ten years, and know how to deal with it, like breaking up the pile and spreading it out or spraying it from fire hydrants. They're confident they'll have it all melted by the end of September.

THEN we'll get those retractions and apologies. Right?
 
Back
Top