Debunked: Geoengineering Watch's confirmation of "Record Shattering UV Levels"

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In July 2013, Geoengineeringwatch.org made the claim that UVB levels were at incredibly high levels, or around 9 mw/cm2 (milliwatts per square centimeter). That was a rather extreme claim, as the levels of UVB in space are just 2.5 mw/cm2, and given that the atmosphere block a lot of that, it's impossible to get MORE UVB actually reaching the ground. So obviously this must be wrong.


The questions of WHY is was wrong were not immediately apparent, but they helpfully showed the instruments they were using, and it turned out that the most likely source of their error was that they were calculating UVB by subtracting UVA measured on one meter from UVA+UVB measured on another.

That would be fine, except that the UVA+UVB meter was actually measuring quite a bit more UVA than the UVA meter, so the end result was a vastly inflated UVB number.

I checked the two instruments he said he was using:
General Tools UVAB-513 for the UV AB measurement
Omega HHUV254SD for the UVA measurement.

Now the first device measures in the range 280 to 400 nm.
The second one measures in the range 240 to 390 nm with UVA+UVC sensors, the range for the UVA sensor alone is not specified.
However, it is clear that the upper limit of the Omega instrument is 390 nm.

That means that if you measure UVAB with the first instrument and subtract the UVA measured by the second instrument, the difference will not only include the UVB region but also the 390-400 nm region.

Which means that it is not possible to measure UVB by measuring UVAB and UVA with different instruments and just take the difference.

It's even worse if they used the UVAB-513 for both measurements:
UVA range as measured by its UVA sensor is 320 to 380 nm.
UVAB range measured by its UVAB sensor is 280 to 400 nm.
So if you take the difference you will not get the 280 to 320 region, but also the 380 to 400 nm region.
So the power difference will include UVB plus the power in the 380-400 nm region (which is pretty large).
That's why this measurement method is plainly wrong.

This makes perfect sense. Even though it does not sound like a lot, the actual amount of extra radiation (reaching the surface)in those UVA bands is much higher than all the UVB radiation.



So that seemed to settle the matter. Unfortunately it was just brought up again:

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/record-shattering-uv-radiation-levels-finally-confirmed/
The actual report is here:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00019/full

And it does indeed say "Record solar UV irradiance in the tropical Andes", but what are these records? And how do they compare to the Geoengineering Watch figures? Their record levels of UVB were on one day, Jan 17, 2004, measured at around 5000m (16,400 ft).
8.15 W/m2 is 815 µW/cm2, or 0.815 mW/cm2

So that's the new record. 0.815 mW/cm2. While the record GeoengineeringWatch is claiming is 9.0 mW/cm2. That's ten times higher than the value they say confirms their result.

Another metric used by the study is the ratio of UVA to UVB:

So we have a record value of 0.129, while the record Geoengineeringwatch is claiming is around 0.800

So far from "confirming" their original measurements, this study quite roundly debunks them.
 

Attachments

  • fenvs-02-00019.pdf
    3.1 MB · Views: 997
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Unfortunately the comment I left was deleted. Hopefully Dane will take a little time later to look at the actual figures.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Unfortunately the comment I left was deleted. Hopefully Dane will take a little time later to look at the actual figures.

One would hope that a person who avails himself as an "honest" person would consider, and THINK about actual science......and OTHERS who bring such science to the "table".....
 

ralph Leo

Member
A quote from the study: "UV increases with elevation, clear skies, and low aerosols (Blumthaler et al., 1997)." It seems contradictory for Dane to blame geoengineering since they claim aerosols are being sprayed and less solar radiation is reaching the planet because of that.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A quote from the study: "UV increases with elevation, clear skies, and low aerosols (Blumthaler et al., 1997)." It seems contradictory for Dane to blame geoengineering since they claim aerosols are being sprayed and less solar radiation is reaching the planet because of that.

His theory is that geoengineering is "destroying" the ozone layer. Of course there's no evidence that geoengineering is happening, or that UV levels in the US are particularly high.
 
His theory is that geoengineering is "destroying" the ozone layer. Of course there's no evidence that geoengineering is happening, or that UV levels in the US are particularly high.
Didn't he have a hypothesis that global dimming is occurring? Does this information line up with his previous theory?

Also,

Doesn't this kinda not support his overall hypothesis at all? I mean, he quoted it in his article. If the ozone is naturally low over these areas, and a lot less planes fly over these areas than in developed countries, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that the UV radiation in these areas is not due to any sort of geoengineering at all?
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
I'm surprised (or not surprised) Dane is now quoting figures from the "high Bolivian Andes", topping out at the summit of a volcano (or two) there... @ 5,917 meters (= 19,357 feet elevation).
As any high altitude trekker knows.....the higher you are, the more UV you are exposed to. Skin protection needs to be implemented at such altitudes.
This cautionary problem has been this way historically ever since early high-altitude explorers began visiting high summits.
I will find early examples, asap. (well before the acknowledged period of chemtrail beginnings)

So far nothing has become of his promise to reveal "more" UV test results similar to those taken by his friend Roger Foote. Initially he had promised these additional readings from many places across the country/globe, though I can't find that promise on his site anymore.
Perhaps he has abandoned these extra tests, or never posted them.......for unknown reasons.

For the past year, I have been looking for a good ($) deal for the specific dedicated UVB sensor for my Vilber Lourmat UV meters.......no luck on the used/discount market.
I already have the dedicated UVA, and UVC sensors. (plus an older and newer version of the same head meter...and both meters give the same readings, with all sensors)
I could buy the UVB sensor brand new, but it is $850. It is the recommended matched part, for the set of three. (I have the other two)
So far, on my budget, I cannot afford it.
~~~~~
Commentary...
......herein lies a problem with people replicating Dane/Foote's test results. Can people preform these tests themselves ?.....and spend $2k+ in test equipment ? Few can, or will.
It may be easier to believe the accusations.
I have $1200 invested so far....and I am hard-pressed to invest an additional $850 more, to argue something that I suspect is debunked locally, logically, and by experts in the feild.
 
Last edited:

Leifer

Senior Member.
Am I correct in understanding that in the Andes study Dane quoted ......was not that there is a constant UV increase, but it was because of a specific solar flare ? ....and was an occasional anomaly ?

(a link from Dane's article)
 
Last edited:

skephu

Senior Member.
These handheld UV meters are also known to be notoriously inaccurate. Here's an article showing this:

Sayre RM, Kligman LH.
Discrepancies in the measurement of spectral sources.
Photochem Photobiol. 1992 Jan;55(1):141-3.

Although the fulltext is paywalled, here's an application note from Optronics Laboratories based on the paper:
Discrepancies associated with using UVA and UVB meters
to measure output of sunlight, solar simulators, etc.


It shows that the error in the measurement of UVA can be up to 42%. With UVB, the situation is even worse: some meters gave a reading that was only 4% of the actual value, and other meters showed 16 times the actual value.

The note concludes: "In conclusion, a high quality, double monochromator based spectroradiometer should
be used if accurate measurements over the UV spectral wavelength region is required."


Although these papers are somewhat old (from 1991), the same caveats still apply.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Mick, can you run through the math and sources again for 2.5 mw/cm2 UVB in space. I may have to explain that tomorrow. This source,
http://solarlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Energy2005.pdf , says it is 1.9 mw, but they are defining the lower limit of UVB as 290, not 280.
I think it might be quite effective to just go through a couple of CLEAR examples, like that one, of how their central claims are faulty and then say they are invited to formally debate the rest, if they so choose (too bad you can't say: "if they have the balls..." ;)).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, can you run through the math and sources again for 2.5 mw/cm2 UVB in space. I may have to explain that tomorrow. This source,
http://solarlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Energy2005.pdf , says it is 1.9 mw, but they are defining the lower limit of UVB as 290, not 280.

It comes from the solar radiation spectrum. The amount of UVB is the area under the graph between 280 and 315. 2.5 was originally a rough estimate from this graph:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png


I then got the actual data behind the spectrum, ASTM Reference Air Mass 1.5
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/

Giving this spreadsheet:
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/astmg173-uv-graph-xlsx.3988/

And this graph (note this is JUST the UV section of the above graph)


The accurate value for extraterrestrial UVB there is found by summing values from 280.0 to 319.5, and dividing by 2 (as there are two values per nm) that give 4.1309/2= 2.06

So really the image should say 2.06, which makes his "measurement" even more incredibly wrong.

Starting at 290 gives 1.794.
 

Peter

Member
I case anyone can bare to listen to this: Dane Wigington and Scott Stevens will be on coast to coast AM tonight.

I'm still a member of the website (don't ask) so I may have a listen.

They usually also allow people to call in, so if anyone wants to put some counterweight in the balance.. well you can try, but there'll probably be a gazillion people trying to do the same thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please everyone, there's no need to comment on the claims of people being experts. The facts should speak for themselves.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Dane repeats the claim in a new video:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/uvb-radiation-is-off-the-charts-metering-proves-this-fact/

This shows about "A+B" as 10.5 and "A" as 4.3



However, as noted in the first post, the "A+B" reading is 280 to 400, and the A reading is 320 to 380, so subtracting the two does NOT give you B (which is 280 to 320), it gives you "B + a large chunk of A", or "280 to 320 plus 380 to 400".

And since 380 to 400 has a lot more radiation in it than the 280 to 320 (see the graph), the majority of what they are measuring as UVB is actually UVA

In more detail: The "UVAB" reading comes from a General Tools UVAB-513, which has a range of 280-400nm. So over 280-400 there's a total of 10.45
http://www.grainger.com/product/GENERAL-Ultra-Violet-Light-Meter-3GZX3



The "UVA" reading come from a version of the Omega HHUV254, which has an upper range of 390. Presumably they would use the standard 320nm as the start of UVA. So over 320-390 there's a total of about 4.36


So the difference between these values is 6.09, which is the total for the UVB in the 280-320 range, plus the UVA in the 390-400 range. We can call this somewhat arbitrary value UVX
 
Last edited:

ralph Leo

Member
It looks like Dane has a new post on this subject and I was trying to compare the info in his video to what has been said in this thread but my mind can't convert the different units used at this time. Based on this video:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/uvb-radiation-is-off-the-charts-metering-proves-this-fact/
Dane claims that his meters measured (by doing the math) 6 mw/cm2, which is way more than the 2 mw/cm2 that is measured in space if I am reading the units right. When trying to look this up online I came upon the Andes report from over a decade ago:
http://www.sci-news.com/space/science-record-level-solar-uvb-radiation-bolivian-andes-02054.html
that measured a UV index of 43.3, even though the UVB was used in the headline nowhere could I find the actual UVB measured. Now this uses the UV index, which which my search for what units they are using has confused me since it is a weighted and derived scale.
So I am trying to verify that what he measured was in fact 3 times what UVB you would measure in space before the atmosphere and if anyone knows what the actual UVB measurement in that Andes report is.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It looks like Dane has a new post on this subject and I was trying to compare the info in his video to what has been said in this thread but my mind can't convert the different units used at this time. Based on this video:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/uvb-radiation-is-off-the-charts-metering-proves-this-fact/
Dane claims that his meters measured (by doing the math) 6 mw/cm2, which is way more than the 2 mw/cm2 that is measured in space if I am reading the units right. When trying to look this up online I came upon the Andes report from over a decade ago:
http://www.sci-news.com/space/science-record-level-solar-uvb-radiation-bolivian-andes-02054.html
that measured a UV index of 43.3, even though the UVB was used in the headline nowhere could I find the actual UVB measured. Now this uses the UV index, which which my search for what units they are using has confused me since it is a weighted and derived scale.
So I am trying to verify that what he measured was in fact 3 times what UVB you would measure in space before the atmosphere and if anyone knows what the actual UVB measurement in that Andes report is.

See the post preceding yours. And the OP.
 

ralph Leo

Member
Mick looks like you posted while I was composing mine. I don't see your comment either. I can see why this is a subject easy to manipulate. I am going to study it more when my brain is more awake. And what is the OP?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Really in order to have an accurate conversation about this, people need to stop simply using the terms UVA, UVB, and UVAB, and instead use the actual range of wavelengths. They need to describe the range of wavelengths for what they think they are measuring, and the range of wavelengths for the meters they are using.

Clearly Dane has been operating under an unfortunate misunderstanding for over a year now. I've tried to explain it, but he's unwilling to listen to me. Perhaps someone else could (politely) try to point this out to him.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick looks like you posted while I was composing mine. I don't see your comment either. I can see why this is a subject easy to manipulate. I am going to study it more when my brain is more awake. And what is the OP?

The OP is the Original Post in this thread, the first post.

It's a bit of a hard subject to understand. But UVA and UVB are not two different distinct colors of UV light. They are ranges of color (wavelength). So unless your meters use the same ranges, then they will get inaccurate results. And as the UV light hitting the ground is is a lot more powerful at the longer wavelengths, then an error at the longer end (the extra UVA here) is way more significant than the amount at the shorter end (the actual UVB).

And as was discussed in the other thread, the sensible thing to do here would be just to use a UVB meter with the correct range.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And I think that since he's using the dedicated UVA meter, the upper range is 390, not 400. Everything still applies, just a smaller error. In the diagram look at the small triangle of terrestrial UVB (280 to 320) ( on the left (with a rectangle approximating the area), and the larger rectangles of the "extra" UVAB they are measuring ( 380 or 390 to 400)
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Dane's science friend and idea supporter Roger Foote, left a comment over a year ago (10/2013) on the Geo-Watch page... http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...tion-levels-are-off-the-charts/#comment-49984
foote_irradiance_1.jpg


Mr. Foote does not reveal the brand or model# of the unit he speaks of.
Could it be this ??.... http://solarlight.com/product/microtops-ii-sunphotometer/ ....or something similar ?
...or a Seaward brand ? http://www.seawardsolar.com/products/solar-irradiance-meter

Foote says:
Even if I am confused about his methods, his claims do not match expected and published results.
Dane claims most all published results that contradict his own figures, are in essence..."faked" or are fraudulent.
If this is the case, then why does he rely so heavily on "off-the-shelf" meters ?

......what about multi-thou$and dollar test devices used by Universities and private industries.....are all those devices secretly calibrated to reveal different readings
.....than the off-the-shelf consumer (or semi-pro) devices ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member


1300 W/m2 is just impossible. The solar constant in space is 1367 W/m2, the highest you get on the ground is 1000 W/m2, and that's just the theoretical maximum they use to calibrate solar cells. It's a theoretical peak value at noon in the summer. Who are these people who are getting 1300?







And since UVB in space is 25 W/m2 (2.5 mw/cm), his value of 78 is obviously wrong, but the first post here explains why they got this number.
 
Last edited:

Steve Mackin

New Member
Hi from Steve.... the Solarmeter® guy. Just became aware of this subject from an external source. Contacted Roger Foote yesterday but only succeeded in making him angry at me.

For anyone wishing to validate some of the above correct information regarding UV levels... our Models 5.0 and 6.0 will provide readings that closely match ASTM xls spreadsheet data auto-sum for Total UV and UVB. The meter's spectral responses are shown on www.solarmeter.com .

Not posting this to spam meters. Just want to verify that mid latitude USA solar noon readings this time of year do indeed range in the 4.5 - 5.5 mW/cm² for UVA+B, and 0.27 - 0.37 mW/cm² for UVB (5 - 7% UVB) depending on sun angle and sky clarity. For best match to ASTM use a sun angle near 45° which is close to 1.5 atmospheres.

Been taking readings for over 20 years... and they have remained similar for like dates and times. June 21 equinox will generally be highest for any summer. I have noticed a slight decrease in UVB (and erythema weighted UV Index - Model 6.5) over the last 10 years... similar to the UK data link posted earlier.

In any event... subtracting UVB from UVA+B with Solarmeters for UVA (or ratio-ing B to Total UV) does not present the problem mentioned above re General Instruments gizmo - because Model 5.0 sensitivity is full 280 - 400 nm. But honestly I believe the super high readings for UV from Mr Foote are due to either the meter was set too high by factory and or zero'd incorrectly.
 

Peter

Member
Hi Steve. Thanks for your contribution. Would you mind disclosing a bit more of your exchange with Roger Foote?
 

Steve Mackin

New Member
Well... not too much on a public site. Suffice it to say I had difficulty on phone getting past his resume & defensiveness and down to brass tacks. It all went south from there.

Facts: He did get a reading of 388 µW/cm² our on Solarmeter model 6.2 UVB meter - which I told him was scientifically correct (same as 0.39 mW/cm² on a model 6.0 UVB meter) - and advised him it would never go beyond it's 0-1999 range to the sun.... of which about 400 - 500 is typical in summer USA (or maybe way up near 800 at 10000 feet near equator when O³ layer is thin). However he had long ago returned the 6.2 meter to wherever he bought it because he didn't believe it. It obviously didn't comply with his belief that UVB is somewhere near 11000 µW/cm² at sea level.... and he characterized the 6.2 Solarmeter as an unprofessional reptile lamp meter. Professional reptile vets and scientists would beg to disagree:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/UVB_Meter_Owners/conversations/messages

He did humor me and placed a clear piece of plastic over the General Instruments A+B meter to sky as a total UV block - and the reading did indeed fall down near zero... to my surprise. But he didn't try my other simple test for UVB: Put a piece of window glass over sensor to block out most real UVB. The remaining reading will be mostly UVA. But if the GI meter was calibrated way too high at the Taiwan factory... then that "UVA" value would also be way too high. Go figure!

Whatever... all UV master Solarmeters are calibrated vs the gold standard Optronics OL754 spectral radiometer and NIST traceable standard of spectral irradiance... so I am confident of their accuracy. Peer reviewed science papers (including one I co-authored) back up this confidence: http://www.solarmeter.com/links.html There are no scientific papers validating the black helicopter site opinions re UV light.
 

Peter

Member
Well it's a shame that Roger seems to get angry at your attempts to establish possible inaccuracies in his measurements. But that seems to be the pattern with the chemtrail subject. I guess a distrust of people who question the consensus comes with the territory. In the case of Roger that seems to go so far as to dismiss ALL readings from official agencies. Here's a quote from a relevant article on geoengineering.org: (http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dont-believe-uv-radiation-levels-are-off-the-charts/)

Our scientific grade metering equipment is rated at +/-4% of full scale and the reptile lamp meters he referred to are +/-10% of full scale.

That breaks down to a possible error of 8% total on our instruments and a possible error of 20% on the SOLARMETER MODEL 6.2 UV METER. That is a 250% difference in accuracy!

This is why we chose professional test equipment for the important task of verifying the UV levels, made even more important by the fact that all “OFFICIAL” readings from recognized agencies appear to be completely invalid.

Well that's one way to make it work. Dismiss everything but your own faulty readings, and hey presto, we've got evidence for chemtrails!
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
I joined the UVB_Meter_Owners yahoo group 2 weeks ago, and brought-up Dane's findings.
Replies in the group, disputing his findings have been often, ever since.

(even) A non-scientific deduction of the accuracy of the SolarMeters would be, that they are used by a wide number of people to unsure the long-term health of amphibians and reptiles. This requires an accurate-as-possible reproduction of real-world UVB and UVA exposure indoors....to equal that found in nature.

My brand-new SolarMeters are arriving soon, and I will videotape the process on the upcoming June equinox, at it's height, which is around 9:30am PDT, in Los Angeles.......in a clear spot, free of reflected light.
This would be one time of the year for "worst-case " (highest) readings.
Hopes for clear skies !!
 

Steve Mackin

New Member
You ordered a model 5.0 A+B and model 6.5 UV Index. The UVB discussed here is relative to model 6.2 broadband B, whereas the 6.5 is erythema weighted (similar to vitamin D action spectrum). The 6.5 will read UVI similar to that published in local news or accuweather.com. It might reach near 8.5 at solar noon if super clear sky.

So you can check total UV and see that it might reach close to 5.8 mW/cm² near equinox. However you won't be able to see how much broadband B there is (around 400 ish) without the model 6.2 UVB meter fyi.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
MikeG Debunked: Geoengineering Killing Great Barrier Reef Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Debunked: A Snow Test for Signs of Geoengineering, Portland Oregon Contrails and Chemtrails 7
skephu Debunked: Geoengineering And The Ozone Layer Recovery Lie Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Trailblazer Debunked: "Top climate scientist Tim Lenton admits to ongoing geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 23
Mick West Debunked: Strontium as Footprint of Geoengineering Proposals or Patents [There is none] Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Mick West Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH Contrails and Chemtrails 355
3 Debunked: Fort Lauderdale Passes Resolution Banning Aerial Aerosol Dispersement General Discussion 6
derrick06 Debunked: HAARP ELF waves causing a earthquake Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
mrfintoil Debunked: SKYSCRATCH - The Geoengineering/Chemtrail Cover Up Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Debunked: Aerosol Geoengineering Film Footage Reality [Fuel Dumps] Contrails and Chemtrails 54
Mick West Debunked: Ice Boulders on Great Lakes Caused by Geoengineering [Natural but Rare Ball Ice] General Discussion 11
Mick West Debunked: Patents. As Evidence of Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Existence, Operability, or Intent Contrails and Chemtrails 62
Mick West Debunked: Rosalind Peterson "Leaker" Addressing UN about Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 85
Mick West Debunked: Obama Geoengineering April Fools Joke on Huffington Post Contrails and Chemtrails 2
solrey Debunked: Weatherwar101-Geoengineering ice storm Cleon HAARP 10
Mick West Debunked: Shade, The Motion Picture - Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Mick West Debunked: Global Dimming vs. Global Brightening, as evidence for Geoengineering or Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 66
Mick West Debunked: CIA studying Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, Weather Warfare Contrails and Chemtrails 67
Mick West Debunked: Geoengineering Terminated Worldwide at Worldwide Geoengineering Conference Contrails and Chemtrails 25
HappyMonday DEBUNKED: David Lim - Public talks on geoengineering / chemtrails in the UK Contrails and Chemtrails 159
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Ship Trails Over the Pacific are Geoengineering "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 37
Jay Reynolds Debunked- Dane Wigington's 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 34
Mick West Debunked: Geoengineering Map by ETC Group General Discussion 9
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Geoengineering over Maui, Hawaii Contrails and Chemtrails 25
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Suffolk County, NY Geoengineering Law Contrails and Chemtrails 68
Mick West Debunked: Holdren admits Obama Administration is performing Geoengineering Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Alex Jones, PJ Watson, Geoengineering: Our Environment Under Attack Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Mick West Debunked: CFR Admits "Millions Spent to Confuse Public About Geoengineering" Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: "Geoengineering is like free-riding on our Grandkids" Quotes Debunked 5
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
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top