Take the Wacco conspiracy quiz

[Glia]

maybe increase specificity on option E to something like:

"IMO there is no validity to this purported conspiracy, or it can be reasonably explained as something other than a conspiracy."

Great job, Alexia ...
I only have one suggestion ... I'm not in favor of insulting anyone on this forum so I would change "E" to a simple "I don't believe it" ...

[Alex]

Great job, Alexia ...

I only have one suggestion ... I'm not in favor of insulting anyone on this forum so I would change "E" to a simple "I don't believe it" ...

Thank you, no agreement from me is needed to change anything. But I said it that way on purpose using the exact words and/or sentiment already insultingly used here and elsewhere frequently regarding the subject matter. I believe one of the clearly valid categories in the list is one representing many who really do look down on the people taking these subjects seriously, but it's probably better to figure out how to rephrase a bit more mildly.

[arthunter]

I think that this is an interesting article ... obviously, we are not the only community having this kind of discussion....

https://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/01/...rnative-media/

[arthunter]

You have to see this to believe it ... people on FaceBook are posting videos of snow that won't melt ... here's an example ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tEza2wB20c#t=37

[arthunter]

more snow that won't melt ... is this a hoax?

https://www.theweatherspace.com/2014...re-touches-it/

[arthunter]

and on it goes ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_-e7DPABfg#t=414

[arthunter]

I hope that I'm not annoying by posting all of these, but I'm amazed ... can anyone explain this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_-e7DPABfg#t=414

[Chris Dec]

Wow... I didn't think I would see this experiment again in my life. The first time was in high school physics class. Let's see if I can remember the explanation:

1. Ice is a solid form of water, and when it melts, it will yield water.
2. Snow is a particular type of crystalline water and when it melts, it yields water.

3. When you hold it to a flame, ice will melt.
4. When you hold it to a flame, snow will melt.

5. Because ice is solid, the water drips off.
6. Because snow is mostly air, however, with pretty crystals of water lightly held together by adhering to each other, it melts but the water is absorbed back into the air/crystal mass... and eventually will harden over with a crust of melted and refrozen ice. Continue putting that flame to that and it will yield water that drips off.

It's a fun magical trick that quickly explains to a young person the different properties of snow and ice.

I hope that I'm not annoying by posting all of these, but I'm amazed ... can anyone explain this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_-e7DPABfg#t=414

[podfish]

Wow... I didn't think I would see this experiment again in my life. The first time was in high school physics class...

It's a fun magical trick that quickly explains to a young person the different properties of snow and ice.

and by the way, it was also explained in the comments following the video (though rather rudely). The part that I found useful was the explanation of where the blackening on the ice comes from:

. The snow does melt and the water is absorbed back into the snowball 1. And 2 you will notice that the surface where the lighter was is now ice because its refreezing. Any additional water is so small that it evaps right away. And those burn marks are carbon from the lighter, and that burnt smell guess what, its burning butane. This is not plastic or whatever.

[arthunter]

Thank you! ... I've never seen this before ...

Meanwhile, people all over the country are trying to burn snow ... ... I think that this might be a good indication of the public's mistrust of geo-engineering right now ... several people are having the snow tested, which should end all concerns ...

Wow... I didn't think I would see this experiment again in my life. The first time was in high school physics class. Let's see if I can remember the explanation:

1. Ice is a solid form of water, and when it melts, it will yield water.
2. Snow is a particular type of crystalline water and when it melts, it yields water.

3. When you hold it to a flame, ice will melt.
4. When you hold it to a flame, snow will melt.

5. Because ice is solid, the water drips off.
6. Because snow is mostly air, however, with pretty crystals of water lightly held together by adhering to each other, it melts but the water is absorbed back into the air/crystal mass... and eventually will harden over with a crust of melted and refrozen ice. Continue putting that flame to that and it will yield water that drips off.

It's a fun magical trick that quickly explains to a young person the different properties of snow and ice.

[podfish]

...Meanwhile, people all over the country are trying to burn snow ... ... I think that this might be a good indication of the public's mistrust of geo-engineering right now ... several people are having the snow tested, which should end all concerns ...

you've spotted it exactly. People are full of mistrust, no matter what the subject, and because of that mistrust accept any critique - even to the point of testing snow when the only reason to do so is their pre-existing mistrust. Not only is that level of mistrust exhausting, it means that trivial matters get lumped in with serious ones; any sense of proportion is lost.

[arthunter]

One other thought, since we're in a conspiracy thread ... I think that these theories are suspected because of past covert actions which were verified to be true ... and there's a lot of that in our history ... for example, chemtrails. ... if the government really is spraying chemicals in the air trying to reverse global warming then they should just tell us that ... here's what we're doing, here's why we are doing it, here are the risks, here are the benefits ... sure people might be pissed off about it, but at least they'd know that their government was being honest ... and truthfully, if they are doing this, then the public has a right to protest it since it directly involves their health and well being ....

Or non-consensual human experimentation, which has also been proven repeatedly ... I'm thinking that a lot of desperate people would actually allow themselves to be experimented on, if they were well paid and fully informed of the risks involved ... it's the secrecy of these things that destroys trust and creates activism ...

[arthunter]

see my last comment, podfish ... when citizens are lied to repeated it destroys trust ... period ... at this point every threat must be looked at seriously because you realize that the truth will not be coming from above ... I have posted, more then once, a listing of conspiracy theories that were proven to be true ... that information has circled the globe and global citizens no longer trust their governments, and for good reason I might add ... if that snow is contaminated in some way, as testing will reveal, then it will no longer be a trivial matter ... making assumptions about what is trivial and what is not, is not possible without doing research, ... which goes back to Alexis's point, which I agree with ... you can not just say "oh that's BS" without looking at all of the research that exists, whether it be chemtrails, 9/11, stalking, etc....

you've spotted it exactly. People are full of mistrust, no matter what the subject, and because of that mistrust accept any critique - even to the point of testing snow when the only reason to do so is their pre-existing mistrust. Not only is that level of mistrust exhausting, it means that trivial matters get lumped in with serious ones; any sense of proportion is lost.

[Chris Dec]

Right! Which is why the critical conspiracy (real one) we need to fight is the government's/shadow government's anti-whistle blower policies. [Remember when we were promised transparency in government?] We need to protect truth bearers, especially ones who tell the truth at the risk of their own safety.

... it's the secrecy of these things that destroys trust and creates activism ...

[podfish]

see my last comment, podfish ... when citizens are lied to repeated it destroys trust ... period ... at this point every threat must be looked at seriously .

you're right, it does destroy trust. But when you've been bitten by a dog, even by a couple of dogs, all it means is that some dogs bite. It doesn't mean that every dog is a likely killer. Still, don't leave any dog alone with a baby.

[CSummer]

Thanks for posting this, Chris. I was wondering if this was a normal phenomenon. The one piece I think that's missing is that because of the low water content and the insulating property of snow, it melts slowly - so slowly that a flame will vaporize the water as it melts.

Another question might be: Is the water content lower because of human-made contaminants, especially nano-size particles that could provide nuclei for crystals to form? An interesting experiment might be to allow some snow to melt in a container, heat the container to vaporize the water and see what's left. I'd use a black container as the nano-particles would be white (visible in dust that I've observed settled on dark surfaces).

Wow... I didn't think I would see this experiment again in my life. The first time was in high school physics class. Let's see if I can remember the explanation:

1. Ice is a solid form of water, and when it melts, it will yield water.
2. Snow is a particular type of crystalline water and when it melts, it yields water.

3. When you hold it to a flame, ice will melt.
4. When you hold it to a flame, snow will melt.

5. Because ice is solid, the water drips off.
6. Because snow is mostly air, however, with pretty crystals of water lightly held together by adhering to each other, it melts but the water is absorbed back into the air/crystal mass... and eventually will harden over with a crust of melted and refrozen ice. Continue putting that flame to that and it will yield water that drips off.

It's a fun magical trick that quickly explains to a young person the different properties of snow and ice.

[podfish]

Is the water content lower because of human-made contaminants, especially nano-size particles that could provide nuclei for crystals to form? An interesting experiment might be to allow some snow to melt in a container, heat the container to vaporize the water and see what's left. I'd use a black container as the nano-particles would be white (visible in dust that I've observed settled on dark surfaces).

I bet they're full of diesel particles from Beijing, dust from desertification of the Sahara, and cannabis smoke from Washington and Colorado. People have put ungodly amounts of crap in the air - enough to make it hard for the chemtrail chemicals to do their work.

[arthunter]

Well, the burning snow experiment has gone global ... ... and is now being covered by many alternative media sites ... this is a video from Norway and that snow seems to burn just fine ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3LZ64QKdlg

[podfish]

... this is a video from Norway and that snow seems to burn just fine ...

kinda dissappointing - I thought you meant it burst into flame.

[arthunter]

wouldn't that be something?... nope, I'm afraid that it just melts ....

kinda dissappointing - I thought you meant it burst into flame.

[jbox]

Well, the burning snow experiment has gone global ... ... and is now being covered by many alternative media sites ... this is a video from Norway and that snow seems to burn just fine ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3LZ64QKdlg

..... snore......

[Chris Dec]

Yes, particles in the atmosphere do affect the water content in snow and are, to some extent, present in the snow flake. It's not necessary however to have a piece of foreign material 'nucleus' since in it's true and pure form, a snow crystal can be formed around a minute particle of frozen water vapor. But there have been lots of foreign particles naturally occurring in the atmosphere since the beginning of snow—imagine the first snowfall after the big bang!—man isn't the only polluter on the planet, and pollution from other sources has been around forever.

Your suggestion to get to the bottom of snow reminds me of the poor, frustrated Curies who put were stymied by the lost atomic weight of tested substances that could not be accounted for or seen, until Marie wandered into the lab at night and saw an errie greenish glow coming from the petri dish.... and thus was discovered radiation.


Melt that mysterious snow but be cautious of what is left lurking!

Thanks for posting this, Chris. I was wondering if this was a normal phenomenon. The one piece I think that's missing is that because of the low water content and the insulating property of snow, it melts slowly - so slowly that a flame will vaporize the water as it melts.

Another question might be: Is the water content lower because of human-made contaminants, especially nano-size particles that could provide nuclei for crystals to form? An interesting experiment might be to allow some snow to melt in a container, heat the container to vaporize the water and see what's left. I'd use a black container as the nano-particles would be white (visible in dust that I've observed settled on dark surfaces).

[arthunter]

Thanks Chris, ...

it's good to see an intelligent, thoughtful answer ...

I'm actually more interested in the spread of information then the outcome ... if they find something interesting in the snow, I'm sure that I'll hear about it, but what's more interesting is the distrust that I'm seeing ... a sign of the the times perhaps ...

Yes, particles in the atmosphere do affect the water content in snow and are, to some extent, present in the snow flake. It's not necessary however to have a piece of foreign material 'nucleus' ...

[tomcat]

Claim: Fake, chemical-laden plastic snow has been falling on the U.S.

FALSE

Read more at https://www.snopes.com/politics/cons...pItXdSdIfUc.99

snopes.com says... False

You have to see this to believe it ... people on FaceBook are posting videos of snow that won't melt ... here's an example ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tEza2wB20c#t=37

[arthunter]

Thank you tomcat ... yes, I checked snopes as well and did see this report ... as I've said, my interest now has to do with the spread of this story and the underlying concerns involved ... once again, any perceived secrecy in government will create activism among citizens and I see this whole incident as resulting from the suppression of information ...

Claim: Fake, chemical-laden plastic snow has been falling on the U.S.

FALSE

Read more at https://www.snopes.com/politics/cons...pItXdSdIfUc.99

snopes.com says... False

[Shandi]

This is a reminder that we can't believe everything we read or "see" on YouTube, and elsewhere. Misinformation is spread rapidly by those who wish to share what they've discovered. This may be well intentioned, or not. It remains our responsibility to check things out with the resources we have, and hopefully can trust. (Before sharing....)

Wayne Dyer wrote: "You'll see it when you believe it" I wonder if he realized that when we start out with a belief, we see things that support that belief.

Claim: Fake, chemical-laden plastic snow has been falling on the U.S.

FALSE

Read more at https://www.snopes.com/politics/cons...pItXdSdIfUc.99

snopes.com says... False

[arthunter]

I agree Shandi, and in this case I posted these videos in an attempt to gather more scientific information from the community to explain this phenomenon ... at no time did I state that I believed this. though there does exist real scientific testing of our air and the chemicals found in it ....

I am very careful with anything that I post and, as you can tell from past posts, I tend to research things completely, looking for credible reports from credible witnesses ( government whistle-blowers, scientists, etc ) ...

Though we must remain careful when accepting information that we find online, we must also remain careful when dismissing it ... we must realize that those in power do not always have are best interests at heart and that most information to support this reality will be disputed by disinformation agents .... it is good to watch our whistle-blowers and honest journalists to see what becomes of them ... are they allowed to live their lives freely in this country free from injury, disease, personal tragedy, and death? .... those statistics will tell us a lot about the honesty and subservience of our elected officials ....

This is a reminder that we can't believe everything we read or "see" on YouTube, and elsewhere. Misinformation is spread rapidly by those who wish to share what they've discovered. This may be well intentioned, or not. It remains our responsibility to check things out with the resources we have, and hopefully can trust. (Before sharing....)

Wayne Dyer wrote: "You'll see it when you believe it" I wonder if he realized that when we start out with a belief, we see things that support that belief.

[arthunter]

A Wacco member, who does not want to contribute to this topic publicly, sent me the following links ... in the interest of providing all opinions on any one topic I've decided to share them ...

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/geoengineered-snowstorms-the-snowmen-turning-warmth-into-winter-part-1-2/

https://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2014/...ane-wigington/

[arthunter]

I don't know whether to paste this under "chemtrails" or "non-consensual experimentation" ... this is why people do not trust their government ... all of these victims were poor and unable to defend themselves .... how dare they ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVlDHWawuFo

[arthunter]

Two more videos about ChemTrails ... once again, I could also post the first video under "targeted individuals" as this woman is an Air Force whistle-blower who is paying the price for her honesty ... well worth watching ...

https://www.secretsofthefed.com/air-force-specialist-blows-whistle-chemtrails-video/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gyQTkgnd28