What the Heck is Going on With Snow Refusing to Melt, is it a Hoax or Real?

(SALEM) - A number of YouTube users are posting video of what they say, is snow that will not melt. I am watching the videos that are being added online and it is starting to pique my curiosity.

The first video I watched out of Georgia, had a distinctive cut in the video that would technically, have allowed the reported snowball to be replaced. The individual puts flame to what they say is snow, and it does not melt. In fact it turns black and reportedly smelled like plastic. The people making the video reference "chemtrails" and then make a statement that "they can't be discussed" which makes it both suspicious and silly.

Following this first video, others began to post similar recordings. One, which looks exactly like real snow, does melt when heat is applied, though there is a distinct lack of water or any type of visible moisture, which seems to lend credence to the idea that something isn't right.

Chemtrails seem to be the common thought with most of the recordings and they are an absolute fact. Exactly what these thin white clouds that blossom into large clouds that blot out the sun are, remains unexplained, though many theories exist and some credible information as well. Personally, I am still having a hard time believing that snow gathered from outside is turning black and failing to melt. I have serious questions about the plastic smell as well. But the more I watch, the more my curiosity grows.

I think we need to keep watching what comes online. I suggest to those videotaping these snow melting experiments, that they gather the snow and keep their cameras rolling, keep the snow in the frame and let it roll, convince the world that something is taking place by videotaping with maximum credibility.

The folks at beforeitsnews.com did an experiment and I am posting that below. In this case, the snow does not turn black and it does appear to remain resilient under flame. It does fail to leave behind a significant amount of water. I suggest we keep our eye on this one.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Anonymous February 22, 2021 5:53 pm (Pacific time)

I'm in upstate ny. We just tried it to see if it was bogus. It did in fact turn black, it smelled terrible like Styrofoam burning and when we felt where we tried melting it but it only turned black, it felt like rubber. If I could add the video here, I would. I suggest everyone try it

Mo February 19, 2021 6:19 am (Pacific time)

I just watched a video like that and then went outside to check our snow. I cannot clump our fresh AT ALL. It is completely fluffy and and weightless. I remembered that when we started to get a lot of snow this month, that when I was out shoveling, I registered that it was so easy to do and that the snow almost "flew off" the shovel instead of sitting on it with it usual weight. I dismissed any further thought and was just happy that shoveling was so easy. Now, I wonder what the hell is going on. When I came back inside, I asked my husband "did you notice anything with the snow"? He answered "yes, it is very fluffy and weightless". At least I know now that I am not losing my mind. When we got the first snow rather early several months ago, I do not remember it being this light because I usually get bad back pain very fast when shoveling. Not any more. Yayyyy....

LS February 1, 2014 3:04 pm (Pacific time)

Norway Snow Is Clean - 'It is cannot be the butane gas that makes the snow black' (HE'S USING A BUTANE LIGHTER!) The snow is also melting exactly as it should...into water.

Video: How melting snow with a lighter looks like in Norway

➞ http://youtu.be/H3LZ64QKdlg

LS February 1, 2014 1:48 am (Pacific time)

Is Cloud Seeding Harmful? | Johnny Micou | http://www.ranches.org/cloudSeedingHarmful.htm

When studying the efficacy and consequences of cloud seeding experiments, the experimenters tend to be biased in saying cloud seeding with silver iodide enhances precipitation without negative consequences. However, much of the literature substantiates that not only does cloud seeding fail to achieve the desired effect, it also yields harmful consequences. Some of these consequences include rain suppression, flooding, tornadoes, and silver iodide toxicity. (1,2,3)

The harm of rain suppression is obvious to everyone. For farmers and ranchers, this would mean no rain, no gain -- an economic loss. Losses would include poorer crop harvest, lack of range vegetation, and a loss of hunting lease income due to wildlife reduction. This is particularly true for ranches in western Potter County, an area PGCD has called “geographically handicapped.”(2) Most ranchers and farmers do not choose to take the gamble on their land and livelihood based on experimentation.(1,2)

The harmful effects of silver iodide are insidious.(3) Yet, according to the web site of the PGCD, the effects are so minimized that the following is stated: “The concentration of iodide in iodized salt used on food is far above the concentration found in rainwater from a seeded cloud.”(4) In addition, in early December of 2002, at the Amarillo meeting jointly conducted by the Panhandle Groundwater and the North Plains Groundwater Conservation Districts, one representative stated that silver iodide was good for the heart. In a private conversation, another explained that silver miners live longer. Iodized salt may seem benign; however, some states such as Colorado have outlawed the use of salting icy roads.(5) Among harmful effects, salt is toxic to the water and land.(5)

The Office of Environment, Health and Safety, UC Berkeley, rates silver iodide as a Class C, non-soluble, inorganic, hazardous chemical that pollutes water and soil.(8) It has been found to be highly toxic to fish, livestock and humans.(6,7,8,9) Numerous medical articles demonstrate that humans absorb silver iodide through the lungs, nose, skin, and GI tract.(7,8,9) Mild toxicity can cause GI irritation, renal and pulmonary lesions, and mild argyria (blue or black discoloration of the skin). Severe toxicity can result in hemorrhagic gastroenteritis, shock, enlarged heart, severe argyria, and death by respiratory depression.(8)

Moreover, a key manufacturer of silver iodide for weather modification, Deepwater Chemicals, warns of potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet as follows:

Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10)

Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act by the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.(10) Some industries have learned this all too well.

Obviously the cloud-after-cloud, year-after-year use of cloud seeding could lead to an insidious, cumulative effect. Especially when the same area is repeatedly seeded. If the toxicity manifests in pollution and illnesses, the effects may not be reversible. At this point, the PGCD monitoring of silver iodide toxicity is so small as to be nonexistent and flawed. C.E. Williams states, “water samples taken after rain from seeded clouds have revealed no silver iodide.”(11) This is misleading.

According to the PGCD, “Every year, two viable samples of rainwater must be sent to a laboratory for analysis and in return forwarded to TNRCC to ensure that the water is not contaminating the area.”(4) This is faulty sampling and testing over a seven county area. If PGCD can not control where the seeded clouds dumps water, how can they take only two rain samples per year to test for silver concentrates of the clouds they seeded? At least it is an admission that silver toxicity is an issue. Such misleading statements based on faulty data are not uncommon to the PGCD. In 2001, rainfall amounts were grossly overinflated in multiple rain gauges.(2,11) Such overstatements are to prop up the benefits of their program while denying the adverse effects.

To effectively monitor the levels of silver toxicity, at the very minimum, water samples should be taken on a monthly basis from every dam, creek, stock tank, and other water capture places in the respective district while cloud seeding is being conducted. Also, soil samples should taken. According to the Colorado National Park Service and the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, the result of cloud seeding with silver iodide and runoff have adverse effects on the water, soil, and flora and fauna. (7,9) “Elevated silver concentrations in biota occur in the vicinities of sewage outfalls, electroplating plants, mine waste sites, and silver iodide-seeded areas.”(12) In fact, in the 1980s the CDC had hoped that silver toxicity would be reduced nationally based on a reduction of cloud seeding activity.(13)

“Fallout from cloud seeding with silver iodide is not always confined to local precipitation; silver residuals have been detected several hundred kilometers downwind of seeding events.”(7,13) “Anthropogenic sources associated with the elevated concentrations of silver in nonliving materials include smelting, hazardous waste sites, cloud seeding with silver iodide, metals mining, sewage outfalls, and especially the photoprocessing industry.”(7,13) Silver leaches into groundwater, streams, soil, and the root systems of plants.(7,13)

“Silver was measured in particular samples from rural and urban area both adjacent to and removed from activities such as metal smelting, refining, and silver iodide cloud seeding” and found “concentrations in precipitation resulting from seeding clouds with silver iodide were 10-450 ng/L compared with concentrations of 0-20ng/L without cloud seeding (Cooper and Jolly 1970).”(13) That translates in 10 to 225 times greater silver concentration in those areas.

“The most likely sources of higher than background levels of silver for the general population are ingestion of contaminated food and drinking water (Letkiewicz et al. 1984).”(13) Additionally, “crops grown on soils with elevated silver concentrations or exposed to high ambient atmospheric concentration are likely to become enriched with silver (Ragaini et al. 1977; Ward et al., 1979).”(13)

If the public is to allow the spreading of this toxic material on an experimental basis, monitoring should be required and published to protect the public health and private lands. The cloud seeding program is designed with the use of public money over private land without voter approval or landowners permission. If private land or public health is compromised, then the program should be held liable. In the past, a Texas rancher was able to stop cloud seeding over private land based on trespassing and nuisance law. However, there are greater issues at stake.

The question is not that is cloud seeding harmful, but how harmful. It is obvious that it is significantly harmful. So far, programs such as PGCD have not provided effective monitoring and sampling to demonstrate that the silver concentrations in the water and soil caused by cloud seeding are at “safe levels.” To test for silver in the water and soil, the methods are sophisticated and require the latest in technology, along with standards set by such agencies as the EPA.(7) Without such testing, such programs must be stopped immediately. There is too much at risk for their experimentation.

(1) http://ranches.org/experiment.htm

(2) http://ranches.org/rainmaking_experiment_endangers.htm

(3) http://webserv.chatsystems.com/~doswell/wxmod/wxmod.html

(4) http://www.panhandlegroundwater.org/

(5) http://www.cerf.org/pdfs/reports/40410ch1.pdf

(6) http://www.ehs.berkeley.edu/pubs/guidelines/draindispgls.html

(7) http://www.nature.nps.gov/hazardssafety/toxic//silver.pdf

(8) http://www.silvermedicine.org/whosilvercompoundtoxicity.html

(11)Amarillo Globe-News, Petition requests end to cloud seeding, by Rick Storm, December 26, 2002

(12) http://www.pwrc.uscg..gov/eisler/CHR_32_Silver.pdf

(13) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp146-c5.pdf

LS February 1, 2014 1:12 am (Pacific time)

THE SUBLIMATION EXPLANATION IS NONSENSE PROPAGANDA!!

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16438279-fake-snow-in-the-south-its-called-sublimation

"Umm... the second you bring a real snowball inside... it begins to DRIP WATER! Yet they BURN IT and it doesn't drip water and they think that's okay? uuuggghhkkkk.... In psychology, "sublimation" is a mature type of defense mechanism where socially unacceptable impulses or idealizations are consciously transformed into socially acceptable actions or behavior. Basically exactly what they're attempting to do.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-fake-snow-burning-snow.3026/

That's a great article above that points out the obvious... but it doesn't address the FIREPLACE & WOOD BURNING STOVE snowball videos. We all know that when you hold a snowball in your bare hand... your hand gets WET regardless of the type of snow (fluffy, packed, whatever...)... so how can these people hold snowballs in their bare hands, INSIDE... without getting WET?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IF2MWkM3ao

"....Lab tests of snow have repeatedly shown extremely high levels of aluminum and barium. Of course there are always the “debunkers” that try to tell us its “normal” to have these heavy metals in our rain and snow. The disinformation trolls have tried particularly hard to convince the public that there is nothing wrong with toxic metal laden precipitation. Any that believe such patently false statements are likely not willing to face the truth no matter how compelling the evidence....)

Chemically Nucleated ‘Fake Snow’ Demystified: Exclusive Report with Susanne Posel and Dane Wigington | https://theusindependent.com/burning-snow-answers-chemically-nucleated-snow-demystified-exclusive-report-with-susanne-posel-and-dane-wigington/

"We get a great opportunity to see what Dean Wigington has found and what this ‘fake snow’ really is. Get ready to learn about polymer webs, chemically nucleated snow, current seeding operations and what we need to know about GeoEngineering on national as well as global levels." ...

btannerinpa January 31, 2014 4:14 pm (Pacific time)

I tried burning snow after seeing a video on utube from Ohio. It turned black as well. No water. Did not notice too much of an odor. The snowball we made was from snow that had accumulated from a week ago.

Debbie January 31, 2014 10:44 am (Pacific time)

I just tried it and you can see if evaporate, but the snow does turn black, doesn't drip and smells like plastic.

Anonymous January 31, 2014 8:22 am (Pacific time)

it's called sublimation

April January 31, 2014 5:16 am (Pacific time)

When you melt snow with a lighter it's not going to leave a puddle of water... it's going to evap.

Sean January 30, 2014 9:07 pm (Pacific time)

This explains what's really happening: metabunk.org/threads/debunked-fake-snow-burning-snow.3026/

Good stuff Sean, so people are essentially right; their observations about the blackened snow and lack of water and odd smells are not contrived or imagined, but for existing scientific reasons. I want to stress that there is not the slightest question about damage to our environment, I also have been researching chemtrails and have a new article about that and it will go live tomorrow. I am glad to review the above info. Being in the YouTube age allows instant review of these situations, it is valuable, but everything is not always as it initially seems.

not sure January 30, 2014 8:01 pm (Pacific time)

Doesn't the direct contact with the lighter flame just cause the snow to evaporate? Essentially turning directly into a gas instead of turning to water first. As far as the chemical smell, it may just be because of pollution, and not something that is being added by 'them'.

[Return to Top]

What the Heck is Going on With Snow Refusing to Melt, is it a Hoax or Real?

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News