I was born in Allentown, PA.
Well over twice as much rain on July 11 in my hometown in 2019, compared to previous record for that day set in 1982, the year I graduated high school.
I have to call out the fact that I’ve distributed a significant number of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices in Allentown and the surrounding area over the years, and Allentown is fourth largest margin out of the dozens of data points below documenting exponentially-increasing precipitation, regardless of geography.
I took care to position many of them near the major nodes of the Death energy-based network that many still mistakenly presume only carries cell phone traffic and weather radar data.
The weather here in Brooklyn, New York continues to be the finest I’ve ever witnessed. The air and the energy feel better than they did on the Gulf coast of Texas when I was a kid.
Every tree flawlessly healthy, and without disease. Flowers in pots and flowering trees in the neighborhood blooming with a perfection I first noticed in Maine six or so years ago, now.
At first I thought “wow, people up here really take great care of their flowers!” Then, the next year, I noticed that the flowers in Pittsburgh looked the same.
THE BREAKING OF THE GREAT ARTIFICIAL DROUGHT
Great positive changes are underway at every level of our reality. They began in earnest in 2012, and have been increasing in speed and magnitude. I began writing this series of articles, entitled “Positive Changes That Are Occurring”, in July of 2013.
These historically-unprecedented positive changes are being driven by many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices based on the work of Wilhelm Reich and Karl Hans Welz.
Since Don Croft first fabricated tactical Orgonite in 2000, its widespread, ongoing and ever-increasing distribution has been unknitting and transforming the ancient Death energy matrix built and expanded by our dark masters, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before. And, as a result, the Ether is returning to its natural state of health and vitality.
One of those changes is that the Great Artificial Drought has been broken.
That’s because precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.
In May 2004, Columbia.edu widened its eyes to simulate honesty and asked “Could Global Warming Mean Less Sunshine and Less Rainfall***?***”
This is just a few years after the the literal forest of Death energy infrastructure that many still mistakenly presume only carries cell phone traffic and weather radar data popped up virtually overnight in every city, town and village on Earth.
Just three years later, in 2007, Science asked “How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring***?***”
2007 was the year I joined Don Croft’s Etheric Warriors forum. The complete 180 from Columbia University’s esteemed position just three years earlier shows you how, even as early as 2007, the slow, steady, widespread and ever-increasing distribution of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices had already scuttled the multi-, multi-trillion dollar system whose clandestine purposes include drought creation, as well as storm steering and augmentation.
In May 2017, epa.gov said “Global warming is increasing rainfall rates”. While, in February 2018, Quora widened its eyes to simulate honesty and asked “Can global warming reduce rainfall in the world***?***”
Is the only-generally-described “global warming” increasing or decreasing rainfall? I’m so confused and ensheepled!
In February 2018, USA Today wrung its hands and assured “Drought in United States at worst level in nearly four years”.
Well, if that is true, then how could a mentalfloss.com article from December 2018 explain (only-generally) that “Most of the U.S. Is Experiencing Record-Low Drought Levels”?
As a bonus, I’ll mention that a USA Today article from roughly six months previously, in April, 2017, said “U.S. drought reaches record low as rain reigns”.
Is drought in the U.S. at its worst level in four years, per USA Today, or has it reached a record low, again per USA Today? I’m so confused and ensheepled!
Columbia University, Science, the EPA, Quora and USA Today are all pathologically-lying State propaganda organs. I’ve exposed their duplicity by using what was known in the old days as “fact-checking”.
The mental floss headline is what’s known as a “Satanic Inversion”, in which they’ve gymnastically avoided saying “record-high rainfall levels”.
Well, if that’s true, why does a carbonbrief.org guest post from May 2018 read “Climate change is already making droughts worse”?
It’s totally true, and the only-generally-described claptrap from the psychotically-named State propaganda organ “carbon brief” is patently false.
INCREASING TEMPERATURE DOES NOT DRIVE INCREASING RAINFALL
And now, class, we are going to take a closer look at the claim that rising temperatures drive increased rainfall. You, nodding at your telescreen - stop looking out that window at the beautiful clouds!
The average temperature in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota was 49.7 degrees in 2016, 48.5 degrees in 2017, and 46.4 degrees in 2018. If global warming is causing record rainfall in Minnesota, how can the rainfall record for 2018 be 7% higher than 2016’s record, when the average temperature was 7% lower in 2018 than in 2016?
This proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.
The average temperature in Minnesota’s Twin Cities area was 46.1 degrees in 1881, and 45.1 degrees in 1911. If warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall, how can Minnesota’s 1911 rainfall record be 2.6% higher than 1881’s, when the average temperature in 1911 was 2.1% lower than it was in 1881? Moderate decrease in temperature, moderate increase in rainfall.
This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.
The average temperature in Minnesota’s Twin Cities area was 45.1 degrees in 1911, and 45.7 degrees in 1983. The average temperature in the Twin Cities area was 1.3% higher in 1983 than it was in 1911. The annual rainfall total in Minnesota was 40.15 inches in 1911 and it was 39.07 inches in 1983 – 2.6% lower. Slightly higher temperature, slightly lower rainfall total.
This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.
If warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall, how could temperatures increase 1.3% from 1911 to 1983, while rainfall totals decreased 2.6%? Moderate increase in temperature, moderate decrease in rainfall.
This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.
The average temperature in Minnesota increased 8.7% from 1983 to 2016, while the rainfall total increased 54%. While showing the first possible connection within the analysis between rising temperature and rising rainfall, this combines a very significant increase in temperature and a gigantic increase in rainfall. That connection is contradicted, however, by the fact that the 2018’s rainfall total, the most in history, is 7% higher than 2016’s record, when the average temperature was 7% lower in 2018 than in 2016. The latter a significant drop in temperature, and a significant increase in rainfall, which, as noted previously, again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.
The rainfall totals for Minnesota were virtually identical in 1881 and 1983 – 39.06 inches and 39.07 inches, respectively. The average temperature in the Twin Cities area was 46.1 degrees in 1881, and 45.7 degrees in 1983. If warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall, how can 1881 and 1983 have identical rainfall totals, when it was 8% cooler in 1983 than in 1881? Very significant drop in temperature, unchanged rainfall.
This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.
The rainfall total in Minnesota was 40.15 inches in 1911, and 39.94 inches in 1965. The average temperature in the Twin Cities area was 45.1 degrees in 1911 and 42.6 degrees in 1965. The rainfall total was .5% lower, and the temperature was 5.5% lower. Significant drop in temperature, insignificant decrease in precipitation.
This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.
1965, 39.94 inches, 1983, 39.07 inches, a 2.17% drop in rainfall. 42.6 degrees in 1965, 45.7 degrees in 1983, 7.2% increase in temperature, 2.17% drop in rainfall. Large increase in temperature, fairly significant drop in rainfall.
This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.
In 1965, the rainfall total in Minnesota was 39.94 inches, and in 1911, it was 40.15 inches. The average temperature in the Twin Cities was 42.6 degrees in 1965, and 45.1 degrees in 1911. That’s a 5.9% increase in temperature and a .5% increase in rainfall. Very large increase in temperature, negligible increase in rainfall.
This again proves that the thesis “warmer temperatures drive an increase in rainfall” is false.
I hate to subject readers to such mind-numbingly boring investigations and proofs, and apologize for not being better at statistics. Someone who was really good at this stuff would prove that it proves it.
And I don’t even know why I go to the trouble, when the people I’m debating against say things like “warming temperatures drive higher and lower levels of rainfall”, and “diabetes vaccine soon to be available!”
The weather warfare system I mentioned previously was firing on all cylinders by 1992, when Hurricane Andrew was both pumped up and steered in a way that deserves its own made for TV movie. It must have been an exciting dozen years or so for them, culminating in Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Now, it’s very important to note that Death energy-based storm steering and augmentation and also drought creation predate what we call “modern” technology. Queen Elizabeth the 1st’s sidekick Black magician John Dee is famously known to have conjured the storm that wrecked the Spanish Armada. You know he signed his secret letters “007”, right? But those early efforts pale in comparison to what was briefly achieved with the diabolical force-multiplier of wires, conduits, cables, microwaves, and wi-fi, ad nauseum.
I think that, etherically, we’ve already stepped back to the way the world used to be, prior to the stringing of the first telegraph wires, the first telephone lines. Back prior to the first radio broadcasts. To say nothing of Television.
Please understand: those technologies exist, and carry messages, programs and information that we all can see and understand. It is difficult, however, for the modern mind to grasp that those vehicles also carry what Wilhelm Reich called “Dead Orgone Radiation”, primarily because we’ve been conditioned ceaselessly to believe that it does not exist.
This moment in time, during which the populace is sleepwalking onward in an already-transformed environment, will not last long. Actually, they’re more like the stumbling, unthinking, soulless zombies so fashionable last year - or was it the year before?
I’m being unkind – they’ve all been cruelly misled (the people, not the zombies) and will awaken happy and refreshed in moments, never to sleep, again.
And this article will be a in a history book that no one will even have to read, anymore, having cooler and happier things to do with their time.
THE RISING RATE OF POSITIVE CHANGE IN THE ETHERIC ENVIRONMENT
The annual rainfall record for the state of Minnesota increased from 39.06 inches in 1881 to 40.1 inches in 1911. It’s a textbook example of how such records are usually broken by tiny margins - a 2.6% increase over thirty years, for an annual rate of change of those records of +.08%.
The annual rainfall record for the state of Minnesota increased from 40.1 inches in 1911 to 60.21 inches in 2016. That’s a 50% increase over one hundred and five years, and an annual rate of change of those records of .47%.
Since we can see that the third place in history rainfall total for Minnesota was 39.94 inches in 1965, and the fourth-place rainfall total for Minnesota was fairly-similar 39.07 inches in 1983, we may infer that the rainfall totals rose exponentially sometime after 1983.
Summing up, the annual rate of change is seen to be .08% from 1881 to 1911, .47% from (call it) 1983 to 2016, and 3.5% from 2016 to 2018. So whatever’s going on to increase rainfall, we’ve determined that it increased over time, came on strong after 1983, and was by far the most impactful from 2016 to 2018.
THE DATA
Chicago, Illinois’ snowfall record for October 31 increased 3,300% from 2014 to 2019, from .1 inch to 3.4 inches.
Flagstaff, Arizona’s daily snowfall record increased 146% from 1916 to 2016, from 4.1 inches to 10.1 inches.
The Grand Island, Michigan daily snowfall record increased 146% from 1915 to 2018, from 3 inches to 7.4 inches, and from .35 inches to .86 inches.
Allentown, Pennsylvania’s daily rainfall record for July 11 increased 135% from 1982 to 2019.
(I have to, er, throw this out there. I distributed a significant number of simple, inexpensive Orgonite devices in Allentown, where I was born, and in the surrounding area. And it’s fourth from the top of the list of largest increases in precipitation.
As an aside, I’d note that a state record catfish came out of the Schuylkill river in Roxborough, PA, right where I threw a bunch of TB’s.)
Tampa Bay, Florida’s daily rainfall record increased 117% from 1900 to 2018, from 1.52 inches to 3.31 inches.
Toronto, Canada’s snowfall record for January 29 increased 97% from 2009 to 2019
Yankton, South Dakota’s daily snowfall record for January 21 increased 89% from 1982 to 2018, from 7.5 inches to 14.2 inches.
Havre, Montana’s October daily snowfall record increased 72% from 2008 to 2017, from 8.6 inches to 14.8 inches.
Daytona Beach, Florida’s daily rainfall record increased 56% from 1953 to 2018, from .91 inches to 1.42 inches.
Seattle, Washington’s daily rainfall record for January 11 increased 52% from 1971 to 2018, from .61 inches to .93 inches.
Syracuse, New York’s daily snowfall record for December 13 increased 51% from 1951 to 2017, from 5.9 inches to 8.9 inches.
Syracuse.com said “Syracuse breaks snowfall record - and it wasn’t even the snowiest spot in CNY”
The subhead goes on to say “Wednesday’s snowfall in Central New York was record-breaking.”
The margin between the records has been represented with the general “breaks” and “breaking”, to blunt any insight into the magnitude of the increase. In the body text, the lurid, accurate but still general “crushed” again defrays insight into the margin between the old record and the new. They’re successive examples of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.
And, while the author provided the snowfall amounts of the old and new records, they carefully withheld the far more impactful percentage increase between them, again to defray insight into the margin between the old record and the new. So, I had to do the math. The snowfall total of the new record is 50% larger than the old. Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here, the record stood for over sixty years, and then was suddenly broken by an exponential, unexplained margin.
The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.
There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in New York State.
The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.
Central Oregon’s January snowfall record increased 50% from 1993 to 2018, from 16 inches to 24 inches.
Spokane, Washington snowfall record for December 15th increased 48% from 1963 to 2017, from 4.8 inches to 7.1 inches.
Spokane’s The Spokesman said “Friday’s snowfall breaks daily record at airport; streets remain icy as full-city plow continues”.
The story reads “On Friday, 7.1 inches fell, as measured at Spokane International Airport, crushing the record of 4.8 inches set on the same date in 1963.”
The headline depicts the margin between the records with the general hedge “breaks”, to blunt any insight into the magnitude of the increase. In the body text, the lurid, accurate but still general “crushed” again defrays insight into the margin between the old record and the new. They’re successive examples of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.
Such records are usually broken by tiny margins. Here, the record stood for over fifty years, and then was suddenly broken by an exponential, unexplained margin.
The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.
There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in Washington State.
The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.
Portland, Oregon’s daily rainfall record for October 21st increased 47% from 1966 to 2017, from 1.1 inches to 1.62 inches.
The daily snowfall record for January 16 at North Carolina’s Raleigh-Durham University increased 47% from 1946 to 2018, from 4 inches to 5.9 inches.
Amarillo, Texas’ daily rainfall record for August 9 increased 43% from 1939 to 2017, from 1.69 inches to 2.41 inches.
Caribou, Maine’s January snowfall record increased 34% from 1991 to 2019.
In January 2020, the New York times said “2019 Was Second-Hottest Year On Record”.
In January 1992, the Washington Post said “1991 is called ‘2nd Warmest’ Year On Record”
In 2019, the second hottest year in all history, Caribou, Maine had a third more snow in January than they did in the previous snowfall-record year of 1991, which at that time was the second-hottest year in all history.
Essay: describe the crucial nature of record temperature in driving record snowfall.
Answer: I’ve exposed the con artists in charge of things via what was known in the old days as “fact checking”.
Can see how they cranked up the desperateness from the trial-balloon of “warmest” in 1991 to the freedom of “hottest” in 2019?
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma’s daily rainfall record for October 4th increased 27% from 1955 to 2017, from 2.22 inches to 2.79 inches.
Ottawa, Canada’s snowfall record for February 6 increased 26% from 1947 to 2017, from 40.6 cm to 51.2 cm.
Colorado Springs, Colorado’s July snowfall record increased 25% from 1968 to 2017, from 5.27 inches to 6.56 inches.
Boise, Idaho’s snowfall record for December and January increased 16% from 1983-1984 to 2016-2017, from 30.5 inches to 35.5 inches. The Idaho Statesman bravely hedged with “handily surpassed the previous record”.
Ottawa, Canada’s snowfall record for February 12 increased 15% from 1988 to 2017, from 24.4 cm to 28 cm.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s daily snowfall record for December 9 increased 14% from 1942 to 2017, from 2.9 inches to 3.3 inches.
The Philadelphia Inquirer said “Philadelphia reported an official 3.3 inches at 7 p.m., besting the previous record of 2.9 for a Dec. 9, set 75 years ago.”
The author used the hedging generality “besting the previous record” and withheld the far more impactful percentage increase between them, so, I had to do the math. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.
The California water year record increased 8% from 1982-83 to 2016-2017.
Bismarck, North Dakota’s snowfall record through January 2 increased 8% from 1993-94 to 2016-17, from to 49.3 inches to 53.1 inches.
In 2018, the North Dakota Climate Bulletin said “Even though the overall winter temperature was 2.6 degrees cooler than average, even though the overall winter temperature was 2.6 degrees cooler than average, this winter was the 55th warmest because of the nature of the distribution of temperatures”.
Essay: describe precisely how “the nature of the distribution of temperatures” caused a winter in North Dakota 2.6 degrees colder than average to be ranked 55th-warmest in all history.
Without using the “yes, but that’s THERE” defense, or “El Nino”, describe how and why the temperature in North Dakota was 2.6 degrees below average during the third hottest year in all history.
The North Dakota Climate Bulletin went on to say that the winter of 2017/2018 was “the 25th driest on record since 1895 in North Dakota”.
Essay: Explain how the 25th driest winter on record since 1895 in North Dakota had the most snowfall in the history of the state of North Dakota.
Answer: The folks in charge are not your friends, and are lying to you about basically everything, including temperature and precipitation.
The author makes no mention of the fact that this record is part of a larger, wider trend. That’s an example of a propaganda technique known as “compartmentalization”.
There’s clearly been some great positive change in the environment in North Dakota.
The author makes no mention as to what might be driving the quantum increase in precipitation. They’re desperate to keep you from recognizing that precipitation varies directly with the health of the ether.
The Minnesota state precipitation record increased 7% from 2016 to 2018, from 56.24 inches to of 60.21 inches.
The New Jersey state precipitation record increased .21% from 2011 to 2018, from 63.95 inches to 64.09 inches.
From October 2016 to February 2017, the increase in the water level of Lake Tahoe was “greater” than the same time period in the previous nine years.
Lake Tahoe was within 3 feet of the legal limit in February 2017.
