Would You At Least Acknowledge Weather Modification Exist?

originally posted by: network dude
Weather modification doesn't have much oversight in most areas from what I have learned.

That's my take, too.

The only involvement local officials have over cloud seeding is when they hire a cloud seeding company with taxpayer money (to attempt to help local agriculture or local ski resorts). However, there is no "regulation" of the industry, except for regulating the seeding material (silver iodide, potassium iodide, dry ice, etc).

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Yes, weather modification has existed for decades.

No, weather modification is not "chemtrailing" and has nothing to do with "chemtrails" as defined by "chemtrail" believers. However, it is apparent that weather modification is slowing trying to be added to the "chemtrail" myth, though.

How can you know this? Even congress could not get straight answers on the secret programs which were awarded millions in funding.

The oddities people see could even be counter measures against attacks for all we know.

The process has been experimented with for so long and by so many nations, perhaps they at last have destabalized our worlds weather patterns.

"Geophysical warfare, to use a figure of speech, can poison the atmosphere
surrounding legitimate international programs such as the global atmospheric
research program, the international hydrological decade and meteorology in
general. We have already seen that it caused the U.S. delegation at the Stock-
holm Conference to water down a recommendation on climate changes. The po-
tential for embarrassment is great.

archive.org...

a reply to: network dude

It's a localized effort to change weather.

Weather is interrelated across the globe so using the term local makes little sense when the goal is a military aspect of weather modification and defense of such.

I take it that everyone is on the same page now and we can all agree that weather modification is possible and exist in some forms.??

a reply to: deadeyedick
When was it ever denied?

Meet Popeye because most everyone likes a neat cartoon name.. en.wikipedia.org...

Now these were BigEgos back 50 years, You don't really think that the stopped the program do You? really?

It should be noted that operating a parasol is also a "weather modification" or if I use a visor in the car.

So, sew, I'm down for "Yes" there are ways/means to modify the weather, besides the aforementioned umbrella and why that is in My drink is not germane to the discussion at hand...

namaste

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: deadeyedick
When was it ever denied?

in every single chemtrail thread

debunkers loved to pretend that weather mod was impossible and therefore there would be no need for chemtrails to exist

that and the silly notion that it is impossible to recreate a trail in the sky because planes can not carry enough weight to reproduce a trail that looks like a con trail

a reply to: deadeyedick

debunkers loved to pretend that weather mod was impossible and therefore there would be no need for chemtrails to exist

Example? I believe you're mistaken.

ETA: I learned way more about cloud seeding from debunkers than from chemmies.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I really do not care on this one.

you are free to go back and look

it would be naive of you to deny the likely hood of a poster coming to a chemtrail thread and make the claim that changing the weather is not possible.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I really do not care on this one.

Concession accepted.

it would be naive of you to deny the likely hood of a poster coming to a chemtrail thread and make the claim that changing the weather is not possible.

I'm not aware of such a claim regarding cloud seeding. I don't believe you are either.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Greetings Sir AndyMahew:

Everyone, including all the Elvis impersonators in Las Vegas, knows this.

And toss in Sin City residents (downwinders and rumored to be chemtrailed almost daily, perhaps altering their perception of what we 'others' perceive as 'reality') Zorgon and John Lear who have been yapping about it for years that might tend to verify your position.

However, thank you for providing the link so the few who missed that clue can avail themselves of critical information.

Speaking of weather modification, it appears jolly ol' England might be in for another horrible winter, which one might write off to karma as opposed to any nefarious attempt to artificially drive up the cost to merely stay alive which perhaps is only wild speculation...

Your thoughts?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

With great respect,
thorfourwinds

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

you know what it was done the last place we talked but I am not interested in dragging current members through the mud but if you go to the place I speak of you will see my post pointing out what is claimed in this op and there are some that say the taboo of weather mod is not possible.

a reply to: deadeyedick
I don't want to get bogged down by getting too deep into the semantics, but this might be a problem of terminology.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I really do not care on this one.

you are free to go back and look

it would be naive of you to deny the likely hood of a poster coming to a chemtrail thread and make the claim that changing the weather is not possible.

You are mistaken. Weather modification is never denied. It's relationship with chemtrails is.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: deadeyedick
When was it ever denied?

in every single chemtrail thread

debunkers loved to pretend that weather mod was impossible and therefore there would be no need for chemtrails to exist

that and the silly notion that it is impossible to recreate a trail in the sky because planes can not carry enough weight to reproduce a trail that looks like a con trail

You call it a silly notion, but you don't even grasp the very simple point. You've never yet quoted it correctly in all the times I've seen you say this. It's nothing to do with making something that LOOKS like a chemtrail. If that's what you took from my THREE attempts to explain it to you, you are either being deliberately obtuse or very very stupid.

Also, debunkers are talking about chemtrails not existing. You thinking debunkers have ever denied weather modification exists is another example of you getting it spectacularly wrong.

I can't decide if this is you genuinely not understanding what is actually written, or doing it on purpose for an argument?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

you know what it was done the last place we talked but I am not interested in dragging current members through the mud but if you go to the place I speak of you will see my post pointing out what is claimed in this op and there are some that say the taboo of weather mod is not possible.

How about you go the extra foot and quote where anyone denied cloud seeding.

I'd like to see it.

a reply to: thorfourwinds

El Nino. If you look that up, you see that unless "they" can create the "el nino/la nina" effect, then it's a natural cycle the Earth has and the fact that we can understand it a bit, helps to predict some long term weather.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: network dude

It's a localized effort to change weather.

Weather is interrelated across the globe so using the term local makes little sense when the goal is a military aspect of weather modification and defense of such.

food for thought:
www.state.gov...

Both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives held hearings, beginning in 1972, and the Senate adopted a resolution in 1973 calling for an international agreement "prohibiting the use of any environmental or geophysical modification activity as a weapon of war...." In response to this resolution, the President ordered the Department of Defense to undertake an in-depth review of the military aspects of weather and other environmental modification techniques. The results of this study and a subsequent interagency study led to the U.S. Governments decision to seek agreement with the Soviet Union to explore the possibilities of an international agreement.

During the summit meeting in Moscow in July 1974, President Nixon and General Secretary Brezhnev formally agreed to hold bilateral discussions on how to bring about "the most effective measures possible to overcome the dangers of the use of environmental modification techniques for military purposes." Three sets of discussions were held in 1974 and 1975, resulting in agreement on a common approach and common language.

In August 1975, the chief representatives of the U.S. and the Soviet delegations to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD) tabled, in parallel, identical draft texts of a "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques."

originally posted by: thorfourwinds

Speaking of weather modification, it appears jolly ol' England might be in for another horrible winter, which one might write off to karma as opposed to any nefarious attempt to artificially drive up the cost to merely stay alive which perhaps is only wild speculation...

Your thoughts?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

With great respect,
thorfourwinds

All indications are another mild start to winter. Maybe some colder weather come February. But after the past few years, even an inch of snow on the ground for a day in southern England will be remarkable!

Nowt to do with weather mod/cloud seeding though. Just the way the cookie crumbles, especially in an El Nino year.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: thorfourwinds

El Nino. If you look that up, you see that unless "they" can create the "el nino/la nina" effect, then it's a natural cycle the Earth has and the fact that we can understand it a bit, helps to predict some long term weather.

www.researchgate.net...

Some ways it could be done, one would be mixing lower water with upper surface waters in certain areas. can this be done?

Though tested in prototype in the 1950s, the first strategic LWIs were deployed in Russia in April 1963, and were used to kill the U.S.S. Thresher nuclear attack submarine, underwater off the East coast of the United States, in April 1963. The signatures of the kill are 100% decisive. One day later, the same weapon placed an enormous electromagnetic burst (explosion) deep underwater, 100 miles north of Puerto Rico. From the surface of the ocean there arose a giant cone of water, rising a half mile into the air, turning into a mushroom, and falling back into the sea.

www.researchgate.net...

On April 28, 1997 U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen made the following statement:

"Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves… So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our [counterterrorism] efforts."

Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an April 1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn. Quoted from DoD News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy, University of Georgia, Athens, Apr. 28, 1997.

www.cheniere.org...