Mods - Please move if this is not the appropriate place for this...thx
Weather Control Manifested?
I am not one to be alarmist…and I would not give this much thought, however my interest has recently been piqued with the numerous climate
anomalies. I have come up with four possible scenarios, all of which could be working in combination or exclusively. Before I get into it to far,
please keep in mind that this is a work in progress. I would like to thank (up front) Dr. Bearden (a wealth of information) as well as the Hoagland
site. At this point, I feel that I am simply re-arranging, the house that they have already built.
•There is really nothing different, we just are better able to report what is happening.
•There is a shift, but it is cyclic, and it will “run it’s course”
•Global warming is causing all these problems…so we’ve brought this on ourselves
•Technology is in play that has the ability to “modify” weather occurrences.
The first three, while interesting (and worthy of research) didn’t grab my eye as much as the last (you know…”one of these things just doesn’t
belong here”). Having been knee deep in the high-tech field professionally for the past 18 years, I feel compelled to determine the following:
1. Is there any evidence of intent to control either weather anomalies, or keep someone else from controlling them.
2. Is there any evidence (direct or indirect) that would indicate that such a technology exists (if so, for how long).
3. Is there any evidence (direct or indirect) that would indicate that such a technology is currently being utilized (if so, for how long).
I am one that tends NOT to take others “word” when it comes to research and so I prefer to look at the raw data myself. It seems that Richard
Hoaglands site (www.enterprisemission.com) seems to be both data and opinion rich (for those who are interested). What I have done is to simply “go
to the source (not Hoagland)” in order to attempt any derivation (in order to avoid yet another game of “telephone”). As I continue along this
path, I will provide access to whatever raw data I can find (direct source material).
Ok…so here we go:
Is there any evidence of intent to control either weather anomalies, or keep someone else from controlling them.
Is there a stated “official” acknowledgement of method? It took me a while to find some kind of source material on this (while I did see a lot of
excerpts, I wanted to see the full text). You can see that we have the Secretary of Defense (while discussing counterterrorism policy), claiming that
weather modification via artificial means is being research for potential use as a weapon of terror.
Is there a stated “official” desire for the US to engage in said activities? According to source material cited below (bill s109-517), Congress
has initiated a program whereby an overt “official” research effort is now under way (as of 1 Oct 2005). The bill (or “law”) is entitled:
“To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.”
With this information (as a starting point), I can move forward in my research of the other two questions. Please keep in mind I said “I am
satisfied”…you may require more data (and frankly more data is ALWAYS welcome)…But for me (for now), this passes the “giggle test”.
Is there any evidence (direct or indirect) that would indicate that such a technology exists (if so, for how long).
If we follow the proposed theory (as described by the Secretary of Defense), we can begin our research into the use of electromagnetic waves in the
field of weather manipulation. As I began searching, it became quickly evident that I was delving into the realm of “fringe” science where
conspiracy theories were rampant. Postings from around the world claimed that the science was well evolved and in general (while covert) use.
Attempting to weed through this I discovered the research of a Tom Bearden, Ph.D. The wealth of a man’s life-work seems to be contained there, and
I am afraid that I will only scratch the surface (given time constraints). Feel free to search yourself (www.cheniere.org...
I must admit, the data contained on the aforementioned site is very “high-brow” from an engineering standpoint (feel free to draw your own
conclusions). But buried within the site is a draft paper entitled “Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons and their Terrorist Use: Immediate Strategic
Aspects of the Asymmetric War on the U.S.”. (or use the index of: www.cheniere.org...
) Dated 11 September 2004, this paper
has all the hallmarks of a Tom Clancy novel…in fact I’m surprised no one has attempted to Hollywoodize it. Net-Net (for the sake of this
research) is as follows:
The base operating theories were germinated starting in 1904. See the early works of E.T. Whitaker:
E. T. Whittaker, “On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics,” Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.
E. T. Whittaker, “On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions,” Proc. Lond.
Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372.
The evolution of this technology is as a result of the Cold War. While Bearden quotes himself as cited source (sometimes considered “bad form”, I
believe other source material exists), there may be something compelling in the data.
T. E. Bearden, Fer-de-Lance, 2nd Edition, Cheniere Press, 2003 gives a rough time table for the development of these energetics weapons, the main
types developed, and many actual test incidents for the weapons.
These systems are currently in use and in production today. Soviet units now contractually controlled by a third party (as of 1989).
Assertions/allusions to the connection of Japanese mafia to for KGB assets is the main logic throughput here according to Bearden. Still looking for
some good source data.
Net-new production units. There were many assertions in Beardens’ paper on Scalar Electomagnetic Weapons, but I have (as yet) found no supporting
data. I’m not saying that it is not true, I’m simply stating that my research into this assertion continues.
Ok, so much for question two…again, this is enough data for me to at least give a cursory glance toward question three…again, passing the
“giggle” test, no matter how much I desired NOT to find the data….Actually, I am going to pause here. I feel that a couple of the
abovementioned datapoints, while compelling, lack the depth I would prefer…I’ll keep on looking…and keep you posted.
Is there any evidence (direct or indirect) that would indicate that such a technology is currently being utilized (if so, for how long).
Here is where the data from MIMIC will come in handy (the Hoagland site pointed me in that direction…I will keep you updated.