It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Weather Control Manifested?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
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.

www.globalsecurity.org...

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.”

www.govtrack.us...

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.




posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I have seen this topic 2 times today on ATS.
Now, will you please tell me how in the world ANY kind of technology could actually CHANGE the weather?



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagicaRose
I have seen this topic 2 times today on ATS.
Now, will you please tell me how in the world ANY kind of technology could actually CHANGE the weather?


I have not begun that part of my research yet (the HOW). But I plan to dive into that once I am satisfied my earlier research questions have been answered...Not to worry...I truly am curious about the science behind it as well...



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagicaRose
I have seen this topic 2 times today on ATS.
Now, will you please tell me how in the world ANY kind of technology could actually CHANGE the weather?


Its been said before but: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

People your great great grandparents would have laughed at you if you said you would be able to fly around the world, or destroy a city with a single bomb.

Because we do not know how, does not mean it is not so.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   


People your great great grandparents would have laughed at you if you said you would be able to fly around the world, or destroy a city with a single bomb.

Because we do not know how, does not mean it is not so.


Thanks for your support. I will seek to understand the science behind the HOW, but it may take a little time. This posting was just an initial posting of interest...I didn't want it to become a multipage posting.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagicaRose
I have seen this topic 2 times today on ATS.
Now, will you please tell me how in the world ANY kind of technology could actually CHANGE the weather?


MagicaRose -

While this does not FULLY answer our question of HOW (the science of the scalar EM), it does give some insight into how one would/could influence atmospheric conditions. This is a direct quote from Dr. Bearden's paper cited earlier. Scalar Electromagnetic Weapons and their Terrorist Use:
Immediate Strategic Aspects of the Asymmetric War on the U.S.



"Some of the simpler scalar interferometer capabilities in engineering of the weather and geophysical events are:
a. Steering the jet streams, thus “steering” or “guiding” weather entities. By warming the air in one region, the warm air expands so that it is thinner. Thus the interferometry makes a low pressure area in that region. By gradually moving the “warming region” (by moving the interference zone’s location), the low pressure area is “steered” and its path is determined. By cooling the air in a region, a high pressure area is created, and it is steered in the same fashion. By making multiple highs and lows and adroitly positioning and steering them, the jet streams and other prevailing winds can be entrained, “captured” and steered. This alone allows substantial augmentation and steering of weather effects.
b. By warming or cooling the moisture and air in a large storm or front, the power of the front can be affected.
c. By producing negative energy pulses inside a storm, the negative energy Dirac sea holes “eat” electron charges in the storm, diminishing the charge in the storm and reducing the storm’s power.
d. By producing positive EM energy pulses inside a storm, extra electrons can be lifted from the Dirac sea, increasing the charge and power of the storm.
e. By building very large rotation in the path of a storm, and then by sharply decreasing the diameter of the curving for a sharper curvature, the angular momentum of the overall storm will spawn “spin-off” concentrated spins, resulting in the formation of tornadoes, waterspouts, etc.
f. By establishing a large high pressure area in a region, that region acts as a “block” for normal winds and storm directions at lower pressures.
g. By establishing a large low pressure area in a region, that region acts as an “attractant” for normal winds and storm activity at higher pressure."

Again, this is all VERY preliminary...so bear with me.

thx

[edit on 19-10-2005 by jonke05]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join