Originally posted by firepilot

Do you find it all odd, that you admit you believe, with no evidence to support it?

This is most telling, and cuts to the core of ANY religion...the choice to believe, regardless of
tactile evidence.

The necessary belief baggage in not made of evidence, but is made of a unifying belief where a deity of perspective is the unity..... represented in numbers (members).

Well there is also that yearly summer lull on the chemtrail sites, that coincides each year with summer, as people see less contrails.

but, come october, they will be posting more again as contrails become more prominent again

Sorry, but weather modification by cloud seeding and other forms of atmospheric modulation very much are part of science, and science is about openness and discovery.
The days of "educated men" going around correcting all the sinners of their heresies died with the Roman Catholic inquisition ... my bad.

Now science's greatest failing is it's inability to assess it's own limitations, and you sirs are arguing to continue that ignorance.

If Wilhelm Reich and his orgone ideas were wrong, why was he so completely destroyed by the govt? And why now, several decades later are other people with no scientific training, able to echo his discoveries by themselves?

And why are you such an arrogant person about your presumed knowledge? Even the comments about "drivel" show the total superiority complex you carry into this conversation.

Have you ever created a "cloud/chembuster" device?
Have you ever attempted any experiments in attempting to define non-"normal" energies?
Have you ever spoken with people who create such devices, and use them?
Have you ever seen clearly results which confound "science"?

I have, and while i can hardly claim to know everything, such as you do, i certainly know that you don't know you are wrong. So, where to from here?

Now go clear your mind, may i suggest a simple orgone device, made from resin, metal shaving and double terminated crystals, and perhaps you can see for yourself that you were mistaken.

Otherwise we'll have to resort to your methods of debate which involve mockery, arrogance, cocksuredness and ignorance.

Originally posted by harryhaller

If Wilhelm Reich and his orgone ideas were wrong, why was he so completely destroyed by the govt?

Probably bewcause he pissed someone off with his refusal to stop peddling his stuff as medicine/treatment, so someone in a position to do so just said "stuff him then - burn the lot"

And why now, several decades later are other people with no scientific training, able to echo his discoveries by themselves?

Well then - if the experiments and results are repeatable that makes it sceince, doesn't it - so let's see it published somewhere??

And why are you such an arrogant person about your presumed knowledge? Even the comments about "drivel" show the total superiority complex you carry into this conversation.

Drivel is drivel - if you come here and say that something exists, and then comletely fail to provide anything to show that it exists, how is it arogantr to conclude that it is drivel?

What is arrogant is saying I have to accept your word without a shred of credible evidence - presumably because you think your word is unimpeachable!

I am not claiming knowledge of anything in particular - except the knowledge to be able to ask for evidence, and to be able to see when the evidence is not credible.

This is the sort of knowledge that every human being can actually get themselves - jsut by practice - sadly it seems an increasing number choose not to!

Have you ever created a "cloud/chembuster" device?
Have you ever attempted any experiments in attempting to define non-"normal" energies?
Have you ever spoken with people who create such devices, and use them?
Have you ever seen clearly results which confound "science"?

No x 4

I have, and while i can hardly claim to know everything, such as you do, i certainly know that you don't know you are wrong. So, where to from here?

Well you could arrange some experimetns to demonstrate it - so far it seems no-one has been able to , so perhaps you could be the first.

If all this stuff "confounds science" then that should b e easily demonstrable shouldn't it? And repeatable, and people all over the world should be able to do it? So get onto it!

Now go clear your mind, may i suggest a simple orgone device, made from resin, metal shaving and double terminated crystals, and perhaps you can see for yourself that you were mistaken.

Otherwise we'll have to resort to your methods of debate which involve mockery, arrogance, cocksuredness and ignorance.

Well you can resort to that if you want - I'm just going to resort to asking you to document what you think you know and then others all over the world can investigate it.

And if you don't then lots of people are going to continues to say you're talking drivel.

seems like a pretty clear alternative - and one you should be able to handle easily given your certainty about the effectiveness of the device.

Originally posted by harryhaller
Sorry, but weather modification by cloud seeding and other forms of atmospheric modulation very much are part of science, and science is about openness and discovery.

Yes. Hence we know it doesn't work very well (some employees of cloud seeding companies, may beg to disagree)

But given we know all about weather modification and all the research into it. What is your point?


And if you are so certain you can build a device that disperses clouds, go ahead and produce a paper and offer it up for peer review. Simple. I can arrange details - and media publicity - should you wish to make a demonstration to British meteorologists from the Met Office, Meteogroup, Torro, and others.

(sorry, can't help in the USA)

I have worked for cloud seeding companies, and would say as a pilot, I do not there is really any change that you can see from the cockpit. It can be something that scientists or meterologists work out statistically over the long run.

It can one of those things were theoretically it can work, and the scientific process is valid, but concrete substantiation is not that simple, due to the dynamic nature of weather.

Originally posted by Uncinus
So why don't you create a demonstration showing how orgone works? You could revolutionize science.

Because i don't have the money. I've been trying to save about $100 to get started with this lot, but life's expensive lately. It's that simple. Thanks for a decent suggestion. I've seen a few setups though, some nice devices that people have made.

Aloysius, you're apparently an expert on drivel, do continue And until you actually investigate the subject of the OP's post, you have nothing but your own premisconceptions to batter the rest of us with.

It's not even like you've tried it and it's failed, you haven't even looked. That's a fail.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Consider that in any large city there are going to be some orgone generators pointing at the sky. So why is the sky not always blue?

Ah, that's because of all the anti-orgone generators we've installed to counter these ridiculous orgone generators and prevent the end of the world..........

(imagine a world with no clouds ........ and no rain. Ever!)

Originally posted by harryhaller

Originally posted by Uncinus
So why don't you create a demonstration showing how orgone works? You could revolutionize science.

Because i don't have the money. I've been trying to save about $100 to get started with this lot, but life's expensive lately. It's that simple. Thanks for a decent suggestion. I've seen a few setups though, some nice devices that people have made.

So why haven't thye been able to demonstrate repeatable results?

you are not het only person keen on this, and probably hundreds of these things exist already - showing its effectiveness does not actually rely upon you making one yourself at all.

Aloysius, you're apparently an expert on drivel, do continue And until you actually investigate the subject of the OP's post, you have nothing but your own premisconceptions to batter the rest of us with.

It's not even like you've tried it and it's failed, you haven't even looked. That's a fail.

No - that's asking for some evidence - these "machines" exist, and so there should be some documented and repeatable results azvailable to show their effectiveness.....if they are effective at all.

There is none.

Concluding that they do not work is therefoer a logical conclusion.

A "fail" is to insist that they do work without evidence to back up your claim. Persisting in such a claim when the continual lack of evidence it is pointed out, reduces the claim to drivel (IMO of course )

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

No - that's asking for some evidence - these "machines" exist, and so there should be some documented and repeatable results azvailable to show their effectiveness.....if they are effective at all.

There is none.

Concluding that they do not work is therefoer a logical conclusion.

A "fail" is to insist that they do work without evidence to back up your claim. Persisting in such a claim when the continual lack of evidence it is pointed out, reduces the claim to drivel (IMO of course )

I'm sorry i cannot accept that. Go back to the origional OP, that's a very well presented summary of "evidence", much of the follow up comments include various anecdotal and other evidence to support the initial ideas.

By simply sitting here and claiming that there is no evidence is woefully inaccurate. Similarly sitting here and expecting evidence to be presented for your pleasure is also unacceptable.

I will agree that there is NOT a lot of "peer reviewed scientific studies" done on the subject, i put that down to bias against "pseudo science", or anything that they deem such. It does NOT render an entire branch of study invalid. Also, define an experiment that could not be debunked by people such as yourself?

The best evidence that i've seen exists in the form of the clear blue skies we currently enjoy here, compared to the heavy smog of a decade ago, my city, my SUBJECTIVE experience of it. There is no other scientific justification for the improvement in air quality and rainfall available, none. Scientifically such an improvement is impossible in this city, by all accounts, it should be worse. Curiously, we never see contrails, of any sort in our skies. Now my knowledge of the vast amount of work that a small group of people have put into distributing this "technology" around our country is not common knowledge, but nobody else can suggest another explanation for what we agree to observe (clear skies).

You have only one option, investigate, and experience. Then we can discuss further, but until you do so, you have a preconceived negatively inferred conclusion which is as scientific as the tooth fairy.

(HINT: you're trying to prove a negative)

Originally posted by harryhallerCuriously, we never see contrails, of any sort in our skies.

If you live in South Africa, then you are not going to see many contrails unless you live sufficiently far from a major airport, and are on a route to that Airport. Of course it does get contrails in places. Just far less than Europe or the US.

South Africa has very few major cities, and almost no overfly traffic. Whereabouts do you live?

Originally posted by harryhaller
I will agree that there is NOT a lot of "peer reviewed scientific studies" done on the subject, i put that down to bias against "pseudo science", or anything that they deem such. It does NOT render an entire branch of study invalid. Also, define an experiment that could not be debunked by people such as yourself?

Anything that shows that there is any difference between an orgone generator, and anything else (or nothing).

If something has an effect, it should be trivial to demonstrate.

What effect of orgone could YOU demonstrate most easily?

I was speaking with one of my older relatives the other day and he actually remembers the "hub bub" (as he put it) around the "cloudbuster" machine. When I told him how some people feel that a "cloudbuster" is the way to break up certain types of clouds in the sky his reaction was to laugh so hard that tears came to his eyes.

He said "son what you don't understand is that in my day a cloudbuster was a very heavy rain." Some on ATS are assuming that the term Cloudbuster is literal in that its a machine that busts clouds. The machine is designated a "cloudbuster" because it allegedly can produce heavy rain where none exists (a cloudbuster rain) not because it busts up existing clouds.

Its amazing what a little colloquial history lessen can show isn't it?