Must read the very secret Project Cloverleaf — The Science Behind it

reply to post by Neysa


Nice failed Bill...

Here's something that didn't fail though, 190 countries sign an agreement to ban all geo-engineering:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

geoengineeringwatch.org...

Chemtrail jets are known flying out of Pinal Airfield/Evergreen Air in Arizona, there are 4 planes flying out of the air national gaurd field at Lincoln Nebraska, and an unknown number of planes out of Fort Sill Oklahoma.

The program appeared to go "online" around 1997, though sightings of short-lived aerosol spray cloud construction goes back to the 1970s. Whistleblowers and discovered documents have identified the chemtrail program as Icarus, Deep Shield, Shield Project and Project Cloverleaf to name a few. Now the government is calling it geoengineering (and say it doesnt exist yet). But it is accurate to say that around 1997, one by one people became startled at the appearance of their first trail sighting. Within days there was a second trail and within months the trails that never disappeared, that were making clouds, were everywhere and alot of the time. THE MOST OBVIOUS SIGN OF THIS IS THAT CONDENSATION TRAILS DISAPPEAR QUICKLY, IN SECONDS OR A FEW SHORT MINUTES. LOOK IN YOUR PHOTO ALBUM FROM THE 50-80s. SEE THE MOVIE “AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS“. DO YOU SEE A TRAIL?

In summary, SAG (stratospheric aerosol geoengineering) is the intentional
spraying of toxic heavy metal aerosol payloads with military and/or defense contractor, and/or commercial jet aircraft, for the stated goal of cooling the planet, or as stated in the Air Forces document, to control the weather over your enemy, or to deliver an aerosol agent that is chemical, biological or otherwise (and here!), over a population target, including US citizens (the obvious).

www.fas.org... 4-4

Disruption of communications and radar via ionospheric control. A variation of the capability proposed above is ionospheric modification to disrupt an enemy's communication or radar transmissions. Because HF communications are controlled directly by the ionosphere's properties, an artificially created ionization region could conceivably disrupt an enemy's electromagnetic transmissions. Even in the absence of an artificial ionization patch, high-frequency modification produces large-scale ionospheric variations which alter HF propagation characteristics. The payoff of research aimed at understanding how to control these variations could be high as both HF communication enhancement and degradation are possible. Offensive interference of this kind would likely be indistinguishable from naturally occurring space weather. This capability could also be employed to precisely locate the source of enemy electromagnetic transmissions.

Exploding/disabling space assets traversing near-space. The ionosphere could potentially be artificially charged or injected with radiation at a certain point so that it becomes inhospitable to satellites or other space structures. The result could range from temporarily disabling the target to its complete destruction via an induced explosion. Of course, effectively employing such a capability depends on the ability to apply it selectively to chosen regions in space.

Nanotechnology also offers possibilities for creating simulated weather. A cloud, or several clouds, of microscopic computer particles, all communicating with each other and with a larger control system could provide tremendous capability. Interconnected, atmospherically buoyant, and having navigation capability in three dimensions, such clouds could be designed to have a wide-range of properties. They might exclusively block optical sensors or could adjust to become impermeable to other surveillance methods. They could also provide an atmospheric electrical potential difference, which otherwise might not exist, to achieve precisely aimed and timed lightning strikes. Even if power levels achieved were insufficient to be an effective strike weapon, the potential for psychological operations in many situations could be fantastic.

One major advantage of using simulated weather to achieve a desired effect is that unlike other approaches, it makes what are otherwise the results of deliberate actions appear to be the consequences of natural weather phenomena. In addition, it is potentially relatively inexpensive to do. According to J. Storrs Hall, a scientist at Rutgers University conducting research on nanotechnology, production costs of these nanoparticles could be about the same price per pound as potatoes.52 This of course discounts research and development costs, which will be primarily borne by the private sector and be considered a sunk cost by 2025 and probably earlier.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just gullible, but it sure looks like science is growing in leaps and bounds and it wouldn't be out of our reach to make nano particles appear to be cirrus clouds.

reply to post by DrunkNinja


Formus are not for posters to post material, then for everyone to agree with everything.

I was responding to the statement:

So, stop telling people.....WEATHER MODIFICATION...does not exist.

I was pointing out it was incorrect, and this usage was a straw man argument.

I don't think that just because the same incorrect statement keep coming up, we should simply let them slide the next time around.

Originally posted by Afterthought
I don't know. Maybe I'm just gullible, but it sure looks like science is growing in leaps and bounds and it wouldn't be out of our reach to make nano particles appear to be cirrus clouds.

Your quoted link says:

THE MOST OBVIOUS SIGN OF THIS IS THAT CONDENSATION TRAILS DISAPPEAR QUICKLY, IN SECONDS OR A FEW SHORT MINUTES. LOOK IN YOUR PHOTO ALBUM FROM THE 50-80s. SEE THE MOVIE “AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS“. DO YOU SEE A TRAIL?

Which is wrong. So I'd not read too much into the rest.

The government has been know to spray populations to "see what would happen in real germ warfare" so it's not entirely unplausible to think that chemtrails are real. Super Moderator posted "History of secret experiments conducted on U.S. citizens", it has great info. I don't know much about contrails or chemtrails but I would take whatever the government/experts say with a grain of salt, it seems like all they do is lie.

reply to post by Uncinus


Did you even visit the link?

How do you even feel about nano particles that can resemble natural weather phenomenon?

reply to post by killemall


Dutchsinse, says it all!

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Did you even visit the link?

geoengineeringwatch? Yes, I've been there several times, and read just about all their pages.

How do you even feel about nano particles that can resemble natural weather phenomenon?

I presume you mean something like nano-machines? Because nano particles are just small particles, and silver iodide flares and jet engines both create nano size particles.

Using some kind of self-organizing/replicating nano-machine for weather control sounds like a dangerous idea, but also one that's quite a ways in the future. Did you have something particular in mind?

Originally posted by DivineFem
The government has been know to spray populations to "see what would happen in real germ warfare" so it's not entirely unplausible to think that chemtrails are real. Super Moderator posted "History of secret experiments conducted on U.S. citizens", it has great info. I don't know much about contrails or chemtrails but I would take whatever the government/experts say with a grain of salt, it seems like all they do is lie.

Yes, so you should assume they are lying. Assume I am lying. Assume you have no way of knowing if what they say is true or not.

Then look at the actual evidence for what is going on. What actual evidence is there for chemtrails?

Check out VTRPE
It even allows the planes to see what the other guys radar is seeing....
They use fibers and barium for it...(chemtrails)

reply to post by stirling


VTRPE is a computer model used for simulating radio wave propgations, so the military can judge how well their radar and comms will work in various situations.

www.dtic.mil...

Seems entirely unrelated.

reply to post by Uncinus

What actual evidence is there for chemtrails?

I can answer that with two words Look Up....

I figured it would have been said sooner or later.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the evidence you asked for, you'll pass out before that happens.

reply to post by Afterthought

What does the possibility of manipulation of the ionosphere have to do with "chemtrails"?
You know jets don't fly that high don't you?

Seen any artificial weather lately? Or just "chemtrails"?

reply to post by killemall


I remember those days as well. It is not the same. I remember the first plane I saw laying those trails, it was close. I saw it clearly. Plain white plane spewing these thick trails that very slowly spread out, this was when they still dripped more. I don't see that any longer, appearing that the mixture has been modified.

reply to post by Phage


Please read the paper I've linked to. I'd have to practically copy the entire thing and there are diagrams to help explain what they're talking about.

Basicly, if satellites can't communicate with the ground equipment because trails are in the way, they are rendered useless.

reply to post by Uncinus

but also one that's quite a ways in the future.

Here's where we don't agree. I believe that they're much further along than you do.

reply to post by Phage


I know I see what appears to be traces of weather manipulation on the gov's own radar. The mosaic one. I have been watching those since I first found radar maps online. It's different now. There are also times you can see spikes shooting across the map appearing to manipulate, or trying to manipulate where certain storms, etc. are heading.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Uncinus

 

but also one that's quite a ways in the future.

Here's where we don't agree. I believe that they're much further along than you do.

Why? There's no evidence that they are.

Government...Loves You !
Now go back to sleep !
Hnmmmm Hnmmmm Hommmmnnn XXXXXX

reply to post by Uncinus


The paper I linked to is from 1996.

Weather as a Force Multiplier:
Owning the Weather in 2025

A Research Paper

Presented To

Air Force 2025

by

Col Tamzy J. House
Lt Col James B. Near, Jr.
LTC William B. Shields (USA)
Maj Ronald J. Celentano
Maj David M. Husband
Maj Ann E. Mercer
Maj James E. Pugh

August 1996

Here's the link again: www.fas.org...

It's already 2012. If the paper was written in 1996, they're already half way there.
Why do you have so little faith in them achieving their intended goals?