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.

 

How will we know if it's natural weather or weaponized weather warfare?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   

luxordelphi

network dude
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Except the only weather modification that has any merit is cloud seeding and you have to have a permit before you seed in the US. So there is a paper trail even on that. Of course you have all those fantasies that "sound real good" that you like to cling to, but here.....in the real world.......we tend to like facts.



Is that a concession?


A concession that cloud seeding is real. Sure. I have always maintained that it's real. Hell, I can even link you to a site where you can pay them to do it over your house if you like.

It's all that other stuff I have a problem with. Your unique inability to grasp persistent contrail formation is one.

I don't know about your life, or if you have time and or money to do extra stuff, but if you ever find yourself with time and money, please take a meteorology class. I promise you can ask the professor all the question you want to discredit him, but he will keep showing you the facts. He will explain how a weather balloon can show the data that explains when contrails are most likely to form and then even show you where you can find that data for your area and how to interpret it. I wouldn't bother with all this, but you seem like a mildly reasonable person. Once you get past the fact that you might not know every damn thing, you can learn all sorts of stuff.




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

tsurfer2000h
Well I am pretty sure this is how we know that the weather isn't being used as a weapon...


The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), formally the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques is an international treaty prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects. It opened for signature on 18 May 1977 in Geneva and entered into force on 5 October 1978.

The Convention bans weather warfare, which is the use of weather modification techniques for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction. The Convention on Biological Diversity of 2010 would also ban some forms of weather modification or geoengineering.[2]


en.wikipedia.org...



Cmon surfer. A quick google search will show you that the Rules of conventions arent always adhered to.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 





Cmon surfer. A quick google search will show you that the Rules of conventions arent always adhered to.


Well then show me some evidence that this has happened after this was signed?

And remember we are talking about using the weather as a weapon.
edit on 4-1-2014 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Tucket
 





Cmon surfer. A quick google search will show you that the Rules of conventions arent always adhered to.


Well then show me some evidence that this has happened after this was signed?

And remember we are talking about using the weather as a weapon.
edit on 4-1-2014 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)


Im not claiming to have the answers Surfer, I was just perplexed as to why you would post that information when you yourself (yes im assuming that this is general knowledge) are aware that the rules of convention arent always followed.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Tucket
 





Im not claiming to have the answers Surfer, I was just perplexed as to why you would post that information when you yourself (yes im assuming that this is general knowledge) are aware that the rules of convention arent always followed.


Again this is about the weaponizing of weather not any other rules of convention.

I never said that rules aren't broken, but when talking about this topic there is no evidence showing any country has gone and broken the UN rules concerning the weather as a weapon, or that they are looking for ways to do so.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

AndyMayhew

luxordelphi

AndyMayhew
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Yes.

There are an awful lot of people who have spent their lives watching and studying the weather. We would know.


Who's we? The military would know. How would we, Joe & Jane Public, know? The military has stated that this is the beauty of this weapon - no one would know. Do you think they don't know what they're talking about?


Hundreds of thousands of amateur meteorologists who are frankly obsessed with watching the weather all over the world every day. Then there are all the professionals - most of whom do not work for government Met agencies.

If weather wars are happening then so far all anyone has been able to do is produce expected weather in expected places at expected times.

When weather events that were not forecast days in advance and which cannot be readily explained by standard meteorology start happening, you might have a point.

And of course, if we advance to the stage of being able to control the weather that makes us a Type 1 civilistaion far more advanced than anything we can imagine - and just harnessing the weather means an end to all oil and coal (one hurricane can produce all the energy the world needs for a year). Maybe one day we'll be able to do it. But for now, we cant even stop it raining.



What part of the military saying that weaponized weather is the perfect weapon don't you understand? It's perfect because no one could know it was being used as a weapon. Everyone would think it's just weather. (Or earthquakes or volcanoes or...)

And just because we're not a type 1 civilization has never stopped us from blundering on into things we don't grasp. (See the government "oops!" moments in the OP link.)

You're looking at some kind of high ground. Expecting logical steps issuing from a platform of knowledge and understanding. That's not what's happening and it's not what has happened.

There is no consensus on atmospheric chemistry. There is only the continual prodding of unknown areas in what is called an effort to keep the economy sound by allowing unchecked emissions. And the arrogance that proposes geo-engineering solutions, which all involve more pollution, in order to avoid checking emissions.

It's the "let's show them we can still blow sh*t up" mentality.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Aloysius the Gaul

luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Good point, however, in light of the global spying by NSA and partnering countries, I'd have to say that there appears to be a global conflict in which we, the world, appear to be the enemy. With an enemy spread out over the entire globe, it shouldn't be surprising to find weaponized weather events in diverse places.


So the world is the enemy and therefore...er.....who is fighting against the world?? The NSA - fighting the whole world? The Chinese - who also seem to be spying on the whole world??

Aliens??

Since when did spying equate to conflict, and why would spying involve "weaponised weather" that is, apparently, indistinguishable from the real thing?


edit on 4-1-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


Yes. There is a global spying network. It involves multiple country's. They spy on everyone. They won't desist even though they are breaking the laws in all country's. We, the object of the spying, are obviously the enemy of some paranoid delusional. That's a conflict.

There are hundreds of other conflicts in this world of ours. Oil, water, clean air, gmo's, food, ideologies, land.

These are some of the conflicts in which weaponized weather might be used.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

mrthumpy

luxordelphi
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Ok...I'll make a list, off the top, of what I think might cause the start-stop contrail/chemtrail behavior and I'll list all the ones I can think of without prejudice to sides in that debate but first, to stay topical, I'll quote the OP link on this subject.

1. Different temperatures
2. Different humidities
3. Different particle concentrations


(The first 3 are a stretch.) (They involve some of those perfect storm conditions that you all are so fond of.)


The first three are a stretch? Seriously do you NEVER look up? You see those OTHER white fluffy things in the sky that don't come from planes? You see the gaps between those?


Outrageously persistent contrails don't make rain clouds. Keep on keeping on looking, though, and the light will come on.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
Well I am pretty sure this is how we know that the weather isn't being used as a weapon...


The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), formally the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques is an international treaty prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects. It opened for signature on 18 May 1977 in Geneva and entered into force on 5 October 1978.

The Convention bans weather warfare, which is the use of weather modification techniques for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction. The Convention on Biological Diversity of 2010 would also ban some forms of weather modification or geoengineering.[2]


en.wikipedia.org...





Another omg moment brought to us by you all. Isn't there some sort of convention against torture?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   

totallackey
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





It is foolish, imo, to think that the government won't experiment and lie when it comes to weather modification when they have consistently done so in the past.


This statement demonstrates, in conjunction with your OP, the depth of cognitive dissonance within your premise.

On the one hand, you present as evidence for weather weaponization, a government statement indicating the ability to hide such an attack.

On the other hand, you make this statement, indicating it is a lie.


I give up! You all are just too too logical for poor little old me. When do you plan on leaving the debating team and entering the real world? (And by the way, dissembling is a martial art - an act of war.)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





Slick, slim, twisting it up like that.


What did I twist?

I can't correct my behavior if I don't know what I did.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

learnatic
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Reading this along with HARP,and personalised internat, whenever one encounters abnornal weather one can never be certain wheather or not the weather is natural or man made. Just another source of confusion, worrry and uncrtainity which I suppose is just what the powers that be have planned for us to enable them to place in a space where we are easy to control and imprisoned


Thank you for contributing in this thread. I agree with you completely. A stressed populace is an easily controlled populace. Weaponized weather creates scarcity of essentials - food, water, shelter.

And all the time this is going on - there's no one to blame but the weather.
edit on 4-1-2014 by luxordelphi because: going starts and ends with a g



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 





I was wondering when someone was going to bring HAARP into this thread. Just how does HAARP effect the weather and how would that actually work in reality?



HAARP was discussed and brought into this thread on page 1. A poster brought up earthquake lights. And I replied:




I agree with you on the earthquake lights! One explanation for them is that earthquake stresses perturb the ionosphere and magnetic field and so produce these lights as an auroral plasma display.






There is something else that disturbs/agitates the ionosphere and utilizes the magnetic field lines in our world today and those are ionospheric heaters like HAARP. HAARP has been able to create aurora. So there seem to be two distinct possibilities here: natural forces or ionospheric heaters.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

network dude

luxordelphi

network dude
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Except the only weather modification that has any merit is cloud seeding and you have to have a permit before you seed in the US. So there is a paper trail even on that. Of course you have all those fantasies that "sound real good" that you like to cling to, but here.....in the real world.......we tend to like facts.



Is that a concession?


A concession that cloud seeding is real. Sure. I have always maintained that it's real. Hell, I can even link you to a site where you can pay them to do it over your house if you like.

It's all that other stuff I have a problem with. Your unique inability to grasp persistent contrail formation is one.

I don't know about your life, or if you have time and or money to do extra stuff, but if you ever find yourself with time and money, please take a meteorology class. I promise you can ask the professor all the question you want to discredit him, but he will keep showing you the facts. He will explain how a weather balloon can show the data that explains when contrails are most likely to form and then even show you where you can find that data for your area and how to interpret it. I wouldn't bother with all this, but you seem like a mildly reasonable person. Once you get past the fact that you might not know every damn thing, you can learn all sorts of stuff.


Radiosonde is pretty spaced out. How do you fill in the gaps? Just make stuff up?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Tucket
 





Im not claiming to have the answers Surfer, I was just perplexed as to why you would post that information when you yourself (yes im assuming that this is general knowledge) are aware that the rules of convention arent always followed.


Again this is about the weaponizing of weather not any other rules of convention.

I never said that rules aren't broken, but when talking about this topic there is no evidence showing any country has gone and broken the UN rules concerning the weather as a weapon, or that they are looking for ways to do so.



This is about the FACT that weaponized weather is the perfect weapon because no one would know. It would just look like weather.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





Slick, slim, twisting it up like that.


What did I twist?

I can't correct my behavior if I don't know what I did.


Here are the statements: mine:




Very astute, Hall Monitor, because contrails persisting without proper conditions for persistence would certainly be a way to tell.



And yours:




How can you assess the conditions to possibly come to that conclusion?


My statement is not about assessment. It's about proper conditions for contrail persistence. That's the conclusion; not assessment.

You all are the ones assuming that if a contrail persists, then, proper conditions exist. I'm not assuming that because there is no scientific basis for that assumption.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





Another omg moment brought to us by you all. Isn't there some sort of convention against torture?


Good choice just misunderstood.

In case you missed it I never said rules aren't broken, but when it comes to weather as a weapon there is no evidence showing any country using it or trying to find ways of doing it.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





Another omg moment brought to us by you all. Isn't there some sort of convention against torture?


Good choice just misunderstood.

In case you missed it I never said rules aren't broken, but when it comes to weather as a weapon there is no evidence showing any country using it or trying to find ways of doing it.


I'm glad we finally agree on something. Yes...it's the perfect weapon because there is no way anyone would ever know. There would never be any evidence other than what could be attributed to natural causes. Failing a whistle blower, who would never get past the gate, there is no way (except the suggestions from the very kind, topical posters in this thread) that we would ever know.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





It would just look like weather.


Then why spend money making a weapon if they can let regular weather do it for them since there is no difference between the two?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

luxordelphi

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





How would we, on the wrong end of a weather experiment, be able to tell whether or not it is natural?


Don't we have plenty of people that can "Just look up"?


Very astute, Hall Monitor, because contrails persisting without proper conditions for persistence would certainly be a way to tell.


Then what are you implying here? How would/did/do you CONCLUDE a lack of proper conditions for persistence?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join