Mysterious Weather-Changing Machine Used For Secret Solstice

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
[/post]
The people that worked with him still have his research. His family and other researchers carried on his institute in Maine. His granddaughter also has a lot of his work. While they burned what they could, he his a lot and moved a lot to universities for safe keeping. Check out the link below and you can find out how they carried on a lot of his research.

so what you are saying is that his research was NOT destroyed.......glad you cleared that up.

No...a lot of it was. A lot of his notes and writings were burned with his books and equipment.

So now it is "a lot of it was" (destroyed).....which is clearly not "all of it" - fair enough.......let's be clear.

Like I have said previously. Research it yourself. This isn't my thread and I could not care any less what your personal issue is with the subject.

Research, books and devices were all taken and either burned or destroyed. How much is really of no concern. It was enough to be the worst case of it in US history done by the federal government.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

how much is clearly of major concern - if it was a ALL destroyed, as was claimed, then we would not have the benefit of being able to laugh at cloudbusters today - that would be sad.

And yes it was the worst case of US Govt censorship - which just goes to show how ineffective US govt censorship actually is!

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: Bilk22
I thought weather modification was all hooey? You know how HAARP really couldn't do anything? The Saudis spent $11million and they get rain? Ah it's all hooey! LOL

nope - weather modification is very real.....whether it works or not is open to some debate on eth evidence, but people do pay money for it.

And it has nothing to do with HAARP.

The "ionization" rain makers have nothing to do with William Reich and their effectiveness is apparently debated even more than "traditional" cloud seeding.

Actually ionization does have to to with his devices and his name is Wilhelm Reich, not William...just trying to be clear.

Since you seem so well versed on Wilhelm, maybe you could give some insight as to how ionization works with his cloud buster devices and the different types of orgone energy he researched.

Make sure you're really clear though....would hate to have to be an ass and continually ask for clarity....

a reply to: Vasa Croe
I have no idea how orgone works - if you think here's some link with ionization then perhaps you should make it clear.

How ionization is SUPPOSED to work is pretty clearly explained in this article - which also notes that there is no actual basis for its claimed success in evidential science, and discusses whether it is "success or scam".......which is a stronger way of saying what I already did about it - that there has some discussion about it's effectiveness!

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Actually ionization does have to to with his devices

Ok, how?

And how clear is Reich on what orgone is really?

Is this accurate? It sounds like it could have been dreamed up by blocula.

A cloudbuster consists of an array of parallel hollow metal tubes which are connected at the rear to a series of flexible metal hoses which are equal or slightly smaller in diameter to the parallel tubes. Alternatively, the rear of the tubes are joined together to a single large diameter pipe and flexible metal hose. The open end of these hoses are placed in water, which Reich believed to be a natural orgone absorber. The pipes can be aimed into areas of the sky to draw energy to the ground like a lightning rod.

en.wikipedia.org...

That really doesn't make any sense to me.

a reply to: Halfswede

and the reason no marine port , airport or ship uses this aledged technology today is ...............................

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I look forward to your thread. I still would love to see this technology in action. For so many people to vehemently believe in it, there must be something to it. But unfortunately, this will probably go down the same way Billy Meyer's water car did.

Lots of anecdotal evidence, but nothing you can verify.

The US military has it's own weather warfare section.
Pretty odd to have something like that for technology that doesn't exist.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The US military has it's own weather warfare section.
Pretty odd to have something like that for technology that doesn't exist.

have you ever looked into that document? it's funny how it always makes the rounds in these types of conversations.
It was an excersise for USAF cadets.

Disclaimer
2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The
views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or
events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.
This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared
for public release.

link to the paper

If they gave the cadets an assignment to weaponize feral cats, we would be having a discussion about how cats are really robots ready to strike an a moments notice. It would be just as true as this, but it would make for better discussions. (IMHO)

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I suspect because of the way science approaches the things it doesn't understand.

I compare it to dowsing of which I am not capable, but have witnessed up close and literally saw the forked stick bend in a significant arc as if "fish-on" -- an impossible to hoax feat (and why would some 75 year old excavator bother when he thought nobody was watching).

Since not everyone can do it, science doesn't want to touch it, although the USGS has a whole pamphlet on it that in no way discredits it, just sort of says 'it may or may not work'. link

And the Stanford published study in the Journal of Scientific Research (original link is down, just going to reference Popular Mechanics) Finding Water With A Forked Stick May Not Be A Hoax

Edit: source to actual paper
Unconventional Water Detection: Field Test of the Dowsing Techinique in Dry Zones


Here are a few key quotes:

Researchers analyzed the successes and failures of dowsers in attempting to locate water at more than 2000 sites in arid regions of Sri Lanka, Zaire, Kenya, Namibia and Yemen over a 10-year period.

In Sri Lanka, for example, they drilled 691 holes and had an overall success rate of 96 percent.

"In hundreds of cases the dowsers were able to predict the depth of the water source and the yield of the well to within 10 percent or 20 percent,"

"We carefully considered the statistics of these correlations, and they far exceeded lucky guesses," he says. What's more, virtually all of the sites in Sri Lanka were in regions where the odds of finding water by random drilling were extremely low.

As for a USGS notion that dowsers get subtle clues from the landscape and geology, Betz points out that the underground sources were often more than 100 ft. deep and so narrow that misplacing the drill only a few feet would mean digging a dry hole.

Again, though in the lab using pipes etc, results weren't as favorable, so there is something that isn't accounted for and it makes scientists dismissive.

I can say yeah, I saw it pull on a rod like a fishing pole, but skeptics will be skeptics until their great god science tells then not to be.

Didn't mean to derail the thread (though I think they are related), but to your question I think things that are hard for science to pin down, don't get much attention or funding for more study because it is easier to dismiss thanacknowledge ignorance.

a reply to: Halfswede

I think dowsing, much like this orgone thing, can be tested and repeated, so scientifically, even if there isn't a concrete answer as to how it works, we can fully test if it works. (if we had the device and an operator)

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I look forward to your thread. I still would love to see this technology in action. For so many people to vehemently believe in it, there must be something to it. But unfortunately, this will probably go down the same way Billy Meyer's water car did.

Lots of anecdotal evidence, but nothing you can verify.

Sorry for the thread derail....will quit posting in here and wait until I have the new thread up. Just an interesting subject to me and since you brought up Reich I had to post on it. I will see if I can get his granddaughter to write something up for it as well. I highly doubt she would join here for a discussion, but may be able to get her to answer some questions via email once the thread is going and some may have questions.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I think it was very much on topic. Perhaps more so than the OP.
I was mocking the article and I have laughed at this "technology" before since it's not proven and sounds a bit "out there".
But I would be pleasantly surprised to see that I was completely wrong and it does work. (don't tell anyone, but I was wrong once yesterday)

a reply to: Halfswede

wow - you changed the subject - didnt expect that


now - back to these alledged " fog busters " IF they worked ships masters would fit them - its that simple so would airports , harbours etc etc etc

a reply to: ignorant_ape

They did fit them. Multiple captains authorized their use when Trevor was aboard. One particular captain who couldn't really deal with the "hooey" said ,"I don't believe in them, but they just work, so use them". They were used many times aboard ships of a certain major container line.

They are not officially endorsed, because the scientific community claims hooey. Just like how dowsing is used all over the world by well drillers etc. even though it is not officially endorsed as a product or taught in hydrology school. Just the other day, there was a DoD contractor using dowsing rods to locate an unmarked (no locate wire) water line at one of the govt labs.

You can chuckle all you want inside, but your disbelief doesn't change whether something exists or not. I've seen with my own eyes which is all the irrefutable proof I need.

Science will someday discover the mechanism, and then you can officially believe, but the mechanism is there whether understood or not.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Also, in regards to harbors, and airports, I can't be sure of this particular device, but many of them required motion, ie moving boat, car etc.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I think it was very much on topic. Perhaps more so than the OP.

I was mocking the article and I have laughed at this "technology" before since it's not proven and sounds a bit "out there".
But I would be pleasantly surprised to see that I was completely wrong and it does work. (don't tell anyone, but I was wrong once yesterday)

Well....I do wish I was close to Harvard's Countway Library of Medicine as this is where all of Reich's archives are housed. They have around 280 archival boxes of his material which was the material he had sealed for 50 years.

I have requested remote access to any material that may have been digitized a while back, but they require very strict standards for research requests specifying the material and box that you would like to review and must be done onsite. If I was in this field of study for a living it would make sense to go there, but I am not in this field for a living, only for interesting research so I will likely never see them in person. I have to glean what I can from those that are involved and his family.

The index of the archives is here:

Archives

If you open it and search "cloud" you can see there are many instances of material, as well as pictures, that would be of interest to the discussion.

a reply to: Halfswede

So you know where we can see one of these things in action? I would love to see it.

originally posted by: Halfswede
a reply to: ignorant_ape

They did fit them. Multiple captains authorized their use when Trevor was aboard. One particular captain who couldn't really deal with the "hooey" said ,"I don't believe in them, but they just work, so use them". They were used many times aboard ships of a certain major container line.

Evidence?

originally posted by: Halfswede
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I suspect because of the way science approaches the things it doesn't understand.

Which is to test the outcomes, and if they give repeatable results then ACCEPT that there is something there and try to figure out what and why.

Your paper on dowsing is not scientific at all. It does not give the results of controlled tests - and when actual controlled tests have been done for dowsing they fail - eg see
Australian skeptics divining test