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

reply to post by network dude


Government involvement in weather modification and weaponized weather is not a conspiracy - this involvement is known and documented. The conspiracy has to do with disasters that follow these experiments.

The government, itself, admits that weaponized weather is a perfect weapon because it can always be claimed that disasters stemming from experiments or aggressions are/were natural.

In the 1800's, they all were setting forests on fire to make it rain. This is 2014 and our governments/military are almost as ignorant about the earth/atmosphere closed eco-system as they were then, but, because ignorance has never been a government impediment to action, it is not outlandish to conclude that, based on their own advice to themselves, they all have forged ahead, high-tech-wise.

The OP article that I put up is from a respected weather modification historian.

In November 2006 I participated in a conference sponsored by the NASA-Ames and the Carnegie Institution on “Managing Solar Radiation,” one of the many euphemisms for geoengineering. I was the sole historian. This paper brings the checkered history of weather modification to bear on these very recent initiatives and asks, are we at the start of a third cycle—this time involving both weather and climate modification?

He has documented, among other things, the pathology of government response to weather modification gone wrong.

For example, in 1951 New York City was facing 169 claims totaling over $2 million from Catskill communities and citizens for flooding and other damages attributed to the activities of a private rainmaker, Wallace Howell. The city had hired Howell to fill its reservoirs with rain, and, at least initially, claimed that Howell had succeeded. When faced with the lawsuits, however, city officials reversed their position and commissioned a survey to show that the seeding was ineffective. Although the plaintiffs were not awarded damages, they did win a permanent injunction against New York City, which ceased further cloud seeding activities; further litigation stopped just short of the Supreme Court.

In today's high-tech environment, the cry of 'natural disaster' goes up all the time. How would we, on the wrong end of a weather experiment, be able to tell whether or not it is natural?

luxordelphi
If WWIII has already begun, globally, using weaponized weather modification, how would we know? Our prophets tell us that we wouldn't. Our military tells us that we wouldn't.

So that is the point of this thread: how would we know? How could we know? What steps would help us to know? How could we, caught between the cross hairs, as it were, know??!!

It is easy to tell since weaponized weather modification is not been invented yet....

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"?

reply to post by luxordelphi


Well there might b no actual evidence of any ability to "weaponise" the weather in the first place - apart from people making stories up.

That would be a good indicator.

And if at some stage there were some sort of weaponised weather you might think that it would likely be used in some form of conflict - and since the crap weather seems to be hitting all over the world in places that are not having any conflict as it always has for 5000 yeas of recorded history you might think that crap weather is nothing more than crap weather.

Or you might want to try to invent some baseless story about it being deliberate and try to have that myth gain some currency by repeating it over and over and plead that you are"just asking questions" as a tactic to try to not look like a dork.

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.

Xtrozero

luxordelphi
If WWIII has already begun, globally, using weaponized weather modification, how would we know? Our prophets tell us that we wouldn't. Our military tells us that we wouldn't.

So that is the point of this thread: how would we know? How could we know? What steps would help us to know? How could we, caught between the cross hairs, as it were, know??!!

It is easy to tell since weaponized weather modification is not been invented yet....

Really? And what do you think weaponized weather would look like?

The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype

Weather modification took a macro-pathological turn between 1967 and 1972 in the jungles over North and South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Under operation POPEYE, The Air Weather Service conducted secret cloud seeding operations to reduce traffic along portions of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Flying out of Udorn Air Base, Thailand without the knowledge of the Thai government or almost anyone else, but with the full and enthusiastic support of President Johnson, the AWS flew over 2,600 cloud seeding sorties and expended 47,000 silver iodide flares over a period of five years at an annual cost of approximately $3.6 million. In March 1971, nationally syndicated columnist Jack Anderson broke the story about Air Force rainmakers in Southeast Asia in the Washington post; several months later the Pentagon papers confirmed his information.

Operation POPEYE, made public at the end of the Nixon era, was called the Watergate of weather warfare. Some argued that environmental weapons were more "humane" than nuclear weapons, and that inducing rainfall was preferable to dropping napalm; as one wag put it, "make mud, not war." Philip Handler, president of the National Academy of Sciences, represented the mainstream of scientific opinion, however, when he observed: "It is grotesquely immoral that scientific understanding and technological capabilities developed for human welfare to protect the public health, enhance agricultural productivity, and minimize natural violence of large storms should be so distorted as to become weapons of war."

One observer noted that the lesson of the Vietnam experience was not that rainmaking is an inefficient means for slowing logistical movement in jungle trails, but "that one can conduct covert operations using a new technology in a democracy without the knowledge of the people."

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.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

And if at some stage there were some sort of weaponised weather you might think that it would likely be used in some form of conflict - and since the crap weather seems to be hitting all over the world in places that are not having any conflict as it always has for 5000 yeas of recorded history you might think that crap weather is nothing more than crap weather.

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.

(Dork?)

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?

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.

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

ETA: I hope this doesn't involve the Astro-Chaise.

DenyObfuscation

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.

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

ETA: I hope this doesn't involve the Astro-Chaise.

edit on 3-1-2014 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)

Slick, slim, twisting it up like that.

(Think I will pull out the old lawn chair because the moon is upside down again in Vegas and I've got those mid-latitude laying around blues.)

reply to post by luxordelphi


I heard NASA blew up the Moon. You're probably looking at a hologram.

Now what did I twist? Seems like a pretty reasonable question that I asked?

The way I see it, if contrails are present then the conditions were correct for their existence. Sometimes planes leave no trails at all. Other times they leave trails that persist for various durations.

My simplest observation, I have watched a plane go from leaving no visible trail to "spraying" a trail that had segments that persisted and segments that disappeared. If the persistence of the trail were due to chemicals spreading out across the sky then I would not expect the trail to behave differently in different areas of the sky.

It makes sense that the difference is variables in the atmosphere, not variables in the exhaust.

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.

According to meteorology professor Hans Verlinde of Penn State, one of the authors of the NRC report, the basic problems in cloud microphysics "haven't really changed much over the years." Scientists do not have the ability to characterize the background concentration, sizes, and chemical composition of aerosols, the very smallest particles that participate in cloud processes. This is particularly true for ice nuclei. Additionally, the mass accomodation coefficient, a factor that determines the activated drop spectrum at cloud base and the maximum supersaturation attained within the cloud, is not known within an order of magnitude. Taken together, this means that atmospheric scientists cannot with confidence predict the droplet distribution and its variation within any particular cloud. Moreover, factors such as chemical surfactants and radiation influence the evolution of the droplets over time.

So, essentially, all the playing around we do with the atmosphere (including jet emissions) is like blind-folding the 3 stooges and giving them a bunch of planes and rockets and flares and piles of proposed geo-engineering materials, putting their fingers on the go buttons and pointing them in the general direction of up. And crossing our fingers.

That's just about how scientific it all is.

Anyway, the list (not in any order):

1. Different temperatures
2. Different humidities
3. Different particle concentrations
4. The changing of the flares
5. Fuel additive settling
6. Fuel additive uneven dispersion
7. Dirty nozzles
8. Running out of stuff so manually on/off knowing it will spread to cover
9. Another substance interfering and causing intermittent contrail mitigation
10.Testing persistent contrail abatement
11.Testing 2 different nucleation substances so that the test can be conducted in exactly the same conditions
12.Testing 2 different nucleation substance concentrations, again so that the test can be said to be in exactly the same conditions

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

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.

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?

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?

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...

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.

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

reply to post by learnatic

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

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?