1. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    I understand your point, however when it comes to electromagnetics, you're either a believer or not. The scientific community barely understands how electricity and galactic cosmic rays drive weather, let alone how they work at its most basic level.

    The Effects of Galactic Cosmic Rays on Weather and Climate on Multiple Time Scales 2001
    http://tenaya.ucsd.edu/~dettinge/PACLIM/Mercurio02.pdf

    Cosmic rays and space weather: effects on global climate change 2011
    http://www.ann-geophys.net/30/9/2012/angeo-30-9-2012.pdf



    http://web.archive.org/web/20080618152230/http://www.eastlundscience.com/CIPPA.html

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080618152549/http://www.eastlundscience.com/HAARP.html

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080618152235/http://www.eastlundscience.com/HAARPWEATHER.html




    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylTQj2qX1ZM

    https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139228.htm
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  2. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

  3. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    That interview was in 2006. At the end was the following:

    Has Mr. Miles set up those trials yet?

    Is Mr. Miles ever going to reveal his technology beyond vague sciency sounding buzz words?
     
  4. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    Yup
    http://www.australianrain.com.au/trials.html

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  5. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Nope. Those trials utilized ion generators, not any sort of transmitted electromagnetic waveform.

    http://www.australianrain.com.au/technology.html

    http://www.australianrain.com.au/technology/howitworks.html

    Do you understand the difference between corona discharge and transmitting electromagnetic waves?
     
  6. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee


    His question was in reference to 2006... so I assumed he meant ATLANT not aquiess.
    And I do understand the difference.

    Furthermore, does it matter if the science community thinks what they are doing is provable? Cloud seeding is still unproven after 50 years, happens every day. These guys are doing whatever with their waves... debunk something or help out.
     
  7. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    The process of cloud seeding is understood. Can you show us were this has some basis in fact? I don't see it.

    I see someone with an inflated resume, that seems to be making unfounded claims. I am not impressed, I wouldn't invest a penny in his company, if I had millions.

    Have you invested in his company or are you connected to them?
     
  8. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    No investment, just interested in the wacky hidden world of climate engineering, and this story kinda takes the cake.
     
  9. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I just don't see any proof that they 'made it rain'.

    One thing to consider is that most of the rain in West Texas doesn't come from Gulf of Mexico weather systems, the moisture that they tend to get it comes from the Pacific Ocean systems. North Texas gets some of both.

    There will be hurricanes that strike around Houston and then they will veer east and we won't get any rain from them.

    When west Texas gets tropical moisture, it will tend to be from hurricanes that go ashore in the lower TX coast or in northern Mexico.
     
  10. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee


    The Rhyme of the Rain Machine
    http://www.history.noaa.gov/art/rainmachine.html
     
  11. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    I'm at least glad to see the chemtrail believers seem to have settled on one reason for the chemtrailing.
     
  12. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    What does a poem have to do with whether or not this works. How can a set up in west Texas MOVE a system that is 500 miles away to that area?

    To me, using electromagnetic waves to draw or move a rain system, makes about as much sense as asking a weather witch to use magic on it.
     
  13. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    if you know the rain is coming, say you're about to make it rain.... oldest trick in the book.

    Alternatively, in the RAINAID - India - China - Japan flooding story, the governments stop all lawsuits simply by saying what they are doing isn't real, and "God did it".
     
  14. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    that being said, I take it Sciblue/Aquiess electromagnetic weather modification is undebunkable, due to the fact that noone can provide any details to refute their claims?
     
  15. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    On the contrary, Aquiess/Sciblue are the ones that have not provided any meaningful scientific details or data to support their claims. However It IS debunkable due to the fact that there is no scientific precedent to support their "hypothesis" and no evidence that it works or that they even have any equipment in the first place. All they have are bold claims with absolutely zero substance and that in and of itself is BUNK. They string a bunch of sciency sounding words together to fool people like you, Jim... simple as that.
     
  16. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    From the trials of the ATLANT system:

    The way I see it:

    The company got funding, and so did the scientists at U of Queensland. They both survive by doing so, that is their lifeblood. They did and experiment like they planned, and reported the results. Inconclusive.
    Looking at the company's website, you see what looks like a huge set of pyramids looming over a windmill:

    atlantfake.

    But when you get to the report, you get to see what they really deployed:

    atlantreal.

    A very wimpy 40 ft. long piece of equipment. Much smaller than a house.

    Before the trials even began, if I were working with my own money rather than "public funding" taken by the government to waste as they saw fit, I would have asked for some assurance that the thing even made ions, how much and how long they lasted.

    The concept of generating ions and getting them into the clouds *sounds good* but does the equipment actually make them and do they get up into the clouds?

    Sadly, it seems, they don't. At least not with a wimpy system that doesn't generate measureable ions and can't loft them where they would be of any use!

    What they are saying is that less than 200 feet downwind from the array the ion concentration was the same as upwind from the array and whatever ions there were drifted across the field with the wind.

    Sorry, Jim. Looks like another tempest in a teapot.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  17. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    All of the Eastlund material you linked/pasted in this thread could probably be better suited in an existing thread:

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/248-Debunked-Bernard-Eastlund-and-HAARP

    As for Aquiess. They do not provide a mechanism by which they create "resonance signals". They do not describe the spatial scales or temporal scales on which their methods work. They do not provide evidence of altered atmospheric currents. Surely their "resonance signals" can be detected. Can they show the existence of "resonance signals" when and where they are applying them to push the jet stream (or whatever air current they're moving)? They don't provide any of that information so it appears that they are not doing anything.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  18. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Jim, it looks like you are highly invested *mentally* in this conspiracy theory. You have put a lot of time into a pretty website and have created some kind of app to display stuff on google earth. But what you are really working here is with assertions. I hope you are having fun. You can do this forever as far as I'm concerned. It is a far better hobby than drinking and many other things, but except for your sideways support for the harmful CT thinking you might inspire in others it is alright. Sometimes it seems you go a little far but you at least come around looking for criticism and we give it.

    From what I've seen, I hope you are able to continue having a normal life and make a living using your talents in other areas, you have that ability, it appears.

    Just don't lead people on that any of this stuff is "undebunkable", when there isn't anything but assertions.
     
  19. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    Why did you assume that? David Miles said in the interview from which I quoted and which is linked:

    The linked transcript also begins with:

    http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/vic/content/2006/s1718621.htm
     
  20. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I always look at the folks behind a company. Are they trustworthy? Are they accurately representing their selves?

    I am not seeing that with this company.

    There does not seem to be any evidence that they broke the drought in Texas. In fact, if they did, they should have been able to describe the weather system that they 'moved'. No mention of one.
     
  21. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    Thanks Jay. That was a little poke, all in fun. Thank you for the breakdown on ATLANT. I have my doubts about whether their claims are real, nonetheless it exemplifies how the weather modifiers are secretive, yet experimenting in our skies despite sound science. My only concern is that was time progresses, their experiments will have results....

    I'm only interested in the truth, been fascinated by weather since ROTC in high school, and this is only a hobby.
    I come here because you too seem to be interested in the truth, and I like both sides of a story before I determine my beliefs.
    I just started my own web creation business... busy with that, wish me luck.
     
  22. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee



    “… in the US they are trying to modify the ionosphere to get weather changes” Aquiess CEO David Miles
     
  23. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    That did not answer the question about why you assumed I was speaking of ATLANT when the interview that I was quoting was quite specifically talking about Aquiess.

    Nor does that video provide a mechanism for how their "electronic pulse launched from the mainland of Australia" is generated or how it affects the weather.

    His full quote is:

    "...um there are some other technologies that I've heard of, uh perhaps in the US where they're modifying trying to modify the ionosphere to get weather changes. I'm not sure how accurate that is. But as far as I know no one has this particular stream of technology where we're looking larger scale, it's modifying the flow corridor, gently, incrementally, to deliver rain adjustments..."


    So he says he's "heard" that they are trying to modify the ionosphere to get weather changes but he isn't sure and he still does nothing to explain how his company alters entire air currents direct moisture to their target over 1000s of kilometers.
     
  24. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I don't understand why you say that they are 'secretive', since there is a lot on them easily available.

    There are folks 'claiming' that they are modifying the weather, but other than cloud seeding and the ion claim from the mid east, it is claims with nothing to show for it. There are a FEW, a very few experiments going on.

    There is NO elaborate weather modification going on. For one SIMPLE reason--not enough knowledge of the dynamics of weather.
     
  25. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    Please reference these:

    http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/03...pany-uses-electromagnetic-waves-to-make-rain/
    http://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/tropospheric-rivers.pdf
    http://chemtrailsplanet.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/aquiess-steering-rainfall-atmospheric-rivers.pdf
    And on ionization
    http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/geos/meetings/2011/pdf/Day1/MonB_AerSrc_pierce_jeffrey_1_pc.pdf
    https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/88063.pdf
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  27. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    The weight of water vapour required to deliver even "gentle soaking rain" to a particular area is an impressive amount. Mega-tonnes.

    David Miles claims not to be able to create rain, but to "divert the flight path" of rain bearing weather systems, remotely, via an electromagnetic pulse. The ability to dynamically and remotely alter the momentum of millions of tonnes of water vapour via electromagnetic means implies a power supply of truly awe inspiring wattage. Even if that was possible, they still have not actually created any rain.

    To claim to have broken the 2005 drought in Australia is ludicrous. The last big drought in Australia started in 2003 and was not declared over till 2012.

    I am sorry Jim, but as an Australian used to frequent droughts who would dearly love this to be true, nothing about it makes any logical sense.
     
  28. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    OK
    First Global Connection Between Earth And Space Weather Found 09.12.06
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html


    Bernard Eastlund, as quoted above:

    https://www.metabunk.org/posts/32783



    why would I do that Mick, we are talking about Sciblue and Aquiess, not ionospheric modification, even though I threw some of that in. Those papers were linked for scombrid to read, not for me to quote to death. You know what those papers say, your attempt to belittle me without addressing a single comment in this thread is telling to say the least.

    Of course, we know they didn't end the Texas drought. US Drought Monitor:
    2013-03-25_10-14-48.
    source http://climateviewer.com/

    Regardless, they used something, are claiming electromagnetic weather control, and are experimenting in our skies.
    Have you no evidence on Sciblue or David Kutchinski's "weather resonance technology"?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No I don't, which is the point.

    And I was not asking you to "quote to death", just a hundred words that supported HOW they make rain.
     
  30. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    I never made a claim of understanding the process nor that it actually worked, therefore I cannot support this work, only inquire.
     
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Then I'm not sure what you are asking. You've been told over and over that there seems to be no evidence that it works. Are you just going to keep asking for evidence that it does not work? Because that's not how debunking operates. Most claims can be debunked simply by pointing out that there's no evidence that they work, there's not need to go beyond that.

    Suppose I claimed I could make it rain by singing certain sequences of resonating notes at clouds, and I present as evidence the facts that sound can vibrate water, and that ancient indians used to sing for rain. Would you ask for evidence that this would not work, or simply say "show me"?

    If there's no evidence, then there's nothing to debunk.
     
  32. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    There is absolutely zero evidence they used any sort of equipment or conducted experiments in our skies. Have you no evidence this "weather resonance technology" actually exists?

    The idea of diverting an atmospheric river is ludicrous to anyone who understands the atmosphere, but you wouldn't know that would you Jim because by your own admission you just started surfing the net looking for weather mod info a couple of years ago but have never bothered to learn the science of weather. Oh wait, that's right... the alleged weather modification company Aquiess doesn't even have a meteorologist on staff, yet they claim they can alter the path of an atmospheric river.


    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/atmrivers/

    Atmospheric rivers are driven by atmospheric jets with speeds in excess of 100 kts.

    Where is the evidence that Aquiess has any equipment whatsoever, much less something capable of altering the course of a band of moisture hundreds of kilometers wide, moving at over one hundred knots and with a flow rate several times that of the Mississippi river? Where's the beef, Jim?
     
  33. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    Great example, as clearly, the indians understood weather better than we do, they observed it daily, and wouldn't waste time burning stuff and chanting if it did not work. The main point I like to make is, neither you, nor I, nor the smartest scientists in the world know the first damn thing about how the weather works.
     
  34. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    The beef is in their claims...
     
  35. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    Nothing in this copy/paste supports the premise that manipulating the ionosphere with ground-based transmitters is or can affect sensible weather in any meaningful way.

    So there's that.

    The paper discusses the effect of tropospheric patterns on the ionosphere.



    I'm not seeing support for the Aquiess "scheme" or any other scheme that claims that beaming specific electromagnetic signals at the ionosphere will alter weather in a detectible way.

    They are claiming electromagnetic weather control and that they are experimenting in our skies. Have they any evidence of this?
     
  36. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    Hypothetical. Anyone doing this?
     
  37. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Claims are just words which without supporting evidence is shite.

    So you're saying that the native americans knew more about how weather works than our modern day scientists? Seriously? I'm sure feeling helpless and desperate had nothing to do with chanting and setting fires to bring rain.

    We might not know all there is to know about weather, but we damn sure know that chanting and setting fires will not cause it to rain.
     
  38. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    The guys that developed the models that >5 days in advance predicted that Sandy would be absorbed into a developing extra-tropical cyclone and retrograde into the coast as a massive nor'easter with big snows over the northern mountains of West Virginia don't know the first damn thing about how the weather works?

    Yet somebody, not the smartest scientists in the world mind you but somebody else, can put up ground based radio transmitters and push entire jet streams around by fiddling with the ionosphere which is waaaayyyyyyy less dense than the troposphere and stratosphere.

    I don't feel that it is logically consistent to assert that nobody knows the first damn thing about weather but then hold that sci-fi style weather modification is occurring.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  39. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    They likely knew there local pattern better than your average TWC viewer that turns on the TV to know whether or not to take an umbrella on a given day.

    I doubt they knew anything about cause/effect or that their rituals had any more effect than Rick Perry praying for the drought in Texas to break.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  40. scombrid

    scombrid Senior Member

    Did they "use something"?

    Why won't they tell us what?

    They are claiming. They need to provide evidence.

    Have you no evidence on the cold fusion power generator I just invented in my empty yogurt container and that is now supplying electricity to my computer and overhead lights?