Aquiess & Sciblue Inc - Dubious claims about rainmaking technology

Seriously, read Aquiess' claims about "resonance" and compare that to marketing by Q-Ray, PowerBalance, and other sham bracelets.

Some excerpts from the old Power Balance website:



From Q-Ray:

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



A new method is being developed and patents are pending in the formation
of Cosmic Ignited Plasma Patterns in the Atmosphere (CIPPA). The CIPPA
method uses cosmic particle ionization trails to ignite breakdown within the
electric field pattern, thus significantly reducing power requirements and
costs. The ionized plasma pattern areas reflect a broad range of
radio/radar frequencies.

Military applications include quickly deployable communication systems for
theater-wide operations, including non line-of-sight UAV communications
and specialized intelligence gathering. Civilian applications include city-
wide and long-haul, high quality multi-media communications. There are
also potential weather applications, such as severe weather control.
The new CIPPA method offers significant benefits compared to previous
concepts for formation of artificial ionized regions in the atmosphere.
Previous concepts use pulsed beams of electromagnetic radiation and
require high electric fields for electrical breakdown in the atmosphere.
These previous studies require peak power levels up to 1010 watts and
costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Because of these extreme
power and cost requirements, artificial ionized regions have not been
created in the atmosphere using such systems. The CIPPA method takes
advantage of cosmic particle ionization trails (cosmic rays for altitudes below
40,000 meters and meteor trails at altitudes over 70,000 meters), which
fundamentally change the physics of the breakdown process by providing
an ignition source of electrons. The net result of the CIPPA method

Projections indicate this breakthrough for CIPPA could reduce the cost of a
system to a few million dollars and reduce the power requirements to less
than a megawatt in some cases and significantly below prior methods in
other cases. Moreover, the CIPPA innovation could make it possible to
create ionized plasma patterns in the atmosphere with low cost microwave
oven magnetrons used as radiating elements of a phased array heater.
The lifetime of individual radiating elements can be over 6,000 hours. The
lower power levels also lead to a safe system; for example, an aircraft could
fly through the phased array beam pattern without harm. A patent
application regarding the method and apparatus for formation of artificial
ionized plasma patterns was filed on September 6, 2005 by Dr. Bernard J.
Eastlund.

In the 1980’s, Dr. Eastlund was the author of patents assigned to APTI for
applications of a large phased array heater on the North Slope of Alaska for
ionospheric modification (patent number 4,686,605). One of those
applications was the creation of an artificial ionized layer with ECRH
heating. Dr. Eastlund played a major role in developing the Artificial
Ionospheric Mirror (AIM) proposal to AFRL in 1987 by APTI (then a wholly-
owned subsidiary of ARCO). He is prepared to carry out a proof of concept
program for creation of plasma patterns in the atmosphere using cosmic
particle ionization trails.

A technical advisory group of experts has been assembled for carrying out
the project. This group includes Professors Victor Granatstein and
Gennady Milikh, both of the University of Maryland, and Dr. Peter Koert, of
MIT. Professor Milikh is one of the pioneers of analysis of artificial ionization
layer research and is co-author of an important textbook on the subject.
Prof. Granatstein is an expert on microwave power technology and
microwave communications. Dr. Koert is an expert on the modeling of
ionization layer formation and is the author of a patent on tilting ionization
layers.
Content from External Source
http://web.archive.org/web/20080618152230/http://www.eastlundscience.com/CIPPA.html


U. S. PATENT 4,686,605
haarp_2_-334x190.jpg
INTRODUCTION
HAARP is a large phased array electromagnetic wave generator located in Alaska. The involvement of Dr.
Bernard Eastlund in its creation has been well documented in books and in magazine articles and
newspapers. During the period in which many of the books and articles were written, Dr. Eastlund was
under a 15 year confidentiality agreement with ARCO (The Atlantic Richfield Company). That confidentiality
agreement has now matured. This web site will present information regarding the development of the
ARCO patents and the founding of APTI (Now owned by AES Corporation) the corporation managing the
HAARP facility. (The ARCO patents referred to in this web site are three patents that Dr. Eastlund assigned
to ARCO because he was a consultant. They are 1) U. S. Patent 4,686,605, 4,712,155 and 5,038,664.

The web site is divided into four sections: The HAARPROOTS section presents historical material from the
early period of the development of the inventions. The ROADMAP is a compendium of most of the ideas
developed between 1984 and 1987 with ARCO. HAARP3600000WATT describes the present status of
HAARP related to the ARCO patents. The HAARPASAT section describes a potentially destabilizing
applications of missile defense and as an Anti-Satellite-Weapon. (ASAT). HAARPWEATHER discusses
potential impacts of the HAARP device on weather and weather research.

HIGH ALTITUDE NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS
One of the inspirations for the ARCO patents came from Dr. Eastlund's friendship with Nicholas
Christofilos, a research scientist at the Livermore National Laboratory who was the inspiration of a series
of high altitude nuclear explosions. The residue of these tests was a high population of MEV electrons
trapped in what are now referred to as the Van Allen belts. These electrons presented a danger to
satellites because of their ability to penetrate solids, and to heat or disable materials in the satellites.

LABORATORY GENERATED MEV ELECTRONS

Eastlund combined this knowledge base with a means of creating MEV electrons that he was familiar with
through a former position as a physicist with the U. S. Atomic energy program. A resonant heating method
of creating MEV electrons using RF waves was developed and exploited by the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) Subsequent plasma devices have generated MEV electrons in the laboratory with
resonant heating. A figure from the "Large Helical Device" project depicts such electrons confined by a
magnetic field.

2-large-helical-device-01.jpg

Large-Helical-Device-rezn8d.com.png

plasma1.jpg

THE ARCO PATENTS (ASSIGNED TO APTI)

Eastlund combined the ideas of MEV electrons in space with the technology to generate MEV electrons
using electromagnetic waves to create the idea of a missile shield and other applications of MEV
electrons by inventing a large antenna array in Alaska to project RF electromagnetic waves to intersect
with the earth's geomagnetic field at high altitude. The subsequent relativistic electrons would destroy
enemy missiles if they intersected with missile trajectories. See HAARPMEVELECTRONS.

The patents are:

"Method for Producing a Shell of Relativistic Particles at an Altitude Above the Earths Surface"
Bernard J. Eastlund inventor, US Patent Number: 5,038,664 Issue Date: 8/13/91,Assignee: APTI, Inc.

"Method and Apparatus For Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and/or
Magnetosphere" Bernard J. Eastlund inventor, US Patent Number: 4,686,605 Issue Date: 8/11/87
Assignee: APTI, Inc.

"Method and Apparatus For Creating an Artificial Electron Cyclotron Heating Region of Plasma"
Bernard J. Eastlund and Simon Ramo inventors, Patent Number: 4,712,155 Issue Date: 1/28/85
Assignee: APTI, Inc.

Note that all of these patents were filed before any subcontractors were involved with the project.
The patent issued in 1991 had been held up because it was classified as secret for 5 years.

MEV ELECTRONS the HAARP system, or a system like it only larger, could accelerate copius
numbers of MEV electrons along magnetic field lines in the atmosphere, then, in our opinion, this could
be the greatest threat to modern military satellite technology. A geosynchronous satellite could be
eliminated within 20 minutes. There is some indication that other countries, such as China are working
on such technologies. See HAARPMEVELECTRONS
Content from External Source
http://web.archive.org/web/20080618152549/http://www.eastlundscience.com/HAARP.html




THE ARCO PATENTS
The science of weather modification is in its infancy. When the ARCO patents were written in 1984, the only
scientific approach was salting clouds with silver iodide. One of the reasons weather modification is not a science
is that scientists have made what they considered to be reasonable assessments of the relative size of forcing
technologies (such as wind generators, microwave heaters, or explosions) and determined that the large size of
weather systems make it useless to attempt to change weather patterns with human intervention.

The energy turnover of a storm system can be related to an equivalent power through the rainfall rate. The
various severe storm categories are related to the total electric power consumption of New York City in the table
below:

SMALL THUNDERSTORM 10 New York Cities
LARGE THUNDERSTORM 1000 New York Cities
MAJOR STORM SYSTEM 10000 New York Cities
HURRICANE 100,000 New York Cities


The power levels required for the ARCO antenna to create MEV electrons and defeat a missile attack by the
Soviet Union was estimated to require generation of a power equivalent to 100,000 New York Cities for a time
period of 20 minutes.

Dr. Eastlund was aware that these power levels were equivalent to the power in such big systems and also
comparable to the local energy in the stratosphere of the polar jet stream, which comes near the Prudhoe Bay
ARCO installation. For that reason, two of the patents included suggestions for weather modification. (See figure
above.)

In U. S. Patent 4,712,155 Eastlund states,"In one embodiment of the invention, electron cyclotron resonance
heating is carried out in the selected region at sufficient power levels to allow the plasma to generate a mirror
force which forces the charged electrons of the altered plasma upward along the force line to an altitude which is
higher than the original altitude. As the plasma moves upward, other particles from the atmosphere at the same
altitude as the selected region move horizontally into the region to replace the rising plasma and to form new
plasma. The kinetic energy developed by said other particles as they move horizontally is on the same order of
magnitude of as the total zonal kinetic energy of stratospheric winds known to exist at altitudes equal to the region
being altered. Since there is evidence that these stratospheric winds may be linked to certain weather patterns on
earth, the present method may be used to affect similar patterns."

In U. S. Patent 4,686,605 Eastlund states, "Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper
atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of
atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device."

IS HAARP THE RIGHT SIZE?
HAARP is not nearly as big as the systems envisioned in the original ARCO patents. However, this led Dr.
Eastlund to further investigate how to influence severe weather by artificial means. The Thunderstorm Solar
Power Satellite was one of the results of this reasoning. Another approach is to produce plasmas in the
atmosphere and utilize various properties of those plasmas for surgical heating of sensitive areas of storms.

ECRH_ELectrons_final_for_web_012907-736x450.jpg

HAARP AND GRAVITY WAVES
Gravity waves have received much attention over the last 5 years as an important initiator or cause of some
severe weather phenomena.
Content from External Source
http://web.archive.org/web/20080618152235/http://www.eastlundscience.com/HAARPWEATHER.html




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

Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification/Weather Modification Association2.1
Atmospheric heating as a research tool
Lyle M. Jenkins, Eastlund Scientific Enterprises Corporation, Houston, TX; and B. J. Eastlund
Throughout history, mankind has sought to minimize the impact of the unpredictability and severity of violent storms such as tornadoes. To date, solutions have focused early warning and on development of fortified buildings made to withstand the strong forces that are the hallmark of these atmospheric events. Sophisticated prediction methods have been developed to warn populations of potential storm danger. These "warn and seek shelter" mechanisms have clearly reduced the loss of life and, to a lesser extent, property damage associated with these natural events. However, despite our best efforts, loss of life and costly property damage are still strongly associated with severe weather phenomenon. This paper will describe a new concept that may improve computer simulation of these violent weather systems. Using ground-based beams of electromagnetic radiation, ionized plasma patches are created in the atmosphere. These active areas are expected to provide a research tool to understand storm phenomena.
Advanced computer simulations of severe weather systems, such as the ARPS code, require accurate boundary condition information. Data, such as wind profiles as a function of altitude, are an essential input. Hurricane simulations likewise have identified the steering winds as crucial to the development and track of hurricanes. This paper describes a method of creating atmospheric ionized plasma patches. These can be used as implements for rapidly heating well-defined regions of a weather system. Ground based microwave phased arrays, focused on specific locations in the atmosphere, will be used to create the plasma patch and to heat the atmosphere. A roadmap for application of such a capability to weather research and eventually to weather modification will be described. Initial experiments would correlate heating in a specific region of a weather system with computer simulations of the weather system.
Eventual applications include controlled modification of severe storm systems. One such objective is to prevent concentration of storm energy in tornadoes and to diffuse it over a larger area. The anticipated result is minimum impact on overall weather without the death and destruction from tornadoes.
If it does prove possible to prevent tornadoes, then systems are envisioned for intervention in other severe storm phenomena. Hurricanes and typhoons may be modified in some beneficial fashion, and weather modification could be a routine operation in the twenty-first century. This initial approach is focused on research to increase our simulation and understanding of storm dynamics.
Extended Abstract (1.3M)
Recorded presentation
Session 2, New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications
Monday, 21 April 2008, 10:30 AM-12:10 PM, Standley I

Next paper

Browse or search entire meeting
AMS Home Page
Content from External Source
https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139228.htm
 

Attachments

  • alaska_jet_stream-311x236.jpg
    alaska_jet_stream-311x236.jpg
    13.6 KB · Views: 1,137
Last edited by a moderator:

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

PROF MICHAEL MANTON: It's very difficult to take up a study when you don't know what resonant technology is. When I look at the literature, I can't see anything. When I look on the website of AQUIESS there is a reference to one paper, but that paper describes possible ways of controlling the weather in 30 to 50 years time. Amongst the technologies that it has are things like solar panels out in space, or giant rows of fans that blow the air along. But it doesn't talk about resonance technology at all.

DAVID MILES: Once we've set up the trials we'll be planning a schedule of tests and then scientists will be able to observe the processes as we go forward, for sure.

Has Mr. Miles set up those trials yet?

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

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

Australian Rain Technologies has conducted five trials in Australia.
Brisbane, QLD
June - July 2007


Bundaberg, QLD

January - May 2008


Mt Lofty Ranges I
August - December 2008


Mt Lofty Ranges II
August - December 2009


Mt Lofty Ranges III
August - December 2010


Evaluation & Review



Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope. Those trials utilized ion generators, not any sort of transmitted electromagnetic waveform.

Each ATLANT™ ion-emitting device incorporates a high voltage generator connected to a large network of thin wires of a metal composition supported on a framework with a series of pyramids on top. The device’s approximate dimensions are 12m x 4m x 5m, with a weighs of approximately 500 kg.

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

Initially, negative ions are generated from a corona discharge wire array

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

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


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.
 
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?
 
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?

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


The Rhyme of the Rain Machine
http://www.history.noaa.gov/art/rainmachine.html
O! Jeremy Jonathan Joseph Jones,[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Your farm was fair to see;
But now a lake lies over its stones,
From whose dark bosom horrific moans
Are heard noctallee.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To check the flood you started, I’ve heard
All efforts were in vain;
Until the Bureau at Washington stirred,
And stopped the storm with a single word,
[/FONT]

By just predicting - Rain!
Content from External Source
 
I'm at least glad to see the chemtrail believers seem to have settled on one reason for the chemtrailing.
 
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.
 
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.

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".
 
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?
 
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?

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.
 
From the trials of the ATLANT system:

3.2 Conclusion
The UQ conducted sub-studies were not able to conclusively quantify rain enhancement
attributable to the Atlant system. Some indications that enhanced rainfall in the vicinity of the
Atlant may have occurred, point toward a need for further trials of longer durations. While
there was not a sufficiently large sample to make firm conclusions, the following points are
noted.

• The total rainfall in Jan-May 2008 was generally higher than the 100 year average,
but still considerably lower than the 11 strongest La Nina years.

• The rainfall in the Southern control area was only 1 % higher than the long-term
average, while the Northern control area had 22% more rainfall than the historic
average. However, the target area recorded a 55% higher rainfall amount in the Jan-
May 2008 period compared to the previous 100 years (same period).

• The rainfall difference between the control and target areas (averages of all available
stations in both areas for Jan-May period) in 2008 was +112mm (Target - Control
areas) compared to the long-term average difference of +15mm for the previous 100
years. This means that in the target area there was 26% more rainfall recorded than
in the control areas in 2008 (see Figure 12), whereas the long-term average rainfall
difference only represents 3% of the value recorded in the control areas. The last
times when such similar positive differences were recorded were in 1992 and
1981/82.

• This difference was in the 85th percentile of all values for the last 100 years, which
means that only 14 other years had higher positive differences than 2008 (see Figure
12).

The peak in monthly rainfall totals could be explained by isolated rainfall patterns associated
with vigorous thunderstorm activity and by orographic enhancement of rainfall in prevailing
gradient winds. These factors need to be isolated in a future study.
The correlation between the Atlant ion plume, wind field characteristics and TRMM rainfall
trends noted by remote sensing maps, needs to be further explored to confirm a direct
correlation. The supposition that Atlant generated ion plumes are transported by cumulous
convection needs to be quantified.

In the immediate vicinity of the Atlant (within 3 metres), ion concentrations were found to be
3 to 4 orders of magnitude higher than background levels with ion concentrations exceeding
1,000,000 ions/cm3 . At a distance of greater than 50 metres, ion concentrations were found
to be close to background level. These results showed that the ion plume appears to be
carried in the prevailing wind, with no evidence of initial positive buoyancy.

This study does establish that a range of atmospheric modelling, remote sensing, rain
measuring and atmospheric monitoring instruments are suitable to evaluate the Atlant
technology. Further instrumentation and methods are needed to quantify the conversion of
ions to CCN and subsequently enhanced precipitation.
http://www.australianrain.com.au/assets/files/PDF/UQCombinedQLDreport.pdf

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.jpg

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

atlantreal.jpg

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!

In the immediate vicinity of the Atlant (within 3 metres), ion concentrations were found to be
3 to 4 orders of magnitude higher than background levels with ion concentrations exceeding
1,000,000 ions/cm3 .

At a distance of greater than 50 metres, ion concentrations were found
to be close to background level
. These results showed that the ion plume appears to be
carried in the prevailing wind, with no evidence of initial positive buoyancy
.
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.
 
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:
No investment, just interested in the wacky hidden world of climate engineering, and this story kinda takes the cake.

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

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

DAVID MILES: We're able to launch an electromagnet pulse off mainland Australia, basically, that uses our own sphere as well to bounce, so to achieve the reach that we need. Then the endeavour is to establish a resonance with a targeted weather system and draw it in over our client targets, and anybody else that's in that pathway.

The linked transcript also begins with:

DAVID MILES, AQUIESS:...

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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
 
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_Australia
Content from External Source
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.
 
Maybe you could quote a hundred words or so from there that says something like "modifying the ionosphere will significantly affect the weather", or suchlike?

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

The connection to plasma bands in the ionosphere surprised scientists at first because these tides from the thunderstorms can not affect the ionosphere directly. The gas in the ionosphere is simply too thin. Earth's gravity keeps most of the atmosphere close to the surface. Thunderstorms develop in the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, which extends almost 10 miles above the equator. The gas in the plasma bands is about 10 billion times less dense than in the troposphere. The tide needs to collide with atoms in the atmosphere above to propagate, but the ionosphere where the plasma bands form is so thin, atoms rarely collide there.

However, the researchers discovered the tides could affect the plasma bands indirectly by modifying a layer of the atmosphere below the bands that shapes them. Below the plasma bands, a layer of the ionosphere called the E-layer becomes partially electrified during the day. This region creates the plasma bands above it when high-altitude winds blow plasma in the E-layer across the Earth's magnetic field. Since plasma is electrically charged, its motion across the Earth's magnetic field acts like a generator, creating an electric field. This electric field shapes the plasma above into the two bands. Anything that would change the motion of the E-layer plasma would also change the electric fields they generate, which would then reshape the plasma bands above.

The Global Scale Wave Model indicated the tides should dump their energy about 62 to 75 miles above the Earth in the E-layer. This disrupts the plasma currents there, which alters the electric fields and creates dense, bright zones in the plasma bands above.

"The single pair of bright zones over the Pacific Ocean that is not associated with strong thunderstorm activity shows the disruption is propagating around the Earth, making this the first global effect on space weather from surface weather that's been identified," said Immel. "We now know that accurate predictions of ionospheric disturbances have to incorporate this effect from tropical weather."

"This discovery has immediate implications for space weather, identifying four sectors on the Earth where space storms may produce greater ionospheric disturbances. North America is in one of these sectors, which may help explain why the U.S. suffers uniquely extreme ionospheric conditions during space weather events," Immel said.

Measurements made by NASA's Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite from March 20 to April 20, 2002, have confirmed that the dense zones exist in the plasma bands. Researchers now want to understand whether the effect changes with seasons or large events, like hurricanes.
Content from External Source

Bernard Eastlund, as quoted above:

In U. S. Patent 4,686,605 Eastlund states, "Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper
atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of
atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device."
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.png
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:
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. Have you no evidence on Sciblue or David Kutchinski's April-July 2012 claim to have ended the Texas drought with "weather resonance technology"?

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.
 
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.

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

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.
 
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"?

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.


A strong AR transports an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to 7.5–15 times the average flow of liquid water at the mouth of the Mississippi River.
[..]
On average ARs are 400-600 km wide.

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?
 
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.

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.
 
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.




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?

The beef is in their claims...
 
OK
First Global Connection Between Earth And Space Weather Found 09.12.06

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.

The gas in the plasma bands is about 10 billion times less dense than in the troposphere.

So there's that.

making this the first global effect on space weather from surface weather that's been identified," said Immel. "We now know that accurate predictions of ionospheric disturbances have to incorporate this effect from tropical weather."

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



This discovery has immediate implications for space weather, identifying four sectors on the Earth where space storms may produce greater ionospheric disturbances.

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.

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"?

They are claiming electromagnetic weather control and that they are experimenting in our skies. Have they any evidence of this?
 
In U. S. Patent 4,686,605 Eastlund states, "Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper
atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of
atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device."

Hypothetical. Anyone doing this?
 
The beef is in their claims...

Claims are just words which without supporting evidence is shite.

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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Regardless, they used something,

Did they "use something"?

Why won't they tell us what?

are claiming electromagnetic weather control,

They are claiming. They need to provide evidence.

Have you no evidence on Sciblue or David Kutchinski's "weather resonance technology"?

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?
 
Back
Top