Aquiess & Sciblue Inc - Dubious claims about rainmaking technology

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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



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
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

scombrid

Senior Member
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?
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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

 
Last edited by a moderator:

solrey

Senior Member
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?
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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.
 

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?
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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.
 

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.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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
 

JRBids

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

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.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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".
 

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?
 

solrey

Senior Member
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.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
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.
 

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:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
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.
 

scombrid

Senior Member
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
 

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.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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/2013/03/24/current-weather-modification-company-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
 

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.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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


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:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

solrey

Senior Member
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?
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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...
 

scombrid

Senior Member
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?
 

scombrid

Senior Member
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?
 

solrey

Senior Member
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.
 

scombrid

Senior Member
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.
 

scombrid

Senior Member
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.
 

scombrid

Senior Member
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?
 
Top