Cloud Seeding (Weather Modification) on the Dick Van Dyke Show, 1965

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Many believers in the "chemtrail" theory are surprised to find references to weather modification - thinking it to be part of some secret government plot. However there is a long history of weather modification in the US - almost all of it for increasing the amount of rainfall or snowfall, to provide water for irrigation.

In this episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show, aired in 1965, we see Richie Petrie describe how he's going to appear as a "good cloud" in a science play at school, and that "an airplane flies over me and seeds me [...] to make me rain on the crops".

So it seems like pretty good evidence that weather modification was known in popular culture, and not particularly controversial, way back in 1965, nearly 50 years ago.
 
Wow, fantastic! The more you look, the farther back you're finding references like this. This is a great find, Mick. Of course, you're going to get blowback that this script has been altered from it's original content...and digitally altered, like when JFK and LBJ were talking with Forrest Gump :confused:
 
I was under the impression that it had been going on for decades. I remember reading about traveling businesses in the 19th century who would charge farmers in dry areas of the US to fire rockets laden with mercury(?) into the atmosphere in order to encourage rain.
 

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
I was under the impression that it had been going on for decades. I remember reading about traveling businesses in the 19th century who would charge farmers in dry areas of the US to fire rockets laden with mercury(?) into the atmosphere in order to encourage rain.
A quick search gave me this answer;

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, rainmakers roamed across the western United States, promising to end droughts for a fee.
These itinerant salesmen used a combination of pseudo-science and grand showmanship to convince communities that their technique, often a device or structure used to deliver chemicals or gases into the air, would bring rain in short order. Even the U.S. government got in on the act. In 1891, Congress appropriated $19,000 to conduct rainmaking tests in Texas under the guidance of Robert Dryenforth. Dryenforth's results were inconclusive, and as the century turned, politicians and citizens began to regard rainmakers with increasing skepticism.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/control-weather.htm

So indeed the idea seems to go back till the early 1900s, but was more trickery as actual working it seems...
 

Quantumbeliever

Banned
Banned
What exactly is the implication of your post? That cloud seeding (weather modification) was once widely known and accepted but now, it is neither? If so, I'm curious how this does anything to debunk "chemtrails".
You have made that very point before in regards to a video posted that reportedly showed a scientist addressing some UN committee and "admitting" that weather modification was ongoing.
I countered that the very position you take, that is that chemtrails can all be explained by ongoing efforts to manipulate weather, does very little to make those who have legitimate, related, environmental concerns, feel better.
A good point of inquiry might be: why was weather modification once discussed openly in public but rarely is now. I postulate it is because the people (whoever they are) modifying our weather do not want the public to know about their activities.
In the early 1960s it was also common practice to spray DDT for mosquito control. You can still find propoganda videos showing little kids running through clouds of pesticides with the narrator happily exclaiming the positive effects of chemicals in our lives.
I believe you are correct Mick. Chemtrails are a result of unknown agencies and/or business entities spraying shit in our atmosphere to alter the weather.
The problem is that we no longer have full disclosure of these activities. One has to wonder why. My guess is that if you live in an area where chemicals are used to alter the weather, you might have a reasonable expectation to be informed of such activity. I've heard people say that most cloud seeding just uses "salt" so there is no harm done to the environment. I would counter that since they have no hard evidence that only "salt" is used, their argument therefore is invalid. In addition, to my knowledge no long term study has been undertaken to study the effect of dumping salt into the environment. Any chemical, even completely ordinary or natural ones, can be dangerous in certain situations. For instance, how would raising the salinity of rainwater affect say, the Ozarks cavefish, an endangered and delicate species that lives deep in the caves in my part of the US.
The secrecy surrounding weather modification should raise alarm bells. History is rife with government programs that had serious detrimental effects on the population and wildlife.
If, as you seem to believe, chemtrails are nothing more than cloud seeding, do you believe the public has a right to know if and when these activities are taking place AND exactly what chemicals are being used?
Hopefully someone of your stature that some people actually look to for guidance in what they should "believe", would publicly declare that the people have the right to be informed of such activity.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
What exactly is the implication of your post? That cloud seeding (weather modification) was once widely known and accepted but now, it is neither? If so, I'm curious how this does anything to debunk "chemtrails".

[snip]

If, as you seem to believe, chemtrails are nothing more than cloud seeding, do you believe the public has a right to know if and when these activities are taking place AND exactly what chemicals are being used?
Hopefully someone of your stature that some people actually look to for guidance in what they should "believe", would publicly declare that the people have the right to be informed of such activity.

No, that is totally incorrect. Chemtrails are not "nothing more than cloud seeding". "Chemtrails" are nothing more than frozen condensation. You don't seriously think that all those trails you see overhead are a massive programme of cloud seeding, do you?

The point of this post is that talk of "weather modification" does not mean new and nefarious technologies, and neither does it have anything to do with "chemtrails".

What people point to in the sky and call "chemtrails" are simply contrails, which are nothing to do with any kind of weather modification.

Any photos you see of such "chemtrails" are, in virtually every case, simply pictures of high-altitude contrails left by jet aircraft, consisting of ice crystals.

Cloud seeding is done on a very localised basis, targeting specific rain-bearing clouds at relatively low altitudes. Contrails, on the other hand, occur way above the altitude of rain clouds, and appear wherever the conditions favour them along the flight path.

There is no secrecy surrounding weather modification.
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
I am sorry, but your premise is wrong, and, AFAIR, in another thread I have shown you some examples of recent information on weather modification before. There cloud seeding is not a secret.

Have you tried looking for the impact of cloud seeding materials on the environment? I'd consider that a first step. Here's some literature, spanning several decades:

Steinhoff, Harold W., and Jack D. Ives, Eds., 1976: Ecological Impacts of Snowpack Augmentation in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado. Final Report to the Bureau of Reclamation.

Bureau of Reclamation, 1977: Project Skywater, A program of Research in Precipitation Management. However, some research indicates that silver toxicity is bio-accumulative in aquatic environments, causing respiratory distress to some species of fish (Aquatic Toxicology Volume 49, Issues 1-2, May 2000, Pages 111-129).

Howell, Wallace E., 1977: Environmental Impacts of Precipitation Management: Results and Inferences from Project Skywater. Bull. American Meteorological Society, 58, 488–501.

Donald A. Klein , 1978: Environmental Impacts of Artificial Ice Nucleating Agents, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg.

Harris, Edward R., 1981: Sierra Cooperative Pilot Project - Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., 1995: Environmental Assessment for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the U.S. Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest.

Also, here: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/11/09/3060615.htm

Not only is there no silence on weather modification, it is being reviewed specifically for the dangers you fear. (And that's just what I found googling for less than 5 minutes.)
 
Last edited:

Quantumbeliever

Banned
Banned
No, that is totally incorrect. Chemtrails are not "nothing more than cloud seeding". "Chemtrails" are nothing more than frozen condensation. You don't seriously think that all those trails you see overhead are a massive programme of cloud seeding, do you?

The point of this post is that talk of "weather modification" does not mean new and nefarious technologies, and neither does it have anything to do with "chemtrails".

What people point to in the sky and call "chemtrails" are simply contrails, which are nothing to do with any kind of weather modification.

Any photos you see of such "chemtrails" are, in virtually every case, simply pictures of high-altitude contrails left by jet aircraft, consisting of ice crystals.

Cloud seeding is done on a very localised basis, targeting specific rain-bearing clouds at relatively low altitudes. Contrails, on the other hand, occur way above the altitude of rain clouds, and appear wherever the conditions favour them along the flight path.

There is no secrecy surrounding weather modification.
I'm always skeptical when one speaks in absolutes. For instance, declaring that "there is no secrecy in regards to weather modification" without supporting such is suspect.
http://www.rane.com/note135.html
The Senate bill discussed in the link above ensures that organizations are not required to inform. Do you truly believe that let's say, the Chinese government has no secret programs to study the effects of different weather and geongineering programs? There is a plethora of programs that are now declassified that show beyond any doubt that our government has been involved in such programs for decades. These programs were once highly classified (like project Cirrus). Is it your contention that now, they have come clean and are conducting no such experimentation? You may have that opinion but I find such reasoning highly suspect an incredibly naive when one looks at the historical record.
 

Jason

Senior Member
I've heard people say that most cloud seeding just uses "salt" so there is no harm done to the environment. I would counter that since they have no hard evidence that only "salt" is used, their argument therefore is invalid. In addition, to my knowledge no long term study has been undertaken to study the effect of dumping salt into the environment. Any chemical, even completely ordinary or natural ones, can be dangerous in certain situations. For instance, how would raising the salinity of rainwater affect say, the Ozarks cavefish, an endangered and delicate species that lives deep in the caves in my part of the US.
I think it would be better to serve your cause if you didn't discuss "what if's" with respect to cloud seeding and it's impact on the environment and life within the environment. For instance, you named the Ozarks cavefish which is endangered and well studied. They are extremely specialized for their cave habitat and are said to only live in "pristine" waters. Can you provide evidence that the Ozarks cavefish life cycle has been impacted by cloud seeding via salinity. If not why do you even present that argument? There are many species being impacted by human activities and habitation but there isn't one animal or plant that has been studied to see if cloud seeding has had an impact on its survival. Maybe you should present actual studies or those who believe this is going on should use some of their donations to put together a research team and find hard evidence to support their theories. Isn't that the right approach, rather than speculating.
In the early 1960s it was also common practice to spray DDT for mosquito control. You can still find propoganda videos showing little kids running through clouds of pesticides with the narrator happily exclaiming the positive effects of chemicals in our lives.
The problem is that we no longer have full disclosure of these activities.
So your argument is we "used" to have full disclosure and even "propaganda" films that aided these disclosures, but now the government stopped so they can secretly poison us. Really?
 

Jason

Senior Member
There is a plethora of programs that are now declassified that show beyond any doubt that our government has been involved in such programs for decades. These programs were once highly classified (like project Cirrus).
These programs are NOW declassified, are they not. The public has been informed, right? So where is all the secrecy coming from. And Project Cirrus was an attempt by the US government to modify hurricanes by using dry ice. They were trying to WEAKEN the hurricane.

There were other government programs too like "stormfury" which aimed to weaken tropical storm depressions heading towards the US. These programs were constituted to protect citizens and American interest, not to poison the public. I mean governments used to detonate nuclear bombs during these decades, so dropping some dry ice into the eye of a hurricane seems alot safer than all the radiation released into the atmosphere.
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
I'm always skeptical when one speaks in absolutes. For instance, declaring that "there is no secrecy in regards to weather modification" without supporting such is suspect.

Which is, in a way, getting out of the discussion we are having. You were claiming that there is no full disclosure, because cloud seeding is (supposedly) rarely discussed today. Demonstrably, this claim is not not true. While it may possibly be true that there is some knowledge about cloud seeding kept under the rug, that is meaningless unless we have a) good grounds to believe that is so, and b) reason to believe that this is harmful.
Now, on a) we have shown that your ground (it has been discussed more and now it's not and that's a problem) shaky. It is being discussed, and research is being published. Which leads me to b) if you think it is harmful, you need to show, with verifiable evidence, that the research published is false/has been falsified/is incomplete. (Note that the possibility of cloud seeding having a harmful impact is present in articles discussing it, and is not dismissed out of hand, even though research presently does not show harmful effects. This is far from keeping things under the rug, but the openness to falsification at the heart of science.)

(Also: please don't be put off by my tone. Germans often talk in a very direct, no frills fashion, which may be taken as rude or aggressive. We don't mean it, though. If you find my tone to be rude or aggressive, please just assume it's cultural difference. I really just want to talk the issue at hand, and do not intend to attack you personally.)
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
The essence of the issue is that chemtrail believers constantly try to shoehorn any and every example of weather modification and/or geoengineering into the box marked "proof". But they never explain how the observed characteristics of persistent contrails (which they label "chemtrails") fit ANY kind of weather modification programme, whether practical or theoretical.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
I recall sitting in my grade four or five class (late 1960s about the same time as the Dick Van Dyke show was airing. It was a favourite of mine.) and being taught about the exciting attempts at weather modification, specifically making clouds produce rain for farmers. NOTE that this required the existence of clouds in the first place. The practice was discontinued since it was expensive and produced only marginal amounts of rain.
Stands to reason for anyone with a bit of science. The idea, as I recall it, was to seed clouds with particles that water could condense on and result in precipitation. However if the cloud being seeded simply did not have the right conditions for this, or if the air beneath the cloud was dry enough to re-evaporate and rain falling then the whole effort would be wasted. Short story, imho, is that there just isn't anything you can seed dry air with that will cause rain clouds to develop with sufficient probability of success.

I also recall the hurricane reduction efforts, iirc there was an article in PopSci about it. None of them were ever tried out with much success , few were ever even attempted. The thing that stands out in the proposed methods is the sheer size and cost of doing this. One was to cool the ocean in the path of the hurricane by dumping dry ice into it. Anyone care to do the calcs using specific heat of water etc. to figure out how much solid CO2 is required to lower the surface temp by 1 degree Celcius? Then there is the contribution to global climate change in dumping hundreds of tons of carbon dioxide into the oceans, not to mention the cost of producing that dry ice, hauling it out to sea, and the stand by ships and crews during hurricane season.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Salt:
CHEMISTRY
any chemical compound formed from the reaction of an acid with a base, with all or part of the hydrogen of the acid replaced by a metal or other cation.
 

Quantumbeliever

Banned
Banned
I am sorry, but your premise is wrong, and, AFAIR, in another thread I have shown you some examples of recent information on weather modification before. There cloud seeding is not a secret.

Have you tried looking for the impact of cloud seeding materials on the environment? I'd consider that a first step. Here's some literature, spanning several decades:

Steinhoff, Harold W., and Jack D. Ives, Eds., 1976: Ecological Impacts of Snowpack Augmentation in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado. Final Report to the Bureau of Reclamation.

Bureau of Reclamation, 1977: Project Skywater, A program of Research in Precipitation Management. However, some research indicates that silver toxicity is bio-accumulative in aquatic environments, causing respiratory distress to some species of fish (Aquatic Toxicology Volume 49, Issues 1-2, May 2000, Pages 111-129).

Howell, Wallace E., 1977: Environmental Impacts of Precipitation Management: Results and Inferences from Project Skywater. Bull. American Meteorological Society, 58, 488–501.

Donald A. Klein , 1978: Environmental Impacts of Artificial Ice Nucleating Agents, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg.

Harris, Edward R., 1981: Sierra Cooperative Pilot Project - Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.

Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., 1995: Environmental Assessment for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the U.S. Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest.

Also, here: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/11/09/3060615.htm

Not only is there no silence on weather modification, it is being reviewed specifically for the dangers you fear. (And that's just what I found googling for less than 5 minutes.)
Ok. Fair point. I googled 10 seconds to your five minutes and got dozens of scholarly articles pointing out the dangers of the practice. I'm not impressed with either my or your "googling". It's hardly difficult to find support for ones position via the internet. And before you say that "my hits" were all from conspiracy websites, anyone who does the same search will see that many are scholarly articles written by mainstream academia, just like yours.
However, the main point of your argument (and mine) was not addressed. You just apologized to me for being wrong about full disclosure of weather modification then made the claim "weather modification is not secret". Where did you learn that making a declaratory statement, then casting aspersions on an opponent's argument via an apology was considered in any shape or form an exercise in critical thinking or sound, logical debate? I'm not some fool that you can sway with elementary schoolyard debate tactics.
In addition, no where did I claim to "fear" the effects of weather modification. The only claims I have made are that:
1. The public deserves to know when these events are taking place.
2. Full disclosure is NOT happening. In other words there is weather modification taking place without the publics knowledge.
3. As to the danger it might pose, I believe I was much less specific, claiming only that we don't know definitively if it is harmful. You addressed this with your post. I found at least 60 articles in a 10 second search that take the opposite position, which supports my point; the jury is still out.
If you wish to address points one and 2, please do so, but I won't respond again to red herrings, appeals to authority, straw men or any other logical fallacies. If you wish to debate someone, I suggest you do a 5 minute google search on "rules of debate" or fallacious assumptions. No disrespect intended. I just don't have the time nor inclination to educate you further.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Once again, the point is that "weather modification" has nothing to do with chemtrails. The UK has quite an active "chemtrail community", as its skies are among the busiest in the world, and yet cloud seeding is not carried out in the UK at all (there were some experiments done back in the 1950s, which have been implicated in the Lynmouth flood disaster). Neither is any other form of atmospheric geoengineering.
 

Quantumbeliever

Banned
Banned
Which is, in a way, getting out of the discussion we are having. You were claiming that there is no full disclosure, because cloud seeding is (supposedly) rarely discussed today. Demonstrably, this claim is not not true. While it may possibly be true that there is some knowledge about cloud seeding kept under the rug, that is meaningless unless we have a) good grounds to believe that is so, and b) reason to believe that this is harmful.
Now, on a) we have shown that your ground (it has been discussed more and now it's not and that's a problem) shaky. It is being discussed, and research is being published. Which leads me to b) if you think it is harmful, you need to show, with verifiable evidence, that the research published is false/has been falsified/is incomplete. (Note that the possibility of cloud seeding having a harmful impact is present in articles discussing it, and is not dismissed out of hand, even though research presently does not show harmful effects. This is far from keeping things under the rug, but the openness to falsification at the heart of science.)

(Also: please don't be put off by my tone. Germans often talk in a very direct, no frills fashion, which may be taken as rude or aggressive. We don't mean it, though. If you find my tone to be rude or aggressive, please just assume it's cultural difference. I really just want to talk the issue at hand, and do not intend to attack you personally.)
I take no offense. Reasonable people should be able to debate such topics without taking it personally. Nothing in your post is unreasonable and you generally compose complete sentences and try to bolster your argument using reasoned premises. Having said that, you have made critical errors and used faulty reasoning. Let me explain. First you declare that my foundation (that there is not full disclosure) is "shaky" because "it is being discussed". That is not a valid counter argument. A valid counter argument would be to point to legislation or global treaties that require and entity, government, or organization that undertakes such activities to notify the public. On a local level, there are a smattering of such laws but there are none that are binding nationally or globally. And even if there were, it still doesn't mean that some would break it. You go on to say that my premise is faulty because I haven't shown weather modification to be dangerous, seemingly attempting to tie the two issues together. They are not. They are two entirely separate issues. Either there is full disclosure or there is not. But even if I were to follow your flawed reasoning and attempt to "prove" that weather modification is dangerous in order for it to be fully disclosed, there are as many articles that make that very claim as there are others that say it is a safe practice.
By your logic, any and all drugs should be allowed on the market and the FDA should have to "prove" which ones are harmful. Sadly, this is the methodology that our society has used way too often in the past, often with disastrous results. I have the example of DDT. There is also agent orange, a myriad of agricultural and household chemicals that we now know are unsafe. There are the recent revelations from CDC whistleblower Thompson who has admitted to publishing fraudulent data and covering up the known connection between MRM vaccine and autism. I'm sorry sir if you think I'm wrong to want to know why the hell is being sprayed into our atmosphere and demanding to have full disclosure and a definitive study by an arbitrary and unbiased organization as to the safety of these practices. Our society's track record in these things makes me just a little pessimistic. I have kids and I believe I have a right to know what any organization is doing to change the environment in which I raise them. We have a copious number of laws designed to do just that. I can certainly see no valid reason why this issue should be given an exemption.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
We have a copious number of laws designed to do just that. I can certainly see no valid reason why this issue should be given an exemption.

It isn't given an exemption. Do you really think that anyone can just charter a plane and dump any chemicals they like into the air?

Cloud seeding is strictly regulated. You need to have a licence to do it, and you can only use approved substances. In the USA this appears to be done on a state-by-state basis, e.g. see Texas, Colorado.


How does this equate to being "given an exemption" exactly?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I believe you are correct Mick. Chemtrails are a result of unknown agencies and/or business entities spraying shit in our atmosphere to alter the weather.

If you are going to agree with me, then quote what you are agreeing. Please don't paraphrase something I did not say, and do not think is true.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
The OP is simply showing that Weather modification is not secret and has been fairly well known about for some time.

A lot of chemtrailers believe chemtrails are for geo-engineering. (at least these days, I remember when the SAME substances were being sprayed for mind control, to make us sick so we have to by drugs off Big Pharma, for killing off 80% of the population to make the rest of us slaves or to block peoples' view of the incoming planet Nibiru.)

These same people then link weather modification to geo engineering to claim this as proof of chemtrail geo engineering. They do this because there is NO OTHER PROOF that any actual geo engineering is happening.

So if you say weather modification is secret, then it's easier to try and "prove" chemtrails.
The Op is showing that weather modification is mainstream so that argument doesn't work.

Quantum Believer: People have said there is NOT secrecy about Weather modification.
Certainly a lot of it is completely open as other posters have said.
Of course they don't have proof there ISN'T any secret program too, but unless you have proof that there IS, then there is no real grounds for assuming it.
You yourself said The secrecy surrounding weather modification should ring alarm bells.
My question is what secrecy? What have you uncovered? Seeing as how there is quite an open dialogue concerning WM, what actual grounds do you have for assuming such a thing exists?
 

Quantumbeliever

Banned
Banned
The OP is simply showing that Weather modification is not secret and has been fairly well known about for some time.

A lot of chemtrailers believe chemtrails are for geo-engineering. (at least these days, I remember when the SAME substances were being sprayed for mind control, to make us sick so we have to by drugs off Big Pharma, for killing off 80% of the population to make the rest of us slaves or to block peoples' view of the incoming planet Nibiru.)

These same people then link weather modification to geo engineering to claim this as proof of chemtrail geo engineering. They do this because there is NO OTHER PROOF that any actual geo engineering is happening.

So if you say weather modification is secret, then it's easier to try and "prove" chemtrails.
The Op is showing that weather modification is mainstream so that argument doesn't work.

Quantum Believer: People have said there is NOT secrecy about Weather modification.
Certainly a lot of it is completely open as other posters have said.
Of course they don't have proof there ISN'T any secret program too, but unless you have proof that there IS, then there is no real grounds for assuming it.
You yourself said The secrecy surrounding weather modification should ring alarm bells.
My question is what secrecy? What have you uncovered? Seeing as how there is quite an open dialogue concerning WM, what actual grounds do you have for assuming such a thing exists?
Oh my goodness. Weather manipulation has been going on "in secret" since the early 1940s. I assume you've heard of HAARP?

Read this which gives a synopsis of the once "secret" programs that our government has funded. Now, you can make the claim that NOW everything is in the open. You can also then say, "You have no proof that any secret programs involving weather modification is still being done." I would counter by saying, no I don't. That's why they are SECRET! The whole purpose of the growing movement that calls for Sunshine type laws to expose any such activity is precisely because the government has seemingly conducted such activity for years. It follows that "perhaps" they are still studying the effects of such things as firing lasers or EMPs into the atmosphere to change our weather. They do so (at least they have in the past) under the guise of national security. There is no way to either "debunk" or confirm that these activities continue. So we may have agree to disagree. Your position, if I may be so bold, is that the governments of the world have come clean and that there are no more secret programs involving geo-engineering or weather modification. Or you simply may not care. My position, which has some support in light of past behavior, is that there MAY BE continuing activity and more importantly, the public has a right to know.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I countered that the very position you take, that is that chemtrails can all be explained by ongoing efforts to manipulate weather, does very little to make those who have legitimate, related, environmental concerns, feel better.
Why is it his job to make people feel better? He responded to the claim, which wasn't about any 'legitimate, related, environmental concerns.'
Oh my goodness. Weather manipulation has been going on "in secret" since the early 1940s. I assume you've heard of HAARP?
Not secret, not weather.
My position, which has some support in light of past behavior, is that there MAY BE continuing activity and more importantly, the public has a right to know.
Which as a statement is fine, many here would agree. Yes there 'may' be, and yes the public has a right to know.
And.... so? Until there's evidence then there's not much to be done.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Oh my goodness. Weather manipulation has been going on "in secret" since the early 1940s. I assume you've heard of HAARP?
And HAARP was so secret they had open days where you could go and have a look round at its TOP SECRET location near Gakona, not far from Gulkana airport, and just off Route 1, (Glenn Highway-Tok Cutoff) and approx 300km from Anchorage.
And was not ever for weather manipulation. At least not officially. Do you have any actual proof that it WAS? Or do you only have the usual internet rumours based on something supposedly secret that DARPA are involved in (not to mention about 12 Universities, including Stanford?)
As far as I understand it, the main purpose of HAARP was to facilitate better communications with Submarines.
I find it quite interesting that people say HAARP caused Earthquakes. Earthquakes are caused by movements of Techtonic plates. I am not sure how bouncing a low frequency radio wave off the ionosphere is supposed to achieve some disturbance of those. Especially compared to CURRENT methods of communicating with submarines which involve sending ELF radio frequencies THROUGH THE GROUND and using the EARTH as an antenna. No-one who has insisted that HAARP manipulates weather has ever come up with any kind of mechanism by which this would actually be achieved.


Read this which gives a synopsis of the once "secret" programs that our government has funded. Now, you can make the claim that NOW everything is in the open. You can also then say, "You have no proof that any secret programs involving weather modification is still being done." I would counter by saying, no I don't. That's why they are SECRET! The whole purpose of the growing movement that calls for Sunshine type laws to expose any such activity is precisely because the government has seemingly conducted such activity for years. It follows that "perhaps" they are still studying the effects of such things as firing lasers or EMPs into the atmosphere to change our weather. They do so (at least they have in the past) under the guise of national security. There is no way to either "debunk" or confirm that these activities continue. So we may have agree to disagree. Your position, if I may be so bold, is that the governments of the world have come clean and that there are no more secret programs involving geo-engineering or weather modification. Or you simply may not care. My position, which has some support in light of past behavior, is that there MAY BE continuing activity and more importantly, the public has a right to know.

Read what? I think you missed a link out.
Also you may NOT be so bold as to completely misrepresent what I said.
Governments have often done things in secret. They are almost certainly still doing so.
we do have a right to know what they are up to, especially if it might affect the planet as a whole.
We do not have a right to vilify them and accuse them of crimes against humanity based on speculative ideas based on our own worldview about what they MIGHT be getting up to based on no evidence whatsoever.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Oh my goodness. Weather manipulation has been going on "in secret" since the early 1940s. I assume you've heard of HAARP?

... Or you simply may not care. My position, which has some support in light of past behavior, is that there MAY BE continuing activity and more importantly, the public has a right to know.

If you believe that HAARP is or was a weather modification project or that contrail cirrus are part of a secret geoengineering plan then you may find yourself tilting at windmills rather than uncovering actual clandestine weather and/or climate control programs.

Certainly the public has a right to know if the government is trying to alter the weather or climate but that’s no call for the accusations regularly leveled against airline pilots and meteorologists by folks that believe that contrails and various radar images that they do not understand are evidence of weather control.

The opening post is not meant to demonstrate that the government is open about everything. It simply demonstrates that when a chemtrail believer holds up a cloud seeding permit issued by the National Weather Service and some state government that the permit is not the evidence of some clandestine weather modification program as often portrayed by believers. That type of weather modification (cloud seeding) is old technology that has never been secret. Therefore it is not evidence of secret weather or climate modification programs.
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member.
A lot of what HAARP's work is no longer classified, you can just go look a lot of it up now. And a lot of it that is classified, the fact that it happened and its purpose is not. For example, one of its first tasks was developing the system that allows radio communication with submerged vessels at sea. How the system actually works is a closely guarded secret (and will remain so as long as it's a trick so few countries possess - only Russia has a similar working system, and only India is trying to develop one), but its existence, creation, and the HAARP research behind it is not.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Weather manipulation has been going on "in secret" since the early 1940s. I assume you've heard of HAARP?

HAARP has nothing to do with weather mod. This trope is a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual science.

HAARP had the effect of interacting with a part of Earth's "atmosphere"....the ionosphere...which doesn't begin until about 300 km above the surface of the planet. It is effectively, in space. There is NO weather there. Earth's weather is confined to (mostly) the troposphere, and will occasionally extend vertically into the tropopause and lower stratosphere. The tropopause height varies, as low as 12 km, as high as 18.

Nowhere near the level of the ionosphere.

Recall what the acronym for 'HAARP' means?:

"High-Frequency Active Aurol Research Program". The key word there is "Auroral"....you know, like the Aurora Australis and Aurora Borealis?

These occur actually above the ionosphere....in the thermosphere. Again, out in space.
 
* Yes, weather modification has been going on for a long time. Many governmental/corporate websites acknowledge.
* Weather modification should not be considered as the same term chemtrails, nor should chemtrails be considered the same thing as contrails.
* Merely on the surface of humankind's efforts to expand their knowledge; it would be quite naive to think that chemtrails have not been utilized/tested. Really, does anyone think that the U.S./G20 is not experimenting in this regard. Yeah right, scientists are keeping their "hands out of the cookie jar in this regard." LOL
* Furthermore, we NOW also need to include the word bacteriumtrails. Sophomores at a few colleges now create 2 new bacteria life forms every year (out of about 2 dozen attempts). One recent success was a bacterium to be sprayed in the atmosphere to eliminate pollution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Do not mix these terms together, they are not the same;
* Weather modification
* Contrails
* Chemtrails
* Bacteriumtrails

It's all good friends, sorry but at this time I won't be supplying the citations. Regardless, with a little effort you can find the data.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Do not mix these terms together, they are not the same;
* Weather modification
* Contrails
* Chemtrails
* Bacteriumtrails

They are not the "same"....because TWO of them do not exist.....they are imaginary.

(Pssst: The last two.....).....

However, you are correct that the first two indeed are "not the same"....because, they have nothing related with each other.

One recent success was a bacterium to be sprayed in the atmosphere to eliminate pollution.

A bold claim. Any proof?
 
They are not the "same"....because TWO of them do not exist.....they are imaginary.

(Pssst: The last two.....).....

However, you are correct that the first two indeed are "not the same"....because, they have nothing related with each other.



A bold claim. Any proof?

Absolutely I have proof....it's not like I don't store research to my archives. In time (time permitting), yes I will authenticate. However, if you can't wait simply www search for how scientists can get any newly created DNA life form (of their choosing) expressed mailed to them within 24 hours.....accomplished by sophomores in college who use dot matrix printers which are loaded with the key 4 DNA substances.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing this group's efforts/approach (adherence to strict debate standards) & for that reason, I'm sending at least 1/2-1 dozen of my admins your way! I want them to learn from all of you & how this group operates :)
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
If we don't know what the gov't has up it's secret sleeves, how can we debate it ?
...or even know the extent of it ?
Talk about the secret sleeves perhaps ?
If we are to believe the gov't has secret sleeves capable of producing anything one might imagine, then that leads to magic (or science fiction), and gimme a second.....I'll come up with a theory right from my armchair, holding a René Magritte pipe.

The thread's point was that weather modification WAS known about, in popular culture at 1965.
Yes, most everything humans make, starts out as an experiment or prototype.

It seems rather pointless to have a discussion that is like.....
"We don't know about it, but could discuss it if we knew what we don't know."
(there are many variations)
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
Absolutely I have proof....it's not like I don't store research to my archives. In time (time permitting), yes I will authenticate. However, if you can't wait simply www search for how scientists can get any newly created DNA life form (of their choosing) expressed mailed to them within 24 hours.....accomplished by sophomores in college who use dot matrix printers which are loaded with the key 4 DNA substances.

You seem to be presenting a very garbled account of DNA laser printing (see this non-technical description, for instance).

DNA is not "alive", it's just an organic molecule. Gene synthesis has been around for more than 40 years. This technique is just a quicker way of doing it. And it's way off topic to this thread!
 
Do any of you here wonder why this country is in such a drought if cloud seeding has been around since atleast the early '60s and it's purpose is to help with precipitation? This practice and technology should be atleast 50 years evolved, right? Can't we just use cloud seeding to make it rain on our country now?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Do any of you here wonder why this country is in such a drought if cloud seeding has been around since atleast the early '60s and it's purpose is to help with precipitation? This practice and technology should be atleast 50 years evolved, right? Can't we just use cloud seeding to make it rain on our country now?

Because cloud seeding requires rain clouds in order to work. It does not create rain, just (in theory) makes existing clouds rain a bit more than they would have.

If it was not going rain in the first place, then it's not at all helpful.
 
Because cloud seeding requires rain clouds in order to work. It does not create rain, just (in theory) makes existing clouds rain a bit more than they would have.

If it was not going rain in the first place, then it's not at all helpful.
I see you snuck in (in theory). So after 50 years of cloud seeding's existence, do we not know if it works?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Explained: Cloud Seeding Weather Modification in Texas before Hurricane Harvey Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Interesting Intelligent Article on Cloud Seeding/Weather Modification Contrails and Chemtrails 0
betamonk Aerial Cloud Seeding and Weather Modification [Not Chemtrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 36
J Travel Firm's Cloud Seeding Stunt Attracts Chemtrailers Contrails and Chemtrails 35
Mick West How effective is Cloud Seeding? Contrails and Chemtrails 17
Mick West Debunked: Photos of Spraying out the Back of a Cargo Plane [Malaysian Cloud Seeding from C-130] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Bunk: Hygroscopic Aluminum Oxide Cloud Seeding: Contrails and Chemtrails 8
mattcee Japanese Cloud Seeding vs. Geoengineering Chimneys Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Gaikokujin Cloud Seeding, Geoengineering, Detecting nano-aluminum? Contrails and Chemtrails 15
tryblinking Cirrus Cloud Seeding Contrails and Chemtrails 5
A Cloud-seeding Chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 21
M Claim: Hints of life on Venus: Scientists detect phosphine molecules in high cloud decks UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 20
Jesse3959 The Cloud Edge Effect Science and Pseudoscience 14
Marin B Smoke cloud with pointy wave formations Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Leifer the Cloud Appreciation Society Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 9
Mick West A Slightly Square Cloud South of Australia Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Teertskcab Why Don't Cloud Formations Change Much in DSCOVR animations? Flat Earth 4
Mick West Eyes in a Cloud [Lens Flare + Panorama Stitching] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
JFDee New 2017 Cloud Atlas of the WMO Online Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Trailblazer Explained: "Human-shaped cloud above Zambian shopping centre" [Photoshop, kite] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 5
JCL Odd Cloud Over Oroville Dam (Spray Cloud) Oroville Dam 14
SkepticOzzy The Sun Under The Horizon? [not horizon just a cloud layer] Flat Earth 5
jim oberg Strange cloud UFO over Russia November 2011 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
dahi Crimean Lenticular cloud Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 11
JFDee Aerodynamic cloud created by mountain Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 3
Marin B What is this shower curtain-shaped cloud called? [Cirrus Fibratus] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Darren Strange pattern in cloud ... Surrey UK Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
Tapir-mâché Curious-- how low can persistent contrails form? Contrails and Chemtrails 25
C Interesting observation of moon light phenomena i can't find the answer to ???? General Discussion 4
Balance Taurus Molecular Cloud Generator - actually an oil field firefighter Contrails and Chemtrails 6
JFDee Polar Stratospheric (Nacreous) Cloud Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Trailspotter Soyuz rocket intermittent contrail Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West Fallstreak Canal Clouds Crossing in Trussville, Alabama Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Mick West Explained: Large Cigar Shaped Object Caught Shooting Into Storm Cloud In Spain [Reflection] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 12
Trailspotter Striped linear cloud over Norfolk, England (Kelvin-Helmgoltz cloud) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
CeruleanBlu CBS San Fransico local news story about Marine Cloud Brightening Project. Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Trailblazer Cloud Forms, 1949, British Air Ministry Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 2
Trailspotter Tropical Clouds on Parade Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
keefe ARM Climate Research Facility Contrails and Chemtrails 17
D [MoreInfoNeeded]Germany NewsTV: Explanation for radar cloud Contrails and Chemtrails 14
I Dark arc associated with cirrus ice cloud Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Trailspotter Strange cloud formation in South Indian Ocean Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
N Debunked: Nuclear cloud on Indian Mars Orbiter image Conspiracy Theories 29
Mick West "Awareness Ribbon" in Shawnee, OK area Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Trailspotter Roman numeral contrails near the Georgia Coast Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Mick West Spiraling Fallstreak Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Stephanie Cloud Shadow? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
skephu Intersecting cloud ripples Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 30
occams rusty scissor Fallstreak Cloud with Circumhorizon Arc in Australia Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 16
skephu Cloaking by artificial cloud wall? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top