Debunked: Massive US Senate Document On National And Global Weather Modification

[skephu]

Dane Wigington has posted a congressional report on weather modification from 1978:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...-on-national-and-global-weather-modification/

It's an interesting document, but Dane cut parts out of it selectively and misleadingly. For example, he shows this part:



It looks like this part describes facts. But the parts written in smaller letters are in fact quotes from the "Tri-State Natural Weather Association", an organization heavily opposed to cloud seeding. The part that made this clear was omitted by Dane Wigington:


Similarly, Dane shows this section:


Again, it looks like the text starting "There is no question that..." states facts from the document, but in fact these are again only charges from the Tri-State Natural Weather Association:



This page lists a number of other claims made by this Tri-State Natural Weather Association:



Many of these crazy claims are quite similar to Dane Wigington's charges and claims. Looks like there is nothing new under the sun. By the way, all the text shown above is from a chapter titled "Opposition to weather modification", which says (this part is not shown by Dane):

 

[NoParty]

Dane Wigington has posted a congressional report on weather modification from 1978:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...-on-national-and-global-weather-modification/
It's an interesting document, but Dane cut parts out of it selectively and misleadingly...

Many of these crazy claims are quite similar to Dane Wigington's charges and claims.

Seems like you wouldn't have to lie (by omission) so much, if you're really just bringing people "the truth"

 

[skephu]

The "Tri-State Natural Weather Association", led by Paul Hoke, was actually quite a conspiracy theorist organization. This is an excerpt from Ted Steinberg's book titled "Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America":




Basically what Dane Wigington did is that he used quotes from a conspiracist organization to support his own conspiracy theory, while pretending that those quotes are statements of fact from a credible congressional report.

 

[Trailblazer]

Basically what Dane Wigington did is that he used quotes from a conspiracist organization to support his own conspiracy theory, while pretending that those quotes are statements of fact from a credible congressional report.

There really seems to be no level of dishonesty to which Dane won't stoop to further his "cause". And you just know that these quotes will now take on a life of their own and become attributed to "government officials", and that no chemtrail believer will actually take the trouble to source or fact-check them.

 

[Mick West]

The TSNWA has all the marks of classic conspiratorial thinking back in the 1970s, they even had some kind of world-government takeover with new maps and concentration camps.

Source

Note they said this would happen by 1975 (40 years ago). Pretty much the exact same thing as the Agenda-21 stuff that is being promoted by Alex Jones, etc. They keep predicting it, and it never happens.

 

[Mick West]

This is fascinating. They were also chemtrail believers, in 1973!!
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ElYzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rfIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=951,1875028

 

[Mick West]

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pJQzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HOkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1427,2429962

 

[Mick West]

1980 - No mention of contrails here, however they more explicitly talk about a "conspiracy"
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=tpkyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YegFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4087,4051184

 

[Mick West]

1971, the earliest I've found so far:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oHclAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3_IFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1380,4999987

 

[skephu]

Perhaps Dane Wigington would be interested in this book chapter:

The rise and fall of the science of weather modification by cloud seeding
From the book "Human Impacts on Weather and Climate" by William R. Cotton and Roger A. Pielke.

And within that, the section titled The fall of the science of weather modification by cloud seeding

The chapter clearly describes that while there was a lot of enthusiasm about weather modification by cloud seeding from about the 1940s to the early 1980s, the failures and uncertainties led to huge cuts in the funding, and the field has become insignificant by now. Here's an excerpt from the chapter:

For nearly two decades vigorous research in weather modification was carried out in the United States and elsewhere. As shown in Fig. 3.1, federal funding in the United States for weather modification research peaked in the middle 1970s at nearly $19 million per year. Even at its peak, funding for weather modification research was only 6% of the total federal spending in atmospheric research (Changnon and Lambright, 1987) and this amount included considerable support for basic research on the physics of clouds and of tropical cyclones. Nonetheless, research funding in cloud physics, cloud dynamics, and mesoscale meteorology was largely justified based on its application to development of the technology of weather modification. Research on the basic microphysics of clouds particularly benefited from the political and social support for weather modification.

By 1980, the funding levels in weather modification research began to fall appreciably and by 1985 they had fallen to the level of $12 million. After 1985, funding in weather modification research became so small and fragmented that no federal agency kept track of it. Currently the Bureau of Reclamation has only about $0.25 million per year that can be identified as weather modification. They have operated a program in Thailand that was supported by the Agency for International Development. Basic research in the National Science Foundation that can be linked to weather modification is on the order of $1 million.

Content from External Source

So really, documents from the 1960s and 1970s about weather modification are irrelevant regarding the current state of affairs. It was a blooming field back then but the situation has changed dramatically since then; weather modification activities have been largely abandoned.

 

[Mick West]

This long 1974 article on the topic of the Cloud Seeding Conspiracy Theory is fascinating in the parallels with the modern chemtrail theory, particularly the Shasta group. There's the sightings of unexplained aircraft, claims that the sky looks different now (no "natural" rain clouds) demands that the local government do something, denials for various agencies, suggestions of chemically testing air and water.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kYQlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sPIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1596,946067

 

[Mick West]

More conspiracy theories, 1975. Very much has echoes of what is happening in Shasta.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=P3QlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=t_IFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5826,3236472

 

[Mick West]

Drifting a little off topic here, but I think a full history of the cloud seeding conspiracy theory would be interesting and enlightening.

By 1980 they are still at it, shooting at planes, harassing officials, and being dismissed as akin to believers in the Loch Ness Monster.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=n6ArAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YvwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=7043,6236890

 

[Mick West]

Jet magazine, Feb 24, 1977, about Dick Gregory
https://books.google.com/books?id=G78DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA10&ots=ycKYxvs494&dq="dick gregory" weather modification&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false


Three years later he was giving a talk to students claiming that the Moon landings were faked, and the money was used on weather modifications

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mmFQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=n1gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4698,755875

 

[Mick West]

The "Tri-State Natural Weather Association", led by Paul Hoke, was actually quite a conspiracy theorist organization. This is an excerpt from Ted Steinberg's book titled "Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America":

An interesting book. It dates the origins of the conspiracy theory to the drought of 1962

Farmers in Fulton and Franklin counties suspected the cloud seeding as the source of their blistering weather as early as 1962. That year vandals cut down over 100 plum trees on land owned by the Heisey Orchards, one of the main sponsors of the seeding. In an effort to quell the unrest, the Heisey company had its lawyer invite Charles Hosler, the head of the department of meteorology at Penn State University, to a meeting with some 400 irate farmers. Hosler himself had opposed commercial cloud seeding since 1950. He told the farmers that despite the expenditure of some $70 million over the course of 17 years, weather modification amounted to one big failure. “Not in one place has it been shown that cloud seeding has any effect on the weather.” Remarks such as this, designed to quell the fears of farmers, made many wonder if Hosler was simply a hired gun for the large agricultural interests. Indeed, the Heiseys were paying his way, though Hosler later claimed that he did not discover this until after he arrived to speak. Nor presumably did he realize until he got there (and found plainclothes police on hand to protect him) that he was risking his life by attending.

Wallace Howell, for his part, saw the dairy farmers’ opposition to cloud seeding as simply the product of one big high-pressure system. In theory, the farmers’ objections to weather modification rose and fell in inverse proportion to the rainfall: the more rain the less opposition, and vice versa.17 But, in fact, no such simple equation can be used to describe the opposition, which ran along much deeper and more complicated lines. Simply put, the farmers fought weather modification because it offended their moral sensibility and their customary sense of how nature should be used.

Steinberg, Ted (2006-06-13). Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America (p. 133). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Content from External Source

 

[Graham2001]

An interesting book. It dates the origins of the conspiracy theory to the drought of 1962

A question I once asked in relation to TWA800 & 9/11 conspiracy theorists (The first big online conspiracy theories.) was if there was any overlap between the two groups, I'm now wondering if this is the case here, but with the transition period not being well documented online research may be difficult.

 

[AumuA]

Wow, you guys seem to have found a proto-chemtrail movement that predates the current movement by 20 years or more. Absolutely fascinating. What's even more interesting is how this information could be used to support either side of the 'debate'. This is coming from someone who used to be more on the believer side, and who is now more on the skeptical side. So, by way of introduction also, hello.

 

[Trailspotter]

This is fascinating. They were also chemtrail believers, in 1973!!
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ElYzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rfIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=951,1875028

Fascinating, indeed! But could you find out what happened to the chemtrail leaders of 1970s?

 

[Trailblazer]

Fascinating, indeed! But could you find out what happened to the chemtrail leaders of 1970s?

Dick Gregory is still going strong!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Gregory



He appeared on the Alex Jones show as recently as last year.

In fact Dick Gregory seems to be the person who got Prince into chemtrails. Watch from 2:30 here:

 

[Trailblazer]

Edmund R. Hill, vice-president of the Tri-State Natural Weather Association (post #7), died in 1988:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=MP0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5053,2794497&hl=en







According to that, he was quite an academic.

The secretary, William Lewis Kinter, was also a college professor. Seemingly these were educated people. Kinter died in 1995 at the age of 79.



And Paul Hoke died in 2013 at the age of 87.

http://www.bowersoxfuneralhomes.com/obituary/Paul-Guilford-Hoke/St.-Thomas-PA/1198058



I couldn't find much about his more recent activities.

 

[Trailblazer]

It does seem very odd to me that Edmund Hill was a member of the Pennsylvania Weather Modification Board - which, you would hope, knew about the real science of cloud seeding - and yet at the same time was also a vocal member of the anti-cloud-seeding Tri-State association.

From the 1980 article in post #8:



And yet the vice-president of the association also sat on the very same board!

 

[Mick West]

It does seem very odd to me that Edmund Hill was a member of the Pennsylvania Weather Modification Board - which, you would hope, knew about the real science of cloud seeding - and yet at the same time was also a vocal member of the anti-cloud-seeding Tri-State association.

From the 1980 article in post #8:



And yet the vice-president of the association also sat on the very same board!

If I remember correctly from one of the above stories, that weather modification board was set up at the demand of the farmers to regulate cloud seeding in the area. It rarely met, and never got an application. So really it's just local people with no experience of cloud seeding.

 

[Mick West]

If I remember correctly from one of the above stories, that weather modification board was set up at the demand of the farmers to regulate cloud seeding in the area. It rarely met, and never got an application. So really it's just local people with no experience of cloud seeding.

Actually it's the paragraph after the one you quoted, last place I looked

 

[Trailblazer]

If I remember correctly from one of the above stories, that weather modification board was set up at the demand of the farmers to regulate cloud seeding in the area. It rarely met, and never got an application. So really it's just local people with no experience of cloud seeding.

This is the act that led to the creation of the board:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/PDF/1967/0/0449..PDF



Presumably Hill was one of the "three members" in part (5). It still seems strange that someone with a conspiracy-minded view of cloud seeding should be appointed.

 

[Mick West]

The act and the board are essentially a creation by the conspiracy theorists, so it's not that surprising that one of them would be on it.

From the document discussed in the OP:
https://archive.org/stream/weatificat00unit/weatificat00unit_djvu.txt

In the 1960's, a drought affecting much of the Northeast was blamed
in some counties of West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania on
cloud seeding. A local group of orchardists, the Blue Ridge Weather
Modification Association, had been contracting with various commer-
cial firms to suppress hail in the region. With the increasing drought,
intense opposition developed against both the seeding company and
the orchardists. Bills outlawing weather modification were introduced
in the legislatures of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, at
the urging of an organized group called the Natural Weather Associ-
ation. A bill passed the Maryland legislature making weather modifi-
cation illegal ; however, this act has since been repealed. Though no
measures were enacted in the other States, ordinances prohibiting cloud
seeding were passed in several south-central Pennsylvania counties,
and a generally negative public reaction to weather modification per-
sists throughout this region. There has been no seeding for some years
in Pennsylvania. In 1969 Pennsylvania and West Virginia, both
passed weather modification laws that did not prohibit weather mod-
ification, but they were so restrictive that many operators felt that their
activities were ruled out for all practical purposes.

With the breaking of the drought of the 1960's and several years of
wet weather, some of the controversy subsided. However, the successor
to the Natural Weather Association, the Tri-State Natural Weather
Association, Inc., has continued strong opposition to cloud seeding and
has maintained charges that such seeding activities have been carried
out illegally in the region, both by operators under contract to the Blue
Ridge Weather Modification Association (the group of orchardists
seeking hail suppression) and by the U.S. Air Force, while State
enforcement officials have "looked the other way."

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

Ultimately the driving force behind these particular conspiracies is the vagaries of the weather.

https://books.google.com/books?id=-...ather Association&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false


When there's a drought, they are convinced that it's a massive government plot to alter the weather. When the drought ends (as they all do) they think their protests have had some effect.

It will be interesting here in California to see how people react to the (hopefully) wet winter. Right now there's one of the first heavy rains of the season rolling through Northern California (thunder and lighting here for the last three hours). Rain all the way up through Shasta.


When you have it fixed in your mind that the weather is being heavily modified, then any weather at all becomes evidence of that modification. No matter that the weather always changes anyway, and that extreme weather is simply something that happens from time to time, the theorist will always attempt to discern some intentional force behind the weather.

With things like farmers and their water, the theory is driven by the severe problems a drought can cause, so once the drought ends, the theory can eventually fade away. But with "chemtrails", there are always going to be contrails, so there's always this visible thing to reinforce the misconception, so it may well have more staying power than these early versions.

 

[Steve Funk]

Rose Tayler (Casebeer) has taken this claim to our Local paper, summarizing the claims listed by Skephu in the first post of the thread. If anyone wants to write a reply, here is the newspaper's letters Policy (Requires real name, contact phone and/or email, 300 word limit, deadline, Monday noon.)

 

[deirdre]

When there's a drought, they are convinced that it's a massive government plot to alter the weather.
When the drought ends (as they all do) they think their protests have had some effect.

i can't stand it. First they burn 'witches' for causing the droughts

The Val Camonica witch trials were two large witch trials which took place in Val Camonica in Italy, in 1505–1510 and 1518–1521. They were among the biggest Italian witch trials, and caused the deaths of about 60 persons, in each trial: 110 in total.
...........................
and in 1510, witches were burned who were accused of having caused the drought by magic

Content from External Source

and now they plead for the witches to help them

California’s drought is so bad people are turning to witchcraft

Content from External Source

Vive la progress!!

 

[Hama Neggs]

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pJQzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HOkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1427,2429962

Look at the reference to clouds not being like they USED to be! These articles are pure GOLD! They are great to show people who think the whole "chemtrail" thing is NEW!

 

[Mick West]

Look at the reference to clouds not being like they USED to be! These articles are pure GOLD! They are great to show people who think the whole "chemtrail" thing is NEW!

Yes, it's a fundamental contradiction in the chemtrail theory. You can simultaneously prove it's happening by just "looking up", and the sky has never been natural since 1957.

So what exactly are they comparing it against?

People don't remember things unless they start paying attention to them for some reason. Dane Wigington never noticed contrails until he moved under a busy flight path in Northern California and installed a large whole-house solar system which did not generate as much power as he'd hoped. He searched for something to blame. It's basically the same thing as these farmers searching for something to blame for their failing crops. Look up, see a contrail, and so it begins.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Ultimately the driving force behind these particular conspiracies is the vagaries of the weather.

"Weird weather" seems to be a common complaint in the CT world. I know that Nancy Lieder used it extensively in promoting her "Planet X" story.

 

[skephu]

Dane Wigington has posted a video where he argues that weather modification is very different from geoengineering, it is small-scale and harmless, and it is a red herring:

So apparently he understands the difference quite well. But then why has he repeatedly referred to documents about weather modification as proof of geoengineering? Why does he cite weather modification patents all the time? I'm puzzled.

 

[MikeG]

Dane Wigington has posted a video where he argues that weather modification is very different from geoengineering, it is small-scale and harmless, and it is a red herring:

So apparently he understands the difference quite well. But then why has he repeatedly referred to documents about weather modification as proof of geoengineering? Why does he cite weather modification patents all the time? I'm puzzled.

Sometimes he simply decides to change his story when the facts just blatantly don't fit.

When he was called out for posting pictures taken from other sources that wrongfully attributed tumors in fish to Fukushima, some of them disappeared from his website.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-f...-tumors-in-fish-old-photos.t6957/#post-168558

It is one of the reasons that I think Dane Wigington is more of a calculating person than a deluded one.

 

[Hama Neggs]

It is one of the reasons that I think Dane Wigington is more of a calculating person than a deluded one.

I think it has to do with the very Human ability to self-delude and compartmentalize information in any way necessary to avoid untenable logical conflicts.