NASA National and Interdepartmental Program for Weather Modification 1966

MikeC

Closed Account
The document is real enough, and there is a similar 1965 report available (warning - 9.3mb pdf download) - both of these also include "climate modification".

Both of them advocate investigating techniques for weather and climate modification, and there is little doubt that there was some research into climate modification - for example the hurricane seeding experiments that went on until the early 1970's.

But most of their emphasis is on research into weather dynamics to enable better forecasting.

The terms of reference of the report are on page 85 of it, Appendix 4.

They boil down to 3 main concerns: modification/dispersal of fog and percipitation for rocket launches, what equipment and techniques should be used (eg computers & mobile facilities are specifically given), and who is going to pay for it all.

Not sure what needs debunking - unless someone says "these are proof of chemtrails" - in which case the usual caveats apply - they show no connection at all.

As for "proof" of weather modification - well they are what they are - early papers on the topic, and not "proof" of anything much being done at all as far as I can see.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
I think the original poster needs to define debunk. There could be something in it which could be debunked, considering it was published a long time ago and knowledge of weather might have increased yielding insights not know back then.

Mainly though, what needs to be explained by the poster would be what he finds significant about it.

This is similar to the lab tests put out by the Mt. Shasta bunch. They are legitimate lab tests, but the quality control, sampling methodology, chain of custody, and mainly the analysis and correlation of the lab results and ensuing claims by that group are the debunked parts. Exhaustively debunked, in fact.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/137-Debunked-Shasta-Snow-and-Water-Aluminum-Tests

So, Ninjaa, what do you think is the significance of the document?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ninjaaa

New Member
This document was with the USAF manual (with the "chemtrails" cover) as a proof that chemtrails exist from 1990. I was just looking if there was any discussion about this document too.

I know that there isnt something special on this document although words like NASA, WEATHER, MODIFICATION etc. is enough , for them, to be a proof that the document talks about chemtrails :p

I ask them what special with this but the didnt answer me...
 

lotek

Active Member
This document was with the USAF manual (with the "chemtrails" cover) as a proof that chemtrails exist from 1990..
Now im pretty sure you are talking about the "inside joke" cover of the chemistry handbook book? in that case we may have something to debunk as i doubt this was in it, however i have not recently gone thru that PDF. I am not sure what 'chemtrails' book you are talking about as its too vague an item taken out of context to be sure what you are talking about. i cant view your pdf on tis ubuntu machine either(it makes the viewer crash).

any of you more familiar with the source he is talking about? i dont remember it from the handbook thread.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
This document was with the USAF manual (with the "chemtrails" cover) as a proof that chemtrails exist from 1990..
probably speaking about how Harold Saive gave the weather mod 1966 document equal billing with the USAF basic chemistry lab manual.
They do that sort of thing, piggybacking one thing onto another in a sort of Gish Gallop attempt to carry weaker items along.
 

lotek

Active Member
Yea thats what i figured and was trying to get at. I would REALLY hate to have to try and explain the chemistry handbook think again. its just so simple its hard to get across.... it comes down, 100%, to cognitive bias...

As this is not basic chemistry, which would be found in a young cadet's handbook, and that is the only place the word 'chemtrail' shows up outside of the conspiracy, i can only assume we have arrived at a point to debunk. as these are clearly not the same documents i can only assume their being proved together as a sort of bastardized strawman?
 
Top