weather warning

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Explain That!

I would strongly advise you avoid any public exposure. The cloudbuster affects a very large area. There is no way to restrict the area covered to just the property of the customer. So other people, people who did not choose to be affected by the operation, will be affected anyway.

Inevitibly, some of them will lose money. And very possibly, some of them will die. In the first case, the worst that could happen would be a lawsuit for damages. In the later case, criminal prosecution is a real possibility.

I also would not want to be the one to have to explain to a mother whose child was drowned as a result of a flood that it was an accidental side-effect of my cloudbusting activities. Women tend to be a bit emotional about such things sometimes.

Advice

If a demonstration is wanted at a farm what sort of time-frame would be needed to be convincing to the client? A proper solution to the underlying drought tendency would take several years, but to convince a client, something would obviously have to be done fairly rapidly.

In conventional cloudseeding work, nobody even talks about a single rainfall; the emphasis is on the amount of rain that falls over the course of a season. There is no way to convince anybody except by statistics, and that takes at least several months.

It would probably be possible to bring at least some rain almost anywhere in a week or two, but the argument would always come up that it might have rained anyway. The only way to be convincing is to stay there and do it again and again until it is obvious you are doing it.

Explaining this is usually difficult, so it must be made clear to the client right from the start that a single rain proves nothing and a full season of work is going to be needed. So we are talking about a pilot project, not a demonstration.

The second factor is that to do it responsibly and avoid as much risk of damage as possible, there should be an ecologist as part of the team right from the planning stages. So, do you know any ecologists who would be available as consultants?

There also needs to be some thinking about what constitutes success. The amount of rain that falls is only one possible criteria. A more relevant one might be the actual effects on vegetation on the ground, which might vary greatly depending on what time of year it was. So you and the client would need to agree in advance exactly what the goals were and how you would know if you were successfull or not.

To do a true scientific study, the thing to do would be to take a botanical census of several representative acres in the target area, then do the cloudbusting project over a set time period, then take a botanical census again and compare them. If there are more types of plants the second time, you did something right; if there are fewer types of plants, you screwed up.

This criteria, which measures biodiversity, is the real measure of success, not just the amount of rain that falls. How many centimeters of rain in a rainguage is not a measure of what effect you are having. The biological effect is more important. Rain at the wrong season can do more harm than good.

From this you can see what some of the potential problems are and how much thinking there needs to be before the actual work begins.

Some Issues In Australia

The range covered by a typical Orop is in the neighborhood of half the state of Queensland, and it is just about impossible to help some people without harming others.

If, say, one farmer needs rain, but another wants dry weather for haying, whatever you do to help the first, hurts the second. Without a legal guarantee against lawsuits for damages, it is foolish to operate. Trevor Constable has already recognized this, and DeMeo will admit it sooner or later.

If cloudbusting is to be done properly, it must be done to repair a damaged atmospheric energy field, not to "make rain". It is never wrong to simply restore the climate to normal and then let nature take its course. That is the way cloudbusting should be done. Reich wrote about this concept, calling it "atmospheric self-regulation".

But that takes time. To do a really proper job on the current situation in Australia would take several years. And nobody will wait that long if they are paying for it. The customer will quite naturally want quick results.

It is indeed possible to get quick results with a cloudbuster, but those results will not be permanant. It will rain, then go right back to drought conditions after you stop working. You end up with an artificial climate regime dependent on continual intervention by humans.

That would be good from the point of view of a commercial operator who wants plenty of repeat business, but it is not what is best for the earth.

Also, as several of the orgonescience list posts I forwarded to you make clear, droughts do not "just happen". A drought has a cause. In Australia, for example, the climate for the past several thousand years has been dry and relatively prone to recurrant drought due to a meteor bombardment that hit the earth several thousand years ago.

This set up a barrier over the center of Australia that still persists. Then, in recent years, the whole earth is being subjected to increasded stagnation of the atmospheric pulsation needed to produce rain because of electromagnetic technologies, especially nuclear technologies.

In particular, the release of a radioactive gas, KR85, into the atmosphere is creating problems all over earth.

But on top of all this, the large stockpile of combat-ready nuclear warheads located on an island in the Indian Ocean is diverting storm systems that would otherwise hit Australia away from the continent.

A permanant solution to the problem therefore would require the decommissioning of that stockpile, which would have to be done without the knowledge of the American government. It could be done easily enough, by operating with orur from a ship within a few hundred miles, but I doubt the Australian government would go along with that even to end the drought, as it would amount to a declaration of war on America if the Americans ever found out what had happened to render their nuclear weapons inactive.

Liability Issues

There have been numerous weather disasters caused by cloudbusting
> accidents, and in some of those cases people have been killed. The only
> reason nobody has been prosecuted for those incidents is that the official
> scientific community refuses to admit that any such thing could have
> happened.
>
> It would be foolish to enlighten them and then wind up in prison as a
> result. But if the official scientists ever become convinced cloudbusting
> works, nearly everybody who has ever done cloudbusting would be at risk
> because it is nearly impossible to avoid causing damage. The cloudbuster
> is effective over a very large area, and that practically insures that at
> least someone in the area covered will be harmed by whatever the weather
> does.
>
> Trevor Constable has already come to this conclusion as far as the USA is
> concerned, and will not operate there anymore because of possible
> liability issues. I do not think the Australian legal system is likely to
> be much better.
>
> The recent floods in Queensland are a good example. If someone had been
> publicly announcing they were going to make rain, and then the floods
> happened, and people died in those floods, prosecution would be a virtual
> certainty if they did in fact succeed in convincing the public they had
> actually caused the rain.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Water In The Air

There is a very large amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, even in the driest atmosphere, that is not visible in the form of clouds.

This can also be observed in cloudbusting, or even under normal, everyday conditions without any cloudbusting too. When a cloud breaks up, the cloud is gone, but the water that was in it must still be somewhere, unless it has been transformed into something else.

A cloud must not be just a collection of water vapor condensed into droplets of water. It is a dynamic system, having an energetic metabolism, with processes going on inside it.

If you can fly a small plane into a cloud and the windshield does not become wet, and if a ball of cotton on the outside of the plane does not collect enough water to become wet, and then it starts to rain and rain falls for hours and many tons of water fall from the same cloud that was not very wet until the rain began, the cloud is not made of enough water to explain where all the water comes from.

I have also been told by meteorologists that the reason clouds stay up is that they are being buffeted upwards by updrafts. But if that was true, a small plane flying directly under the cloud would also be pushed up by the updrafts, yet this does not happen. Tons of water can be upheld by something that does not push up a plane light enough that on the ground, a man can move it around quite easily.

Or maybe those tons of water are not there until the rain starts to fall. Maybe they are created AFTER the rain starts, and were not there before that.

And, usually, in a thunderstorm, the rain does not start until after the first big discharge of lightning. This is usually the trigger for the rain to start falling. An energetic discharge. A change in the energy potentials of the cloud system.

There is almost nothing known about water.

Commentary On A Letter From James DeMeo

Dear.............,

You are right. He seems not to have been asked that sort of question before. He also does not really answer it. His answer says nothing about the nuclear material in Europe, for example, even though that was what you specificly asked about. Instead, he goes into talking about the Sahara region, which you did not specificly ask about.

The claim that oranur effects must be less important than natural causes of climate change ignores any climate changes other than increased warmth. But there are numerous other climate changes going on and the only way to link them all to increased warmth is to ignore oranur effects altogether and claim that ALL climate and weather phenomena are driven by temperature alone.

That is precisely the theory of the orthodox meteorologists. And that theory is precisely the reason they think cloudbusters cannot possibly work. They are right about cloudbusting being impossible if they are right about heat differences being the main cause of atmospheric activity.

So if they are on the right track theoreticly, Reich must have been dead wrong and cloudbusters could not possibly do anything. Since DeMeo agrees with me that cloudbusters do in fact work, I do not see how he could possibly think heat is the only important factor in atmospheric motion.

It is not possible that so-called "normal" oranur was being "amplified" somehow by atomic bomb tests in the 1950s as DeMeo suggests, because at the time Reich first noted droughts were caused by oranur, there were very few nuclear reactors. But Reich did note, while driving past Oak Ridge, Tennassee, that the nuclear reactor there was causing an intesified drought condition locally, superimposed on the nation-wide drought then underway.

Bill Moise once told me that his ulcer acted up whenever he drove near a nuclear plant. Jerome Eden also claimed to feel oranur effects from reactors, and Bernard Grad detected a reversed To-t in his accumulator set-up while the Three Mile Island reactor was having a meltdown.

To make excuses for the nuclear industry by saying it produces negileable amounts of oranur compared to atomic bombs is unconcionable. It shows how little regard DeMeo has for orgonomic findings compared to his emotional vested interest in business-friendly right-wing ideologies. Yet that is what he seems to be trying to say.

There are several other things in his letter to you that I could criticize, but you get the point. He is determined to excuse, rather than condemn the use of nuclear power. He is in denial about the relation between oranur and climate changes. I can only speculate that this is because the political factions he identifies with so strongly are economicly committed to nuclear power and he cannot bring himself to declare open war on them by advocating that it must be halted regardless of economic costs.

Deserts

I know all about the orthodox meteorlogical theory of hadley cells
and corialis forces causing deserts. I just don't buy it, that's all. I have
seen in Australia, a black band of sky from the ground to halfway up the
sky, in the direction that the farmers told me the rain used to come from.
It had first been seen when the rains stopped comming. When I aimed a
cloudbuster at it, the black would soften and start to turn blue. When I
pointed the cloudbuster at another direction, the sky would start to turn
blue in that direction, and turn back to black in the direction it had first
been pointed at. When I kept the cloudbuster aimed at that direction for
several days, the air mass started to move, comming from that direcction,
and rain resulted. Ia the Canary Islands, I saw a place where the clouds
come in from the Atlantic and break up, always at the same point. I sat and
watched for a whole afternoon. Every cloud broke up at the same place. There
was no obvious reason for them to do so. That spot is where the Sahara
Desert really begins. In Southern California, I flew over the crest from
Julian to Borego Springs, and saw below a sharp line deviding the western
side that gets Pacific rains, from the inland desert side. At the time I
passed over that line, I noticed the sudden silence of everything, even
though the engine of the plane did not change its sound. Everything
including me, just went dead silent. It was so noticeable, that I turned
around and flew back and forth several times to check it out. There was no
doubt. That place, just over the deviding line between the moist west side
and the dry east side of the coast range was a quiet zone. I Can count my
change. I can tie my shoes. I can walk around without bumping into walls. I
know from my own personal observations that deserts are caused by DOR
barriers in the sky. The theories of meteorologists simply do not impress
me.