Spooked by a friend last night re: weather modification

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>i thought it was pretty much common knowledge that weather modification has been researched for quite some time now.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'd love to see a poll of ordinary Americans. <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

I can see Jay Leno asking people on the street whether they think the govt can control the weather....<br><br>No, I don't think its "common knowledge". <br><br>How to program a VCR and/or how to connect an 80's Nintendo Entertainment System aren't "common knowledge".<br><br>Therefore, I am doubtful. <p></p><i></i>

[michael meiring]

Theres all number of these projects with daft names, project Cirrus springs to mind, another ice crystal making weather modification programme..<br><br>When we start colonizing other planets, if we havant blown ourselves up by then, we need to start creating atmospheres and weather. So what better way than to start fucking about with the weather on earth under all sort of super secret technologies.<br><br>Some australian geezer actually made a rather few large tsunamis 50 years ago. <br><br>All manner of hurricane and cyclone technology out there. Wonder how you would 'test' that sort of technology myself. Of course the military usually commadeer that technology, file it away in the ready to use for national security classification, purely defense purposes you see.<br><br>The blackouts of a few years ago, why everyones forgotten about those too.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

I got the distinct sense that trying to make it common knowledge would be dangerous to my health. But of course, if there are hundreds of people banding together in a campaign to make it common knowledge, making the campaign itself common knowledge, what are they going to do? Well, maybe I don't want to know, but I'd like to see some soft resistance before I start worrying about that kind of end game. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>yes,or could produce fire.<br>smoke is small particles of dust,in this case i think its the CaCl2 they refer to.<br>im not an expert but if it has the effect they seem to want it to have and you where to see this in action from the ground it wouldnt need to look like smoke it could look like vapour as a result of the CaCl2 reacting with the water in the atmosphere<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>So...are we talking about what people identify as "chemtrails"? <p></p><i></i>

[glubglubglub]

Leaving aside the questions of how well it works, and assuming for a second that the weather modifiers all have nothing but the most benign of intentions, we're-- or rather the weather modifiers -- are left with an enormous elephant in the room: liability. Think about it: compared to the asbestos and tobacco lawsuits, the potential to sue for all kinds of damages incurred from weather modification gone bad -- or even just weather modification contrary to one's needs -- is astronomical.<br><br>Because of the colossal risk of legal charges / ginormous settlements there's probably tremendous pressure to keep silent even on the part of those relatively benignly involved -- like firms that'll seed the clouds for your crops if it's been too long between rainfalls -- and lord only knows what kind of omerta arrangement the other players have in it.<br><br>When you throw in nefarious agents and secretive agencies, etc., the compelling interest in keeping things quiet simply grows: unlike, say, a new spy plane -- which was paid for by the black budget (ie, tax money) but otherwise doesn't directly harm joe citizen -- the weather modification stuff would be a black project that presumably had an intimate effect on the lives of perhaps tens of millions of citizens...and I'd imagine that once you got in the habit of spraying shit in the skies in secret, it wouldn't be that much of a leap to use the same delivery infrastructure to conduct, say, biological research on the populations below....<br><br>PS: The legal liability angle leads to perhaps a strong strategy against this stuff: put together a solid documentation packet, easily understandable but rigorously researched, footnoted, etc., and try to interest a good trial lawyer in prosecuting a case on a specific instance or two. It might take a bit to find a willing lawyer, but I'd imagine that the threat of legal action would do more to 'clear the air' than just rumbling amongst us schlubs. If I were a lawyer and had the documentation I might go for it -- it's a pity I'm not, sometimes, what with all the dirt I've bumped across on various topics. <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

You forgot another important part.<br><br>If they admit they can control the weather, even if they didn't CAUSE any bad weather, they still could possibly be open to civil suits (wrongful death, etc) for not STOPPING bad weather, which they could do just as easily.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[glubglubglub]

I did completely ignore the negligence angle in my writeup. But I think the general thrust is clear -- there's just a legal landmine waiting for anyone involved in that should it become more widely known. <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

My interest lies elsewhere, but I have a number of associates interested and/or engaged in law studies, and my mother studied business law.<br><br>Eventually, the actualization of this technology will become more common, and people will begin to wisen up. This is the future, after all.<br><br>When it comes out, if not before, "they" are going to need bigger concentration camps. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>This is the future, after all.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I really fucking wish I'd been born before "the future".<br>Doesn't matter when, just not this age. <p></p><i></i>

[Seventhson]

Unfortunately I am a human rights lawyer who would love to take on a case like this, but it is practically impossible.<br><br>I have been involved in the antinuke activism and even with witnesses ready to testify that nuke pollution is killing nad causing cancer in millions globally, the costs of litigation against the BFEE alone prevent any meaningful litigation (not to mention the courts are stacked with profascist imbeciles) (Halliburton is a nuke engineering company among other things and the BFEE is deep into this nuke shit because with its supression of our immune systms, the attack on our endocrine system and its mutagenic and carcinogenic and abortifacient qualities it is a perfect tool to cull the worthless eaters globally wherever they set up a nuke plant or a waste dump or a military facility where they can leak shit onto the community. Portable Auschwitzes without walls or "Gas chambers".<br><br>No one could easily get damages from the government for such activities because of sovereign immunity. Only Congress could approve restitution at taxpayers expense. So the threat of litigation is no threat at all. I wish i were wrong about this. But I have lived it. Some of the best class action lawyers in the world could not sustain a legal battle against the BFEE on the nuke issue (because NUKES ARE the BFEE's principle dirty business globally). No one even dares try because the costs alone are prohibitive and the experts fees will never end.<br><br>I believe it may happen one day with nukes. But government funded weather modification will not result in many lawsuits or probably any successful ones despite the clear potential for harm and negligence. <p></p><i></i>

[glubglubglub]

Like, dig up some local company that caused severe flooding as a result of overzealous cloud seeding...going after a Halliburton-sized entity is one thing, but some of FourthBase's link look like pretty small fry. If I compiled fairly airtight evidence against one of these mom-and-poppers -- so that before their defense lawyers brought in the bought experts and so forth it looked pretty straightforward -- do you think that it'd be possible to win some kind of suit?<br><br>I'm asking because just getting a precedent on the books -- even if it's of limited scope -- seems like it'd be better than doing nothing, and might set the stage for a domino effect. I'll bow your superior judgment one way or the other, but wanted to make sure you'd considered the 'think local approach'. <p></p><i></i>

[Connut]

was interviewed on a radio program the other day. He said he has written to all the senators and DoD offering his help in moderating the recent Gulf hurricanes. He got a second hand response from Kay Bailey Hutchison and a reply from NASA. NASA said they were not interested in this particular technology at this time. When asked, Livingston said with three planes and about $1.5 million, he could have reduced the hurricane winds to below 100 mph. (He's been doing this stuff since Viet Nam). And the gov's not interested? Got to ask yourself Quo Bono?? <p></p><i></i>