Thread: Weather Control. (For the skeptics.)

Seeding clouds with things like Silver Nitrate has been done for atleast 60 years. And rather unsucessfully. That's not "controlling the weather". In fact, 80%+ of the time, the seeded clouds either don't drop, or they drop hundreds of miles from their targets. That's one of the reasons it is so rarely performed.

Claiming an RF array in Alaska can create not one but two hurricanes to exactly target a specific location? We can't even accurately predict where they are going to hit two days out.

Further issues I have with it: To what purpose? You'd think you'd be slapping around China rather than LA.

RF falls off by square of distance. Every time the distance doubles, the energy remaining is the square root. HAARP hasn't the power to significantly heat the ionosphere directly overhead. And since it's beyond the curvature, exactly how is harp targeting the atlantic? If it had enough power to get there, it'd toast the ionosphere above it, burning a hole and passing on into space.

Exactly targeting some spot with an F2 bounce is practically impossible. Just ask any Ham to predict their skip. Especially without a Beacon. Now try to hit it with maximum power in a couple square feet? F2 bounce disperses as much energy as hits it in the form of SWR.

Look - the problems with this just go on and on. And I've yet to see anyone answer ANY of them with anything other than something along the lines of: "oh yeah? Well your a fatty doo doo head!"

The closest three-dimensional analogy to what we believe is creating this “geometric control” of the clouds within Isabel’s “eye” is given by the science of “Cymatics”: the term comes from the Greek kyma (“great wave”), and is the modern study of “wave phenomena and its interaction with a variety of fluids.”



This relatively arcane field was pioneered in the 1950s by the late Hans Jenny, a Swiss medical doctor who followed the work of German physicist and acoustician, Ernst F. F. Chladni. Chladni, in the late 18th century, created intricate sand patterns by resonating a steel plate with an ordinary violin bow. In his extensions of Chladni’s work, Jenny used an electronic sine wave







hi-fi loud speaker to vibrate various powders, pastes and liquids – thereby succeeding in making visible the ability of “standing waves of sound” to create striking geometric order in a range of fluid materials (below).

So where did they set up this ten thousand square foot speaker array (and the hundreds of thousands of feet of amplifiers and capacitor banks) that were focused to perfection on a spot (again, square of distance rule applies) in the middle of the Atlantic?

I don't remember anyone seeing a few square miles of barges...


And another crackpot theory bites the dust...

At last count there where 25,000 man-made objects orbiting the Earth...

P.S. You don't really think that a 1.5 Billion Dollar Space Telescope (Hubble) just stopped working for (two) years, and then just started working all by itself do you?

Originally posted by Awaken4e1

created intricate sand patterns by resonating a steel plate with an ordinary violin bow. In his extensions of Chladni’s work, Jenny used an electronic sine wave *
hi-fi loud speaker to vibrate various powders, pastes and liquids – thereby succeeding in making visible the ability of “standing waves of sound” to create striking geometric order in a range of fluid materials *

And sound doesn't travel through space.

And again, though: What's the point? Why would you target your coastline instead of the coastline of the people you didn't like?!?!

That's one of those funny things about conspiracy theories: They need to make atleast some modicum of sense.

[edited to add:]

And you are aware that standing waves are *EVERYWHERE* you look in nature, right? occuring perfectly naturally?

Originally posted by kimpossible



And sound doesn't travel through space.

The Universe's first million years sound like a low-flying jet overhead...

Every object in space has its own unique sound signature, all matter
Vibrates, and that is how Scientist discover new planets and Stars

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/02/p.../primal.scream/

Sound doesn't travel *through* a vacuum. You can't vibrate something and perceive sound on the other side of a vacuum.

Scientists use radio-telescopes. Radio-waves travel through a vacuum.

And you still haven't answered:

A) Why

and

B) SWR exists as a natural phenomena

Economic Manipulation

If sound doesn’t travel through space, how does a satellite send and receive the binary code through space in a carrier wave signal (carrier wave is transmitted sound waves) which are positive or negatively charged this is how your cell phone works.

P.S. How do you explain "XM Radio"?

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Economic Manipulation

What???

Why Control Weather?

Economic Manipulation

This is the sound of Sputnik the first Russian Satellite

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/frame...nik/sputnik.wav

No it's not. That's a sound generated by the IF and audio amplifier stage of a radio.

>>carrier wave is transmitted sound waves

No it's not. It's a radio frequency. You can't hear a carrier wave with an IF stage in a RADIO.

As an example: One of the packet carriers from the AMSAT is 144.92Mhz

Sound ends at about 20khz. That's 144,920,000 cycles/sec versus what you can hear at MAYBE 20,000 cycles/sec. (Many people can't hear about even 18,000 cycles/sec.)

Another carrier for AMSAT is in 70cm/440Mhz 440Million cycles/sec. Another is in 1.2Ghz - 1.2 BILLION cycles/sec. Are you trying to tell me you can hear 1.2Billion hz?!?!

>> Positively or Negatively charged

What the hell are you talking about? Sound can't be "charged" and neither can RF. Now you're just getting goofy!

Originally posted by Awaken4e1

P.S. How do you explain \"XM Radio\"?

2332.50 through 2345.00 MHz

(2.3Ghz band)

AGAIN: Sound is 60hz to 20khz. XM ***RADIO*** is called RADIO because it's in the RADIO FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

60hz to 20,000 hz is sound. 2,332,500,000 is NOT sound.

Well first of all sound waves a completely different from radio waves, and not because of frequency. Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic wave, which do not require molecules (a medium) to travel through. Sound waves do.

"Sound" is typically said to occur from 20Hz to 20kHz, but that is not the range of sound waves, it is the range of human hearing. Sound waves can also occur at lower (such as alpha sound waves) and higher (like a dog whistle) frequencies, but humans cannot detect them with our ear.

Data & broadcasts are not transmitted over sound waves. They are typically transmitted over electromagnetic waves. You car radio does not pick up on sound waves, as if the songs were just being blasted through the air. It picks up the electromagnetic (radio) waves, and translates decodes or whatever it has to do to get the information it needs to send signals to your speakers to output sound waves. It is the speaker itself that produces the sound wave. If you closely examine a speaker, it is just moving back and forth very quickly, causing compressions and rarefaction in the air that generates sound waves. If you like to play thumpin' music, you will probably notice that it "jumps" on bass hits. This is because lower frequency waves have longer wave lengths, so it has to move more air to be able to create a longer wave.

Electromagnetic waves, not sound waves, are how astronauts can communicate from space. The link between the sender and receiver is sent with electromagnetic waves. The speaker in the person's earpiece outputs sound waves so the guy can hear what is being said, and his microphones picks up the sound waves from his voice, but the information is not broadcast on a sound wave. In this case, it starts as a sound wave and ends as one, but the link between the sender and receiver is not a sound wave.

Remember there is more than one type of wave.

Keep in mind that you don't necessarily need loudspeakers to generate sound.

http://www.holosonics.com/

We have the audio equivalent of lasers now. These could be deployed by air quite easily, couldn't they? (Obviously not the commercialy available models)

I doub't hurricane control is done with sound, though. Remember, a hurricane is a thermal and ionic system. Control over either of these conditions, or both, woulg grant a measure of control over the storm. And control over a storm means control over the population. Haven't you heard? New Orleans is becomming a police state! The authorities are TAKING AWAY LEGALY OWNED FIREARMS FROM LAW ABIDING CITIZENS! All in the name of aftermath security. This type of control is exactly what centralized government craves for its sustainance. The Russians have already marketed guaranteed fair weather to various nations, and if the US is going public with weather control, you can BET that it has been an undercover operation for AT LEAST 30 years. That's how this country operates. face facts. Weather wars are comming to a coastline near you.

Wow. Bunch of responses. Thanks everyone.

I think people are trying to focus so much on statistics of fields they may or may not know about, that they are missing the overall bigger picture. (No offense Kim)

We can ramble on all day about soundwaves and what what type of waves they would use, and how big equipment must be and things of the like (which admittedly I fall short, because I know nothing of soundwaves or frequencies and how they correspond to hurricanes) but the bigger picture is There is More to the equation than is being addressed.
A hurricane (as everyone admits) is a heat driven machine. Solar energy, being bounced around the earth through orbiting solar panels could easily, if given that intent, direct this energy down to the earth. That means 24 hour thermal energy wherever desired. With the thousands of satellites orbiting the earth, without even Mentioning the possibility of laser technology they could be armed with, it would take nothing more than a single orbiter, or a squad of orbiters, to direct heat straight down into the ocean for an extended period of time, directly in the path of a storm, and draw influence over its path by leading the orbiter(s) over a slow, desired course. This would leave the intended path warmer than the surrounding waters. The dangling-the-carrot-before-the-mule technique.
As O'nieronaut pointed out, it has always been said that public knowledge of technology is some 2 to 3 decades behind what the government posseses, which is more or less common sense anyway. Heating the ocean from a satellite (or more than one, more likely) hardly even seems far-fetched Now, let alone taking into account the technology that is REALLY up there.

As far as the question Why? That is irrelevant. That is a question that could only be answered by those with the agenda to do what it is we are questioning. What makes no sense whatsoever to you as a citizen, another fish in the pond, may have the beneficial purposes to the fisherman.
....You don't have to know a person's M.O. to conclude that they killed someone. And just because you can't figure out Why with any degree of certainty, doesn't mean it didn't happen. (By the way, one possibile reason would be to further exploit the "gas is rising, pay the government more money" epidemic.)

And as far as Perfect Targetting? I don't think that is very necessary. If weather manipulation exists, I doubt its an Exact Science. That makes it no less Effective. If there IS an exact target, say New Orleans, just for example, that means you are trying to guide a weapon tens, to hundreds of miles long, to a target which stretches for miles as well. I'd say there is room for error. Close only counts in horseshoes, handgrenades, and hurricanes.

I also love how skeptics usually resort to insults and name-calling when trying to prove themselves right, though. It is like the universal pseudo-skeptic language, but I won't expand on that any more than needed. Just humorous.

My point is, no matter how much you Think you know about something, there are usually so many other variables in place in any given situation, that no matter how big you think your intellect is, you can't help but be ignorant to some of them. So insulting someone's intelligence over something you disagree with, but can't even prove yourself is, in itself, ignorant and a little self-righteous to say the least.

Your post says it all: "I know nothing about any of the science involved - so I'll ignore everyone who does and tell you all how it's done."

.

Everything you glossed over is significant, and nothing you suggested will work within the realm of physics.

I think what you might try for is that:

Bush is a Druid, and he just gathers together with his buddies, dances around, prays for awhile, and hurricanes attack wherever he points.

That's FAR more logical than what you're suggesting.

Heh, and your post once again backs up what I said about the pseudoskeptical mindframe, since you want to put your own text into mine.

First off, even Implying that I'm telling anyone how anything is done shows how anxious you are to stray from the truth to seem like you are somehow Above the conversation at hand. All I did was offer a possibility that you've yet to contradict other than your blanket charge of "Its Not physically Possible." That would be rhetoric. At least have the conviction to back up your claim.
You're contradicting yourself by saying you know the science that steering a hurricane would involve, while maintaining the stand that it is impossible. If it isn't possible, what evidence do you have to support that you know exactly what it would take To Make It Possible, if you're not out in the field doing the testing through trail and error of different applied sciences? Hurricanes tend to stay on track of the warmest waters that drive it. As the water beneath it grows in temperature, the hurricanes tend to get stronger. Does anyone Not know this? So, that said, why is it that manipulation of the water temperature over a given stretch of ocean A) Impossible, and B) irrelevant to a hurricane's likely track?
Oh, and if you can answer without attempting to insult my intelligence, or just plain putting words into my mouth (Not A Litteral Statement, so don't go there) I'll take that as your first sign of maturity and be slightly impressed.

Oneironaut wrote:

(By the way, one possibile reason would be to further exploit the \"gas is rising, pay the government more money\" epidemic.) [/b]

Please elaborate.

Fair Enough:

You mentioned you don't understand the electromagnetic spectrum, correct?

So, then, it stands to reason that you don't understand that focusing that kinda of heat from a satellite would be observed by thousands upon thousands of amatuer astronomers and reported instantly around the world (any place within the footprint).

Amateur astronomers have spotted tiny little specks visible for only one or two nights from hundreds of light years away that have turned out to be comets or meteors. Not one, not two, but hundreds and hundreds.

Most serious comet hunters use computer imaging to search the night skies. The vast majority of those search both the visible and the infrared spectrum (here's that pesky electromagnetic spectrum again...) - infrared is heat.

Do you know how much power it would take to send your heatwave from space? Traversing absolute zero? We could build a thermodynamics model to illustrate if you're really into it.


Further, heat is one of the LEAST contributing factors in hurricane formation. The most significant is air pressure. You might want to read-up at NOAA. Yes. It contributes. To a small percentage.


When a depression is first observed in the Atlantic, we can't estimate within 5000mi where it will hit or if it will even make landfall! Most don't. And beyond that, we have no idea how "big" it will be. That's a pretty big miss! It's not until it becomes a named storm and is a day or two out and they start flying Orions into the eye-wall do they even begin to have a decent track built.

-------------
The government scientists aren't _that_ great. Even we independants are making strides they can't equal. Which is why they license technology from us. The unwashed masses may not know about it. For example: encryption algorithms that I worked on in the mid-80's that were licensed to the government weren't made public until the mid-90's. I had a 10 year NDA.

But that said, there were private and public projects that outstripped even ours long before that.

Very few really good applied scientists will work solely for the government. Low pay, mediocre benefits, and little chance of your project ever seeing true application.
---------------


>> As far as the question Why? That is irrelevant

No it's not. Means, MOTIVE, and opportunity. All three are equally important to deciding whether or not someone did something.

-------------

So there you go. Please overcome those logical objections with actual physical proof, or atleast a scientifically valid argument. Otherwise, it's just spitting in the wind [pun intended]

To In the Moment:
Alrighty,
A popular (though in no implication True) point of view is that the whole Saudi thing was about oil. How exactly it was to benefit the states and exactly what the Oil/War/America connection is made, I'm not even certain of myself. However, what we have noticed since this all began was that gas prices have been fluctuating ever since the begining of all the oil burning in the Persian Gulf. We have been shelling out mountains of cash for gas over the last few years, which I could not argue is unecessary, because a drop in supply usually does mean a raise in cost to meet the demand.
But even mainstream media lately has been drawing a blank when it comes to the tiny fluctuations in the cost of oil for fuel, and the cost of gasoline for the public. A lot of (o.O)?! has come up. Now, I may completely off by even Suggesting this possible connection but, as it seems to be necessary to explain again, pointing out a possibility does not constitute belief, so stay with me here:
The economy has taken serious blows not only from the middle east, but from the hit to the gulf coast as well. No one but the government can ASSESS the actual damage we have taken economically, so it is up to our Faith in our government that they are keeping the fuel supply/demand/cost ratio Honest. True or False?
I've already heard and forgotten the statistics on how much of our oil industry has been compromised because of Katrina, but it was a very Large percentage from what I remember. But again, it is only a number that we Have to trust, because it was given to us by statisticians (word?) usually working in direct connection with the US government. It is No Secret that the US government has been known to lie to hide its own agenda, or two save its fuckups from public scrutiny, and anyone who argues that as a fundamental fact knows less about our nation's history than I do.
In times of catastrophe, either from war or natural disasters, we as citizens submit much of our individual significance (sp) to "Mom and Dad" to help us out of the jam, because ultimately They are holding the power. We are vulnerable. Vulnerable to fabrications of how Bad we are hurting economically, vulnerable to fabrications of how Constant the threat of terrorism is, Basically vulnerable to any further fabrications that would tug at the insecurities of the powerless citizen. We turn to them for help, guidance, and direction, and trust that they lead us in the right direction.
A rule of thumb is that you never bite the hand that feeds you. Even when you suspect your provider has some sort of seperate agenda, in a time of dire need it is hard to stay conscious of whether or not you're being manipulated because you're depending on "Mom and Dad" because they are constantly instilling in you that "This is how hard the times are. Just do as I say, and you will come out alright. Things will get better."

Who is to say now that the price of gasoline, suspected to stay at record highs for the next few years after the gulf coast catastrophe, is respective of the actually economic set-back we've incurred from the hurricanes?

...like I said, it is out there, and I'm not accusing the government of doing this at all. However, if anyone has a solid concept of why this is Impossible, I'd love to hear it.

To Kim:
A good, solid answer. That wasn't so hard now, was it?
I'll post again after work.

A popular (though in no implication True) point of view is that the whole Saudi thing was about oil. [/b]

Which Saudi thing are you referring to specifically?

----------------------------------------------------------

However, what we have noticed since this all began was that gas prices have been fluctuating ever since the begining of all the oil burning in the Persian Gulf. [/b]

Gas prices have always fluctuated, but even moreso over the past 20 years due to the absence of any practical energy policy.

Over the last 20 years, the price of groceries has risen more than the price of gas. And we spend at least three times as much on groceries (with a higher inflation rate) than gasoline. But that doesn't make news headlines. There are no calls for Congressional hearings or conspiracy theories into \"BIG FOOD.\" Why is that?

This article sums up some of the popular misconceptions on why we think gas/oil prices are so high today.

Based on the Consumer Price Index data, after the second big oil shock in 1979-80 and the subsequent collapse in energy prices, gasoline prices generally stayed flat or even fell for most of the next two decades. As recently as February 2002, people paid about as much for gas as they did in February 1982.

That long period of near-stability likely created a \"reference price\" for gas in people's minds. An important concept in behavioral economics, the reference price is the idea we carry around in our heads of what something ought to cost. A Baby Boomer might think a Milky Way bar should cost no more than a nickel, while a Gen-Y'er won't blink at paying 50 cents or more[/b]

----------------------------------------------------------

No one but the government can ASSESS the actual damage we have taken economically, so it is up to our Faith in our government that they are keeping the fuel supply/demand/cost ratio Honest. True or False? [/b]

Last I heard, OPEC's Member Countries voluntary restrain their crude oil production in order to stabilize the oil market and avoid harmful and unnecessary price fluctuations.

And as far as setting prices, the price of crude oil is set by movements on three major internationalpetroleum exchanges. Those being the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX, http://www.nymex.com), the International Petroleum Exchange in London (IPE, http://www.ipe.uk.com) and the Singapore International Monetary Exchange (SIMEX, http://www.simex.com.sg).

So please explain how the US government would profit from damaging our own refineries and oil rigs in the gulf, by way of natural catastrophes.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Awaken4e1)</div>

Why Control Weather? *

Economic Manipulation[/b]

Well, if we could prevent hurricanes, we could save billions of dollars in insurance premiums and taxpayer's money, as well as major instability from shocks, displacements, shortages, lost investments, debt accumulation, and general destruction - not to mention loss of human life. You don't manipulate an economy by destroying a city. Get this straight - there's a positive relationship here. You destroy an economy by destroying a city and vice versa.

<!--QuoteBegin-kimpossible
Bush is a Druid, and he just gathers together with his buddies, dances around, prays for awhile, and hurricanes attack wherever he points.

That's FAR more logical than what you're suggesting.

I knew right when I read "Bush is a Druid" that I was going to be laughing for the next few minutes... lol