During various sessions, the C's have hinted that humans may have some degree of influence over the weather, while outright stating that severe weather is often a form of "battle" between 4D forces, amongst the natural Earth Changes taking place:
So, what IS the science behind all of this? Let's start the discussion with one example: cloud seeding. Here in Australia, cloud seeding has been experimented with quite a lot and from what I've read about the topic, it's an energy-intensive process that has delivered very modest results compared to the sorts of phenomena referred to above. From Australia's main government scientific organisation, the CSIRO, we find:
For all this excellent research though, there's little evidence of any kind of applied technological outcome. It seems that if we want to understand the possibilities humans have of influencing the weather in any acute sense, we need to look less at chemical and material processes and more towards principles of physics that can transcend the boundary between densities. That looks to be where the real power to 'change the climate' resides.
C's Session 17th Feb 1996 said:Q: (L) Can I ask my other questions? Some people on the net want me to ask about this HAARP thing... seems to be some sort of antennae thing...
A: Disguise for something else.
Q: (L) What is that something else?
A: Project to apply EM wave theories to the transference of perimeters.
Q: (L) What does that mean?
A: If utilised as designed, will allow for controlled invisibility and easy movement between density levels on surface of planet as well as subterranially.
Q: (L) Who is in charge of building this thing?
A: More than one entity.
Q: (L) What groups?
A: INVELCO is one guise as well as UNICON and banking interest.
Q: (L) Who is in disguise as INVELCO and UNICON? Are they just dummy companies for cover?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Can you tell us if this is a human organization or aliens, or a combination?
A: Human at surface level.
Q: (L) Whose idea was this project?
A: Not applicable.
Q: (L) Is there more you can tell us about this?
A: It has nothing to do with weather or climate. These things are emanating from 4th density, as we have told you before.
C's Session 22nd Feb 1997 said:Q: [..] (L) Is the weather being controlled or changed or in any way affected by HAARP?
A: Climate is being influenced by three factors, and soon a fourth.
Q: (L) All right, I'll take the bait; give me the three factors, and also the fourth!.
A: 1) Wave approach. 2) Chlorofluorocarbon increase in atmosphere, thus affecting ozone layer. 3) Change in the planet's axis rotation orientation. 4) Artificial tampering by 3rd and 4th density STS forces in a number of different ways.
C's Session 4th December 1999 said:Q: [..] (L) But, the fact still remains, in my opinion, that there are a LOT, LOT, LOT of planes flying above us in the past few years! Whether they are dumping anything on our heads, or what, there are an extreme number of planes flying in these upper level criss-cross patterns. Now, whether they are just playing war-games, or they are spy planes, they are doing SOMETHING! What is the reason for all of this upper level flying that results in these criss-crossed contrails that everybody is seeing?
A: A lot of it is "training maneuver"oriented.
Q: Why are they training so many pilots? What are they preparing for?
A: Military budgets must be justified, you know. Review "Military-Industrial Complex 101."
Q: So, this is just training flight, justification of budget, and nothing more than that?
A: Well, we would not say "not anything more to it than that," but, when you say "M-IC," you have said a lot!
Q: Are you implying that there is a build-up of the Military-Industrial Complex for a reason?
A: To preserve status quo during "peacetime." This peace business is not very profitable, you know.
C's Session 14th Sept 2001 said:Q: Okay, what is causing this prolonged rainstorm. Besides the fact that it is a tropical system, it sure is sitting on top of us for a long time.
A: 4th density battle.
C's Session 20th October 2005 said:Q: [..] (Perceval) I want to know about these strange formations on the radar image of Hurricane Rita.
A: 4th density “battle.” Also includes some “practice.”
Q: (L) They’re practicing with new weapons. (Perceval) Some people said Katrina was the product of HAARP heating up the waters in the Gulf.
A: We’ve already dealt with HAARP and weather. Read transcripts.
Q: (DW) (Quoting transcripts) “HAARP has nothing to do with the weather or EM associated with same.” (Galahad) Which suggests that there is EM associated with the weather. There could be some EM stuff associated with the weather that isn’t part of HAARP. (L) 4th density. (Perceval) Were any of the storms manufactured from 3rd density or was it a natural storm?
A: Mfg in 3D? No. As we have said… 4D battles represent as weather. But the “veil” is thinning.
C's Session 7th Nov 2015 said:Q: [..] (Perceval) What caused the downing of the Russian plane in the Sinai?
A: External, think Mossad and energy weapons.
Q: (Andromeda) That was my first guess.
(Perceval) That was my first guess, as well.
(Approaching Infinity) Did it have anything to do with the US/Israel wargames happening then?
A: Cover for same.
Q: (L) What was that flight that went down over the Atlantic way back when? The C's talked about it.
(Perceval) TWA Flight 800?
(L) Yeah, Flight 800.
A: Yes. Similar system.
Q: (Niall) Did that incident have anything to do with the cyclone that was going toward Yemen?
A: Utilized energy.
Q: (Perceval) Utilized energy in the 3D sense, or in the sense that weather can be associated with 4D?
A: Charged atmosphere enhances the effect.
Q: (Pierre) During 9/11, there was a similar high-energy weapon in conjunction with an unexpected cyclone...
A: Yes
Q: (L) So they're just experimenting with this kind of stuff. They're playing with it.
A: Yes [..]
Q: (Perceval) Similar to that... Hurricane Rita on 9/11?
A: Yes
Q: (L) And it's funny: Everybody forgets about the fact that there was this hurricane there at that time.
(Pierre) Going straight to Manhattan, and then it turns!
(Niall) The one that hit Yemen was the first one ever to hit there.
(Perceval) Yeah, the first one to make landfall.
(Chu) So, that could mean they had some help from the 4D quarters.
A: Yes. We told you that the battles would be disguised as weather.
The image coming into focus here seems to be one of significant, localised 4D influence over natural processes, with humans having only the most rudimentary understanding of the physics and technologies behind such influences. Even 3D 'secret super-weapons' appear to lack the power to direct the forces of nature - only to tap them.C's Session 27th Aug 2022 said:Q: (L) Um... Since he's asked the question, are there indications that we could notice if we were paying attention and had a clue what we were supposed to be looking for, that would indicate to us the death or termination or something of any 4D beings that were engaged in this battle in the sky, so to speak?
A: Not that you would think of as different. That is, a volcanic eruption could represent the degaussing of a 4D STS being... or just a volcanic eruption.
Q: (L) So you're saying that some natural phenomena such as floods, fires, earthquakes, gigantic thunderbolts and all that kind of stuff, could represent this kind of conflict, and it could represent a degaussing event, but it doesn't always have to. Is that it?
A: Yes
Q: (L) And so because of that, we would not necessarily be able to tell. Is that it?
A: Yes
So, what IS the science behind all of this? Let's start the discussion with one example: cloud seeding. Here in Australia, cloud seeding has been experimented with quite a lot and from what I've read about the topic, it's an energy-intensive process that has delivered very modest results compared to the sorts of phenomena referred to above. From Australia's main government scientific organisation, the CSIRO, we find:
Bowen's interest in cometary and meteor particle streams and electrostatic effects influencing rainfall is worth noting. Maybe he was on to something?CSIROpedia said:Cloud seeding
By Colin Ward
March 18th, 2011
At the cessation of the Second World War Taffy Bowen and his staff at the Division of Radiophysics began to look around for work of interest to themselves and of importance to Australia. One of those areas was cloud and rain physics which Bowen initiated and led until his retirement in 1971. For over five decades, the study of clouds, rain and the atmosphere has been the work of the CSIRO Division of Cloud Physics, now known as Marine and Atmospheric Research.
The ‘rainmakers’ carried out experiments over South Australia, Tasmania, the Snowy Mountains, the Warragamba Dam catchment area west of Sydney and New England. They used dry ice and silver iodide to ‘seed’ clouds, which resulted in the production of rain.
The first year’s results were tremendously heartening, with rainfall increases of up to 30 per cent in the target areas. But frustration followed. Rainfall appeared to deteriorate and was more variable in the target areas than before the experiments started.
Today, CSIRO uses the lessons learnt from their cloud seeding experiments to develop better models for weather forecasting and changes in climate.
Early success
In 1946 USA researchers I Langmuir and V Schaefer reported that rain could be induced by seeding clouds with dry ice. While many reacted cautiously to these claims Bowen immediately saw the potential importance of the technique for dry Australia. Within months, two members of his staff had investigated Langmuir and Schaefer’s work and, on their return, had carried out a trial in eastern New South Wales using RAAF aircraft. Success was immediate – the date was 5 February 1947. It was a day when deep cumulus cloud covered the country inland from Sydney. All the clouds appeared similar in type and size which was important for a clear-cut result. A plane dumped dry ice into one cloud and within minutes rain started to fall while the cloud-top mushroomed explosively. The rain lasted several hours and more than 12 millimetres fell over an area of 80 square kilometers. Surrounding clouds gave no rain. This is believed to be the first documented case anywhere in the world of an appreciable man-made rainfall reaching the ground and the first time that dynamic cloud growth had followed seeding. This striking result held such promise that a systematic program of cloud seeding was set up in February 1947 and continued for the next twenty-four years.
In Australia, where fickle rainfall has elated and then downcast countrymen from the time the first pioneers saw once brimming rivers and lush pastures fade to muddied waterholes and dustry earh, it was almost inevitable that the weather modification work of the Division of Cloud Physics should concentrate on rain-making. The Division’s work included theoretical, laboratory and airborne investigations of cloud structure and reaction.
The challenge
Natural variability of rain has been the rain-makers’ single biggest headache. As the scientists recalled:
In this cloud seeding research, the Division of Cloud Physics worked closely with State Departments of Agriculture. Each Department had regional referees to evaluate rain needs and public opinion in various areas. Before any rain-making program started, public meetings were held to vote on the issue. But the weather is never right for everyone and the Division received letters from irate landowners blaming rain-making experiments for unwanted downpours.It makes it terribly difficult to prove anything. You can go to an area and influence rain-potential clouds so that it looks as if you have increased the rainfall. But how much rain would have fallen if you hadn’t interfered with them? On one occasion you simply can’t tell. But if you keep on repeating the experiment, and keep on increasing the rain, eventually you can prove you caused the increase.
Multiple approaches
As little was known about the properties of clouds in Australia or the mechanisms of rainfall, Bowen initiated a vigorous research program of cloud studies. This included not only the effects of adding dry ice to cold clouds, but also the effect of spraying water into warm clouds which are responsible for much of the rainfall in the warmer parts of Australia. Bowen took part in the latter work himself and during 1950-55 published papers on the theory of coalescent rainfall and directed experimental trials.
Dry ice has a temperature of -80 °C or colder. If a piece the size of a pea is dropped into a supercooled cloud it will fall as far as three kilometres before evaporating completely, leaving a wake of ice crystals. In the right conditions, each crystal will feed on cloud droplets to form a large snowflake which melts to a raindrop as it reaches lower and warmer levels. This attractively simple principle was used from 1947 to 1950 near Sydney when 45-kilogram loads of dry ice were dropped into suitable clouds, their near neighbours being left unseeded to provide a basis for comparison. The principle seemed to work best with continental cumulus cloud masses where the air was dirty so that lots of small droplets were formed which were unlikely to coalesce of their own accord.
The difficulty with this method of stimulating rainfall was that only a few clouds could be treated on any one day and large amounts of dry ice were required. This limitation was overcome by the discovery, again in the USA, that tiny quantities of silver iodide smoke could be used as a seeding agent. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Bowen saw the potential for seeding large areas from the air using silver iodide burners mounted on an aircraft. Silver iodide smoke particles provide ‘kernels’ on which ice crystals can grow in a supercooled cloud. Theoretically, grams of silver iodide will do much the same job as kilograms of dry ice, so that smaller and cheaper aircraft can be used. Silver iodide seems to work best in layer clouds formed in air coming in from the sea.
From 1955 to 1963 the rain-makers carried out four intensive experiments over South Australia, the Snowy Mountains, the Warragamba Dam catchment area west of Sydney, and the New England region of NSW. For each experiment there was a target area of 2 000 to 8 000 square kilometres and a neighbouring control area of the same size which was not seeded. A network of up to 150 rain gauges covered each area. The first two years were so successful, with an estimated rainfall increase of 25%, that several more regions were quickly selected. There the early indications were also successful, but in many subsequent years all areas showed a gradual decay of the induced rainfall with time. Most people would have become discouraged by such a result and given up. Bowen, however, proposed a simple explanation, based on the idea that a persistence phenomenon
The Tasmanian cloud-seeding experiments
Tasmania was chosen for subsequent cloud-seeding trials. The experiments were designed to compensate for quirks in the results of previous experiments, which had frustrated the rain-makers and led them to a serious re-evaluation of their programs. This experiment in 1971 was a success but since Bowen had now retired, the result was not immediately attributed to the correctness of his persistence hypothesis
Subsequent work by EK Bigg has done much to explain the detailed mechanism of the phenomenon. With the continuing success of cloud seeding work by the Australian states of Tasmania and Victoria and the recognition of the role of persistence, there appears now to be a promising future for the rain making techniques that Bowen did so much to pioneer.
Bowen’s theories on periodic rainfall
Bowen’s remarkable energy and enthusiasm were evident also in other programs. He was not afraid to speculate and presented his intuitive ideas with a persuasive and engaging optimism that was either inspiring or alarming to his colleagues, depending on their views of science. Two of his well known theories about periodic rainfall variations illustrate this.
The influence of meteor showers
From the daily rainfall records for Sydney over the period 1859 to 1952 and for stations elsewhere in New South Wales and in other countries, Bowen found well defined peaks of rainfall in January and February. These anomalies he correlated with the passage of the Earth, 30 days earlier, through specific meteor streams that orbit the sun. He suggested that the smaller particles fell through the atmosphere to cloud level in 30 days, where they induced the observed rainfall.
The apparent physical implausibility of this hypothesis attracted a wave of criticism: the number of particles was insufficient, the fall time would not be fixed, and the particles would not form ice crystals. Even the reality of the anomalies was vigorously questioned, but independent analysis showed that they were statistically significant. But Bowen was not impressed by purely statistical arguments and insisted that his staff probe crucial aspects of his hypothesis by empirical tests in clouds. Whether he was right to invoke meteor showers to explain the rainfall anomalies and if so, how they influenced clouds after a fixed time interval, has yet to be demonstrated.
Lunar effects
In 1962, following a paper published in the USA, Bowen and Adderley showed that there were similar lunar effects in the monthly rainfall records for fifty New Zealand stations with comparable magnitude and closely related phase. The reality of the effect was beyond doubt. Independent frequency analysis revealed an amplitude variation of 20% and a periodicity of 29.5307 days. The mean period between full moons is 29.5306 days.
Bowen suggested that the Moon, revolving about the Earth, could modulate the amount of meteor dust reaching the Earth, and later showed that meteor rates in both the northern and southern hemispheres varied similarly with lunar phase. He argued that the Moon could intercept the particles or alternatively could deflect them because of electrostatic charges on the Moon and particles. Modern studies by his colleague, EK Bigg, however, suggest that the Moon’s influence on rainfall is more likely to be caused by the lunar tides in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Conclusion
The cloud and rain physics group, under Bowen’s leadership, worked in a most stimulating environment. Even his more speculative ideas sometimes drove his critics to discover truths that would otherwise have remained hidden. Over twenty-four years, the group established a high international reputation with its achievements and an impressive number of sound scientific publications.
For all this excellent research though, there's little evidence of any kind of applied technological outcome. It seems that if we want to understand the possibilities humans have of influencing the weather in any acute sense, we need to look less at chemical and material processes and more towards principles of physics that can transcend the boundary between densities. That looks to be where the real power to 'change the climate' resides.