- Pacific
At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists
asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is
neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a
solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned
by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new
savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex
stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.
“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification
research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World
Meteorological Organization, 2007
The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry
refuse to publicly admit what anyone with eyes can see. Peer-reviewed research is
available to anyone willing and able to maneuver the labyrinth of scientific journals. So,
while there is some disclosure on the topic, full public explanation is lacking. A brief
list of confirmed cloud seeding events is produced at bottom, starting in 1915.
Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification,
solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force
multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However,
this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental
modification is vast and well funded.
Hosted by the Belfort Group, which has been working for the last seven years to raise
public awareness of toxic aerial spraying, the Symposium included chemtrail awareness
groups from Greece, Germany, Holland, France and the U.S. Belfort published five
videos covering only May 29,[1] when filmmaker Michael Murphy (Environmental Deception and
What in the world are they spraying)[2] and aerospace engineer Dr. Coen Vermeeren [3] gave
the most dramatic presentations.
Dr Vermeeren, of the Delft University of Technology, presented [4] a 300-page scientific
report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather
Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” [5]
Case Orange notes it was prepared for the Belfort Group by a team of scientists but
presented anonymously. It was sent to embassies, news organizations and interested groups
around the world “to force public debate.”
The report spends some time on HAARP, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program,
[6] which is a military endeavor focused on ionospheric, electromagnetic, and global
electrostatic field manipulation, and on other exotic weapon systems that manipulate the
environment. While related, they go beyond this discussion of chemtrails.
In the interest of brevity, the health and environmental implications of cloud seeding is
not discussed in any depth herein. Case Orange does go into it, as did most of the
speakers at the Belfort Symposium. Cursory research reveals a debate among researchers as
to chemtrail toxicity, but whether that’s a 50-50 or 99-1 argument is unknown.
Contrails Are Chemtrails
Case Orange rejects use of the term ‘chemtrails’ because it is associated with
amateur conspiracy theorists. The only credible document it could find that uses it is the
Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).
[7] H.R. 2977 sought to ban the use of exotic weapon systems that would damage
climate, weather, tectonic and biological systems. “Chemtrails” are specifically
listed. Though later removed, no version of the bill ever became law.
Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the
phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’
distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent
normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.
Case Orange also rejects misanthropic intentions behind persistent contrails. It shows
that geoengineering is fully operational, but rejects it is used to sicken people on the
assumptions that 1) public health agencies have the public interest at heart; and 2) the
economy is consumer driven. The authors indicate no awareness of numerous reports of
collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies. This year, a
significant conflict-of-interest report appeared in the prestigious British Medical
Journal, which further heightened suspicions that the H1N1 flu and its vaccines were a
scam.[8] Nor do the authors consider that sick people will spur economic growth in a
capitalist (for profit) health system.
Dr. Vermeeren gave his own introductory remarks and conclusions, but spent the bulk of the
hour presenting information from Case Orange. He frankly admitted the existence of
persistent contrails.
“We also know that chemtrails do exist because we do spraying; for crops, for
example, and we know that they have been spraying for military purposes. So, chemtrails is
nothing new. We know about it.”
________________________________________
“Weather manipulation through contrail formation … is in place and fully
operational.”
Case Orange cites publicly available material that shows geoengineering has been ongoing
for “at least 60 years.” Used as a weapon of war in Hamburg by the UK during
World War II, it was also used in the Vietnam Conflict by the US. Controversy over
its use, revealed by investigative reporter Jack Anderson, spurred Senate hearings in
1972. During those hearings, military officials denied the use of cloud seeding
technology. Later, a private letter from Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird admitting that
his testimony was false surfaced. He, again unbelievably, claimed he didn’t know what
was happening. [9]
Environmental modification (EnMod) weaponry was finally banned by treaty in 1978. The UN
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques forced the end of such programs, overtly anyway.[10] (Case
Orange authors seem unaware of this international ban, as it is one of their
recommendations.)
However, with widespread reporting of rising global temperatures, increasing population,
and degradation of water supplies, renewed interest in EnMod is now becoming broadly
supported. (See, e.g., Top economists recommend climate engineering, 4 Sep 2009 [11] and
similarly, Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’, 1 Sep
2009.[12])
Building a case for old technology finding a new market, Case Orange discusses several
U.S. patents. For example, authors describe a 1975 patent, “Powder Contrail
Generation,” [13] for the invention of a:
“specific contrail generation apparatus for producing a powder contrail having
maximum radiation scattering ability for a given weight [of] material. The seeding
material … consists of 85% metallic particles and 15% colloidal Silica and Silica gel
in order to produce a stable contrail that has a residence period of 1 up to 2
weeks.”
In 2009, researchers published “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce global
warming,” which proposed two methods of delivery for this same proportion of
metallics to silica and the same staying power of one to two weeks.[14]
Case Orange also reveals a 1991 patent held by Hughes Aircraft Company [15] that:
“contains 18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with
aluminum oxide… thorium oxide … and refractory Welsbach material
….”
The report notes that “the proposed scenario by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change] in 2001 is identical to the claims” in Hughes Aircraft’s 1991
patent. Hughes was acquired by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, in 1997, “the
same company that acquired E-systems and the HAARP contract.”
Case Orange presents evidence that Raytheon stands to control all weather, which the
authors find repugnant given that it is a private corporation. The authors recommend suing
private corporations instead of governments. But subcontracting is quite common for
governments and agencies, especially the US military. The distinction between large,
powerful corporations and governments is a fine line obscure to common folk. And, the
effect is the same whether governments are spraying us with nano-sized metals, chemicals
or biologicals, or whether corporations do. The authors’ protective posture toward
governments is nonsensical.
Case Orange suggests that geoengineering found new life in the global warming scare. Old
patents are being dusted off and private interests stand to make substantial sums now that
Cap and Trade has been exposed as ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases. (Although,
lawmakers are still considering it since substantial sums can be made from the scheme, to
wit: Al Gore reportedly achieved billionaire status from it.)
Since 2007, billionaire Bill Gates has spent at least $4.5 million on geoengineering
research. [16] Since reducing emissions is not popular with industry, ‘Plan
B’ – geoengineering – is being touted as the answer to climate change and
water shortage. A longer description of Plan B is: Add more pollution to the sky and
water to offset industrial pollution, without reducing industrial pollution.
Human rights and environmental watchdog, ETC Group, describes the momentum [17]:
“The roll-out of geoengineering as Plan B is being skillfully executed: prominent
high-level panels sponsored by prestigious groups, a spate of peer-reviewed articles this
January in science journals, and a line-up of panicked politicians in northern countries,
nodding nervously in agreement as scientists testify about the ‘need to research Plan
B.’”
ETC reports that Gates’ top geoengineering advisor unveiled a plan to grow solar
radiation management research “one-hundred-fold, from $10 million to $1 billion over
ten years.”
Indeed, several watchdog groups recently ramped up calls to address clean water shortage.
“At the end of July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly will vote on an
important resolution, initiated by the Bolivian government, which would make clean water
and sanitation a human right,” reports Food and Water Watch.[18]
Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
Case Orange ties a 1996 report by top military personnel in the U.S., “Weather as a
Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” [19] to evidentiary details (like
governmental spraying schedules, chemical orders, correct nomenclature used in airline
operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists) to support its notion of
“heavy involvement of governments at top level in climate control
projects.”
Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies
in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government
group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification [20]:
2000 Introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase from 2008;
2000-2025 Use chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military)
aviation;
2004 Create smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010;
2005 Introduce ‘carbon black dust’.
Though Case Orange decries the paucity of research into EnMod, in 2009 WMA published its
position statement on the safety of seeding clouds with silver-iodide, citing three dozen
research papers from 1970 through 2006. [21] In 2007, the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) published a statement that included “Guidelines for the Planning
of Weather Modification Activities.” Acknowledging that the modern technology of
weather modification began in the 1940s, it is still “an emerging technology”
today. [22] WMO indicated disappointment that research is being abandoned for operations.
Case Orange contains no reference to the WMA position statement citing all that research,
although it cites the group. Nor does it mention the World Meteorological Organization, an
agency of the United Nations, which has a link to its Weather Modification portal on its
Index page.
At the end of the section, The bare necessity of geoengineering through cloud generation
for survival of the planet (5.2.7), Case Orange states:
“[O]ur investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs,
controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order
to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments
are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the
ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.
“Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the
offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on
various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between
governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and
thus the planet.”
The report published the following images provided by a former meteorologist at the
Ontario Weather Service, showing spraying schemes for Europe.
“The spraying schemes seem to be organized in a logical pattern so that the
whole of Europe is covered in a 3-day period,” the authors write. The following
images cover January 3-5, 2010:
Case Orange agrees that climate change needs to be addressed. Regarding Climate-Gate, the
authors suggest that the University of East Anglia deliberately manipulated the climate
data to gradually prepare the global population for its future on a hotter planet.
They also cite research that supports the notion that climate change is real. During the
three-day grounding of most aircraft after 9/11, scientists noticed an increase in
temperature of 1.1 °C (2 °F). [23] This is an astounding increase in such a short time
frame. The incidence of cloud seeding reports by the public increases exponentially after
this.
The 1996 military piece, Owning the Weather in 2025, gives climate change skeptics
“an insight in what to expect in the 21st century:
‘Current demographic, economic and environmental trends will create global stresses
that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn weather
modfication ability into capability. In the United States weather modification will likely
become part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications.
Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various
levels.’”
Recommendations
“Persistent contrails,” however, “have a devastating impact on eco-systems
on this planet and quality of life in general.” Case Orange joins the call of Bill
Gates’ geoengineering advisor and the WMO for new research measuring the impact on
human health and the environment from EnMod programs.
Case Orange also recommends an immediate and full disclosure of current EnMod activities
to the public; and that all civil aviation laws be abided.
Of note, in response to policy interest in geoengineering as a means to control climate
change and enhance water supplies, on May 14, 2010, the science subcommittee of the United
Nations Convention on Biological Diversity proposed a geoengineering moratorium. [24] This
proposed ban on “friendly” EnMod programs will be heard at the Tenth Conference
of Parties to UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan this October.
Case Orange reports that China and Russia openly admit to cloud-seeding, while the U.S.
denies such activities. The U.S. does permit open air testing of chemical and biological
weapons but not under the law the authors cited, which they paraphrased:
The secretary of defense may conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical
and biological agents on civilian populations.
Public law of the United States, Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30,
1977.
Codified as 50 USC 1520, under Chapter 32 Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Public
Law 85-79 was repealed in 1997 by Public Law 105-85. In its place, 15 USC 1520a provides
restrictions (such as informed consent). 50 USC 1512, however, allows open air testing of
chemicals and biologicals and allows presidential override of notices and of public health
considerations for national security reasons. [25] Case Orange authors are thus correct in
asserting that such programs are legal in the U.S.
Epilogue
Having heard enough conspiracy theories to last me a lifetime, I hesitated researching the
subject of chemtrails, and maintained skepticism. That all changed in March when I
personally observed two jets seeding clouds, along with about 30 other people in the
parking lot at lunchtime. Someone took a picture from her cell phone:
The trails lasted for hours, and looked distinctly different from other clouds. Since
then, I’ve been watching the skies and can now tell when they’ve been seeded. We
often have a white haze instead of a deep blue sky, even when persistent contrails
aren’t visible.
A few days ago, someone sent me a link to the Belfort Symposium videos. Four hours into
it, I became riveted when Dr. Vermeeren began his presentation of the Case Orange report.
That’s when I decided to seriously look into the subject. As informative as Case
Orange is for the newcomer, any serious research into the subject reveals that what all
those “conspiracy theorists” suggest is true: they are spraying the skies, and
they’re not telling us.
Discovering that the World Meteorological Organization has a tab on its website called
Weather Modification shocked me. Reading their disappointment that governments are going
ahead with operations instead of doing more research confirmed all of it for me. And that
was published in 2007!
So, while we’re not being told, the information is publicly available to any armchair
researcher.
Being so late to the game on all this accords me sympathy for others. Military leaders
have for centuries recognized that it rains after a heavy battle, but harnessing that
power in a way that doesn’t cause a deluge like in San Diego in 1915 has been a task.
I came upon other stories like that in my research – misdirected hurricanes, farm
wars, massive flooding and mudslides. It’s no wonder there are so many books on the
subject. It’s no wonder this turned into a 3,000-word essay.
Chemtrails are no hoax; I spent time going to as many original sources as I could find.
The record is replete with mainstream news accounts of the early days of the modern EnMod
program. If its birth can be marked by Britain’s successful use of chaff in 1943 to
jam enemy radar, the program is 67 years old. That’s quite a history to keep under
the radar of most people. That reflects most poorly on mainstream news sources, who are
supposed to expose government shenanigans.
~~~
A Brief History of Cloud Seeding
Cloud seeding, as a US military research project, began as early as the 1830s, according
to Colby College professor, James R. Fleming. [26] Verifiably successful rainmaking
attempts did not occur until 1915.
1915 To end a prolonged drought, San Diego hired reputed rainmaker Charles Hatfield,
who claimed that the evaporation of his secret chemical brew atop wooden towers could
attract clouds. San Diego was rewarded with a 17-day deluge that totaled 28 inches.
The deadly downpour washed out more than 100 bridges, made roads impassable over a huge
area, destroyed communications lines, and left thousands homeless. [27]
1943 “The first operational use of chaff (aluminium strips which are precisely cut to
a quarter of the radar’s wavelength) took place in July 1943, when Hamburg was
subjected to a devastating bombing raid. The radar screens were cluttered with reflections
from the chaff and the air defence was, in effect, completely blinded.” [28]
1946 General Electric’s Vincent Schaefer dropped six pounds of dry ice into a
cold cloud over Greylock Peak in the Berkshires, causing an “explosive” growth
of three miles in the cloud. [29]
1947 Australian meteorologists successfully repeated the process. [30]
1949 Project Cirrus: Nobel Laureate Irving Langmuir and General Electric researcher
Vincent Schaefer fed ten ounces of silver iodide into a blowtorch apparatus and brought
down 320 billion gallons of rain across half of New Mexico from a desert near Albuquerque.
[31]
1950 Harvard meteorologist Wallace Howell seeded New York City skies with dry ice
and silver iodide smoke, filling the city’s reservoirs to near capacity. [32]
1952 The UK’s Operation Cumulus resulted in 250 times the normal amount of
rainfall, killing dozens and destroying landscapes. [33]
1962-1983 Operation Stormfury, a hurricane modification program, had some success in
reducing winds by up to 30%. [34]
1966-1972 Project Intermediary Compatriot (later called Pop Eye) successfully seeded
clouds in Laos. The technique became part of military actions in Cambodia, Vietnam and
Laos from 1967 to 1972. Initially revealed by Jack Anderson in the Washington Post, 18 Mar
1971. [35]
1986 The Soviet air force diverted Chernobyl fallout from reaching Moscow by seeding
clouds. Belarus, instead, was hit. [36]
2008 Chinese government used 1,104 cloud seeding missiles to remove the threat of
rain ahead of the Olympic opening ceremony in Beijing. [37]
2009 Moscow Halo. Case Orange cites this as evidence of cloud seeding, but others
suspect it is electromagnetic in origin. Russian authorities said it was an optical
illusion. [38]
This is by no means a comprehensive list; indeed, volumes are dedicated to the
subject. (8.02.2010)
________________________________________
Notes:
[1] Belfort Group videos of International Symposium on Chemtrails, May 29, 2010
proceedings. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/belfort-test
[2] Michael Murphy website: http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com
[3] Dr Coen Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology bio, n.d.
[4] Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech, Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35
mins..) (29 May 2010) http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427
[5] Anonymous, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather
Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies,” 10 May 2010.
PDF without appendices:
http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/case_orange-5-10-2010-belfort-chemtrails.pdf
[6] High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, Fact Sheet, 15 Jun 2007. http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/factSheet.html
[7] Space Preservation Act of 2001, H.R.2977, 107th Congress, 1st Session. Introduced by
U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich.
[8] Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter, “Conflicts of Interest: WHO and the pandemic
‘flu conspiracies,’” British Medical Journal 2010;340:c2912, 3 Jun 2010. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/jun03_4/c2912
[9] The Sunshine Project, “The Limits of Inside Pressure: The US Congress Role in
ENMOD,” n.d. Accessed July 2010. http://www.sunshine-project.org/enmod/US_Congr.html
[10] United Nations, “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile
Use of Environmental Modification Techniques,” Resolution 31/72, 10 Dec 1976,
effective 1978. Geneva. http://www.un-documents.net/enmod.htm
[11] Copenhagen Consensus Center, “Top economists recommend climate
engineering,” 4 Sep 2009. Press release [pdf]
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fPress+Releases+2010%2fCC_PRESS_STATEMENT
__4september2010_.pdf
[12] Catherine Brahic, “Top science body calls for geoengineering ‘plan B’,
New Scientist 1 Sep 2009.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17716-top-science-body-calls-for-geoengineering-plan-b.html
[13] Donald K. Werle, et al., “Powder contrail generation,” U.S. Patent
3,899,144, 12 Aug 1975. Assignee: U.S. Secretary of the Navy.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=
50&s1=3,899,144.PN.&OS=PN/3,899,144&RS=PN/3,899,144
[14] David L Mitchell and William Finnegan, “Modification of Cirrus clouds to reduce
global warming,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 4 No. 4, 30 Oct 2009. Available
by subscription: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102
[15] David B. Chang and I-Fu Shih, “Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of
global warming,” U.S. Patent 5,003,186, 26 Mar 1991. Assignee: Hughes Aircraft
Company.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=
5,003,186.PN.&OS=PN/5,003,186&RS=PN/5,003,186
[16] Eli Kintisch, “Bill Gates Funding Geoengineering Research,” Science
Insider, 26 Jan 2010. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html
[17] ETC Group, “Top-down Planet Hackers Call for Bottom-up Governance:
Geoengineers’ Bid to Establish Voluntary Testing Regime Must Be Opposed,” 11 Feb
2010. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5073
[18] Food and Water Watch: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/world-water/right
[19] Col Tamzy J. House, et al. “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in
2025,” Department of Defense U.S. Air Force, 17 Jun 1996. Publicly released August
1996. Reproduced at Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm
[20] Weather Modicaton Association website: http://www.weathermodification.org
[21] Weather Modification Association, “Position Statement on the Environmental
Impact of Using Silver Iodides as a Cloud Seeding Agent,” July 2009.
http://www.weathermodification.org/AGI_toxicity.pdf
[22] World Meteorological Organization, “WMO Statement on Weather Modification,”
UN Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, 26 Sep 2007.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf
[23] Donald J. Travis, et al. “Contrails reduce daily temperature range,” Nature
418, 601, 8 Aug 2002. Reproduced in full by University of Washington, Dept. of Atmospheric
Sciences:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rennert/etc/courses/pcc587/ref/Travis-etal2002_Nature.pdf
[24] Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, “In-depth
Review of the Work on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Draft Recommendation,”
Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environmental Programme,
UNEP/CBD/SBTTA/14/L.9, 15 May 2010. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-14/in-session/sbstta-14-L-09-en.pdf
[25] United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 32, “Chemical and Biological Warfare
Program.” http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C32.txt
[26] James Rodger Fleming, “The pathological history of weather and climate
modification: Three cycles of promise and hype,” Historical Studies in the Physical
and Biological Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2006. Available at
http://www.colby.edu/sts/06_fleming_pathological.pdf
[27] Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml
[28] Monsignore Pizzafunghi Bosselese, “The History of Radar,” BBC, 14 Jul 2003.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A591545
[29] Fleming, citing New York Times, 15 Nov 1946, 24.
[30] Squires, P. & Smith, E. J., “The Artificial Stimulation of Precipitation by
Means of Dry Ice,” Australian Journal of Scientific Research, Series A: Physical
Sciences, vol. 2, p.232, 1949AuSRA…2..232S, 1949. Republished at Harvard University:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1949AuSRA…2..232S/0000244.000.html
Also see: Stephen Cole, “Weather on Demand,” American Heritage, 2005.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/2/2005_2_48.shtml
[31] Life Magazine, “Solution to Water Shortage: Rain makers’ success
shows how New York could fill its reservoirs,” p. 113, 20 Feb 1950.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FVMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA113&dq=Irving+Langmuir&as_pt=MAGAZINES&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Irving%20Langmuir&f=false
[32] Life Magazine, “U.S. Water: We can supplement our outgrown sources at a
price,” 21 Aug 1950, p. 52.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wUoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Irving+Langmuir+rainmaker&source=bl&ots=Ehqq8hZNsE&sig=tkN51N
oxqMsKVq6ClZU9Hvej8g0&hl=en&ei=9mhMTO3vG93llQfjpJHGDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
[33] John Vidal and Helen Weinstein, “RAF rainmakers ’caused 1952 flood’:
Unearthed documents suggest experiment triggered torrent that killed 35 in Devon
disaster,” The Guardian, 30 Aug 2001.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/silly/story/0,10821,544259,00.html
Also see: BBC News, “Rain-making link to killer floods,” 30 Aug 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1516880.stm
[34] Jerry E. Smith, “Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother
Nature,” Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006. pp. 47-54.
http://books.google.com/books?id=G7t260XD8AYC&pg=PA47&dq=stormfury&hl=en&ei=9wJOTOfVE4G88gbZ3IGaDA&sa=
X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=stormfury&f=false
[35] ibid. pp. 54-60.
[36] Richard Gray, “How we made the Chernobyl rain,” Daily Telegraph, 22 Apr
2007.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html
[37] Ian O’Neill, “The Chinese Weather Manipulation Missile Olympics,”
Universe Today, 12 Aug 2008.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/12/the-chinese-weather-manipulation-missile-olympics
[38] Anonymous, “Moscow Halo,” cell phone video uploaded to YouTube, 7 Oct 2009.
reposted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXF9HSB627U
http://www.garynull.com/home/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-an.html
Eastern