GEO-ENGINEERING: ‘There Has Been No Completely Natural Weather For Decades’ – By Joseph P. Farrell, Ph.D

Source –

“…What that use means is that in effect there has been no completely “natural” weather for decades. Every system is either deliberately engineered and steered, or is blowback to some degree of such engineering, and hence even in that sense a product of it. That is a very uncomfortable conclusion to come to, but it is nonetheless the implication of the development and use of such technologies. And, as I’ve noted in prior blogs about this subject, the technologies and their use throw the whole “climate change” narrative into a cocked hat, for if “climate change” is real and if it is man-made, then it is not John Q”


It’s raining again where I’m located, and I decided to move today’s original blog to the honorable mention category, and do another blog about weather modification, which has been much on my mind lately.

And it’s not just because the weather has been so freakish. On my trips outside, I’ve been watching watching cloud formations, and on clear days I have seen cirro-nimbus and cirrus clouds in rectilinear shapes, and on one occasion, they just stayed more or less stationary for several minutes.

Today was another day of “weird” and in some cases “unnatural” looking clouds.

This is all qualitative and subjective evaluation, of course, but to a purpose: last week I interview in the members’ area of this website Elana Freeland, who wrote the book Under an Ionized Sky, which I regard as a kind of one-volume encyclopedia of weather modification technologies, their implications, and most importantly, their operational use for at least three decades.

And, just for the record, I believe a case can be made for their operational use as early as the 1950s.

Either way, what that use means is that in effect there has been no completely “natural” weather for decades. Every system is either deliberately engineered and steered, or is blowback to some degree of such engineering, and hence even in that sense a product of it.

That is a very uncomfortable conclusion to come to, but it is nonetheless the implication of the development and use of such technologies. And, as I’ve noted in prior blogs about this subject, the technologies and their use throw the whole “climate change” narrative into a cocked hat, for if “climate change” is real and if it is man-made, then it is not John Q.

Public on his farm, or in his car, or cooking on his barbie, that is producing it. It is the responsibility and culpability of those with the technology, power, and money to do so.

Mr. Globaloney comes to mind, for as I’ve also argued in previous blogs about this topic, the creation of weather-based financial instruments is a clue that Mr. Globaloney has found yet another way to turn a profit on people’s misery. It’s called “disaster capitalism” and I’ve written about that too. See…

In the process of those previous high octane speculations I’ve entertained the idea that weather modification could be carried out by state or non-state actors, and in that respect, R.B. sent along these two links, which triggered today’s last minute “shuffle” of blogs and today’s high octane speculation.

The links, as you will see, are to a couple of corporate weather modification sites, one in Australia, and one in North Dakota:

The Australian corporation, under its “services” tab, offers “rainfall enhancement”, as does the North Dakota corporation. Both confirm that the simplest weather modification technology, cloud seeding, which has been around for some time, not only exists, but can be hired.

And that brings me to today’s high octane speculation and implications. The weather modification technologies that have exercised the alternative research field for some time – ionospheric heaters such as Eiscat and Haarp, chemtrails, and so on – are much more sophisticated than standard cloud seeding, but there is nothing, so far as I know, that prohibits corporations from buying or developing and using their own versions of them.

And if there are laws on the books in some countries that would prohibit them from doing so, such laws are probably not in existence everywhere, nor have corporations been terribly concerned lately to follow any laws.

It’s the law here that interests me, for what would a corporate “cloud seeding contract” look like? what waivers would it include for liabilities in case a seeding operation went horribly wrong? And by the same token, how much “under the table” fees would it cost to hire someone to flood a competitor?

And if one suspected that one was the victim of a deliberate or even accidental weather “hit”, particularly from the more “exotic” technologies, how would one prove this in a court of law, and whom would one sue? How would the court, or a jury, assess liability?
That last question is an important one, for we now must deal with the possibility of unintended consequences from two levels or layers of weather modification activity:

(1) the “covert” one of the technocrats and their chemtrail and ionospheric heaters and other exotic toys, manipulating regional and planetary systems, and

(2) the “overt” one of corporations such as these, manipulating things on (presumably) a much smaller scale. Judging by the two links shared by R.B., these “small scale” corporate examples seem completely unaware of the existence of the first level with its exotic toys, and thus could commit to plans of action that could cause unforeseen blowback and consequences.
Similarly, at the larger level of number one, it too would seem to be proceeding in a vacuum, unaware of whatever local operations such corporations might be conducting. So imagine a scenario where damage is the result of such combined but unintended consequences.

Would jurisprudence now define these as acts of God, or would it hear the case? If so, how would it assess the damage?
While such questions demonstrate that we’ve opened another jurisprudential “Pandora’s box” similar in nature to the problems of mind manipulation technologies and their implications for law, inevitably such cases will come before a court, somewhere.

But lest you think all is gloom and doom, Mr. Globaloney has already tipped us off where to look for a crucial bit of evidence, a bit of evidence that will go a long way to determine liability and culpability: weather derivatives: in short, look for suspicious financial activity pre-dating, or even post-dating, unusually destructive weather.

Then… find a good attorney whose willing and able to “have some fun”…

See you on the flip side



As you might have guessed, I’ve been much focused upon the subject of geoengineering lately, given that much of America’s breadbasket has been so under water this season that many crops did not even get planted, and many farmers are facing ruin. But not to worry, disaster capitalism is alive and well, and various journals of crony c(r)apitalism are urging people to buy up farmland, on the cheap. It was a predictable move given the strangeness of the last cycle of storms, which set a record for the number of tornadoes for the year, and they all occurred within a week and a half. Geoengineering has reached such a fever pitch of insanity that yesterday I blogged about people talking about moving the Earth’s orbit in case the Sun decides to go nova, which we’re reassured won’t happen for billions of years (that’s without all that high-tech stuff perhaps inducing unknown resonance effects).
It’s that technological angle that has me exercised today, for a number of regular readers of this website have been sending in various articles on the subject, and V.T. sent an article that sent me looking at the 1976 Environmental Modification Convention, and that in turn brought me to this valuable website which those of you concerned about this technology might want to bookmark:
The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) Weather Warfare Ban

Weaponizing the weather has been an idea that’s been around for a long time,but it received a huge kick during the Second World War, when there were actually serious proposals for producing tsunamis ahead of Allied invasion forces invading Japanese held islands in the Pacific. The efforts continued after World War Two, particularly in the USA and the Soviet Union, and, as this site actually notes, the USSR engaged in heavy weather modification after the Chernobyl disaster to force rains to “bleed” out radioactivity prior to it reaching Moscow. But it is this convention that tells a whole story, for as V.T. put it in the email that accompanied this article, why bother having a convention if the technologies did not exist?

What caught my eye in the text of this convention were the first three articles:

The States Parties to this Convention,Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare…

Have agreed as follows:

Article I. 1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.

Article II. As used in article I, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing-through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes-the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Article III. 1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.

There’s a couple of glaring omissions here, and I’m sure you caught both of them. Firstly, no corporation – to my knowledge – is a signatory to this convention. Consequently, any state or group of states (to use the language of the convention), wishing to observe the letter but not the spirit of the convention could conceivably use corporate “cut outs” to conduct such geophysical warfare. Indeed, reading the convention one discovers that the development of such technologies and their use for “peaceful purposes” is entirely “ok.” One can almost hear the technocrat narrative: “oh…! We’re sorry! We were trying to relieve our drought. We didn’t realize it would result in massive flooding in your (country, state, region) and wipe out your current crop planting season.” Indeed, as far as I can tell, the wording is so ambiguous that one reading of the convention would not prohibit the high contracting parties from utilizing the technologies in such a way within their own jurisdictions, that if it were so used by those parties against another party or parties, would be taken as geophysical warfare.

Secondly, there’s a complete lack of any detail as to how such geophysical warfare is to be detected and determined. While the convention has undergone clarifications since its original signing, those clarifications are still vague enough to drive a truck through. What is interesting is that any complaint or suspicion of such actions can be lodged with the UN Security Council, which will “investigate” and presumably could provide “punitive action” against the offender, provided of course that any such action were not vetoed by the five permanent members, which, interestingly enough, are the very same powers that have access to the technologies in the first place.

Finally, human diplomatic history and international relations are replete with broken treaties and conventions. And I strongly suspect this convention has already been broken.

But at least it does one thing: it affirmed that even in the 1970s there was a fear of technologies designed to weaponize geophysical processes, from the lithosphere(earthquake weapons), the hydrosphere(tsunami creators), atmosphere(chemtrails), and outer space(ionspheric heaters). And of course, we’ve developed all of them.

(Indeed, Nikola Tesla took out a patent in 1893 for an mechanical oscillator which he claimed produced “earthquakes”, decades before the convention was even a gleam in the UN’s eye, long before there was even a UN. Tesla made lots of strange claims in his life, and the problem is, Tesla was Tesla, and it’s always hazardous to second guess him. Interestingly enough, the television show “Myth Busters” built a version of this oscillator, and tested it. It didn’t produce any earthquakes, leading them to claim the myth was busted, but it did cause oscillations that could be felt hundreds of feet away. I have my own suspicions about that episode, and I’ll keep them to myself, but as one might guess, they involve “resonance” and the possibility that it was ignored, meaning that the “busted myth” may itself need to be busted.)

In any case, given the recent strange weather, it seems as if the technologies and techniques might have been perfected to a degree only dreamed of when the convention was originally signed. If so, we might not have to bother about moving the Earth out of its current orbit…

See you on the slip side…

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza Death Star, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”





One thought on “GEO-ENGINEERING: ‘There Has Been No Completely Natural Weather For Decades’ – By Joseph P. Farrell, Ph.D

  1. Pingback: GEO-ENGINEERING: ‘There Has Been No Completely Natural Weather For Decades’ – By Joseph P. Farrell, Ph.D — RIELPOLITIK – Kensho Homestead

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s