Well, Dave, to be hon­est with you, since our lit­tle talk a cou­ple of weeks back, I have done a bit of think­ing con­cern­ing HAARP and weather con­trol as of late..........
I can now con­cede that a few indi­rect forms of weather control{like sim­i­lar to cloud seed­ing, but done in a dif­fer­ent man­ner}, may in fact be quite possible.{How about nul­li­fy­ing incom­ing weather sys­tems to pre­vent rain­fall, for exam­ple? I can see that as a very pow­er­ful tool.}

How­ever, though, I will have to say that DIRECT manip­u­la­tion meth­ods, such as steer­ing hur­ri­canes, manip­u­lat­ing Gulf mois­ture, or mod­i­fy­ing indi­vid­ual super­cells & cre­at­ing and steer­ing tor­na­does, sim­ply isn’t pos­si­ble in this day and age, not only that, but is prob­a­bly being used to cast a bad eye on legit­i­mate researchers{and increas­ingly being used to try to dis­credit cli­mate change research, it seems} and, as you so cor­rectly fore­warned in FTR #272, “Such think­ing and action exhibits “con­spir­acy the­ory at its worst,” and plays in to the hand of cyn­i­cal crit­ics, in addi­tion to obscur­ing real, sub­stan­tive inquiries into the pos­si­ble mil­i­tary appli­ca­tion of envi­ron­men­tal modifica­tion technologies.”.

{Although, it can be granted that Eastlund’s tech­nol­ogy could the­o­ret­i­cally try to stop tor­na­does from forming........although you also pointed that many crit­ics warned that it could actu­ally back­fire and make the weather even worse........at least under the right con­di­tions. How­ever, though, I believe that would fall under the ‘indi­rect’ category.}

In any case, please do for­give my pre­vi­ous hard­core skep­ti­cism, but there’s so much crap out there{you want a good exam­ple? Google the YouTube user by the name of Dutchsinse for starters}, it can some­times be quite a pain in the @$$ to fig­ure out what’s a crock of horse manure, and what’s actu­ally possible.

In any case, I did enjoy your lat­est FTR post­ing, and I hope to see a new FTR soon.

Farewell for now, and please, do keep up the good work. =)

What should be noted is the very fact that treaties have been drawn up regard­ing this issue. This sug­gests that weather manip­u­la­tion tech­nol­ogy is indeed pos­si­ble. What the cur­rent state of the art is can only be con­jec­ture by those not in the know. But it would be safe to say that it has gone sev­eral decades past seed­ing rain clouds with sil­ver iodide.

I agree with steven. There is a lot of crap mixed with the gen­uine sci­ence in this field par­tic­u­larly, and the sub­ject of HAARP specifically.

I’ve come to see HAARD as a sort of “gate­way topic” that, if one takes up, starts a ratio­nal per­son on a “slippery-slope” to becom­ing an expert on the undis­cov­ered galac­tic tribes of the 18th fed­er­a­tion of Prilosec.

In fact Mr. Emory’s post above is the FIRST time I’ve ever seen HAARP dis­cussed with­out it being used some­how, no mat­ter how irrelevent or unre­lated, as an oppor­tu­nity to bring up the secret space aliens that our gov­ern­ment knows all about and has since..
..ugh. for­get it...you know what I mean.

It’s not hard to under­stand though how lesser minds can get ini­tially turned by this.

Imag­ine get­ting to the end of Fam­ily Of Secrets and in the last chap­ter Russ Baker writes defin­i­tively about the Bushes rela­tion­ship with the Grays.

It’d be con­fus­ing wouldn’t it?

Thanks Dave

They live.

@Devil James: Thanks, man. =)

The inter­views that Dave did with Dr. Nick Begich can be lis­tened to start­ing with FTR #1. The research work that Dr Begich under­took on the HAARP project is surely the most com­pre­hen­sive. No talk of beings from outer space or such. And not to lose sight of the fact that Newt Gin­grich is a big sup­porter of the mil­i­tary appli­ca­tions of both the use of the var­i­ous tech­nolo­gies against enemy com­bat­ants and for con­trol­ling the pop­u­lace domes­ti­cally and elsewhere.

Can we just say — it is after all 2011 — that any can­di­date whose name you could even know is by def­i­n­i­tion a rub­ber stamp for the most bloated mil­i­tary in his­tory? Dems and Reps alike. They’re only dis­tin­guish­able through the mar­ket­ing plan.

@Sandra: True, but even a really intre­pid hon­est researcher like Begich can get sucked in to some of the B.S.

@Rob Coogan: That is true to a good extent, although I think Obama is being played by the estab­lish­ment. Go back a lit­tle while in the archives and you should come across some­thing called ‘Bad­jack­et­ing Obama’.

@Steven: Of course, Bad-jacketing is a key point. When the time comes (if it comes), it’s the “off” switch for any politi­cian who might break a rule or think inde­pen­dently while in office. Obama’s “off” switch, or his being played by the estab­lish­ment doesn’t change the fact that he is also 100% theirs from the start. They paid for him, after all. And they are reap­ing great rewards. (One could say this about any president.)

Look at the wars (eve­last­ing), the war spend­ing (largest in his­tory), the long-term poli­cies and the (yes, it sounds cliché) cor­po­rate agenda. It’s not about par­ties or per­son­al­i­ties, but about the func­tion of the front-men and front-women who run for office, play their roles, and deliver the goods. The entire narrative-charade of elec­toral pol­i­tics is bought and paid for by those who profit from it the most. (Cen­tral­ized con­glom­er­ate own­er­ship of media, etc., blah blah blah...)

I’m describ­ing some­thing along the lines of what S. Zizek calls Post-Politics (sur­face), and what P.D. Scott calls Deep Pol­i­tics (below the sur­face). If you see through the for­mer, all there is that’s mean­ing­ful is the lat­ter. Hence, FTR.

Pol­icy for­ma­tion is ever and always out of the hands of the peo­ple gov­erned. It is formed secretly, from the top down, who­ever is in office. It requires a cred­u­lous will to go on believ­ing there is any mean­ing in our polit­i­cal sys­tem, any­thing mean­ing­ful beyond cut-outs and front-men, as described. This is my hum­ble opin­ion, of course, but what other con­clu­sion is there to draw? See the lat­est Hirsch, for a fun exam­ple of poli­cies no one can dis­cuss in polite company.

I sus­pect we’re going to see more hints at weather con­trol tech­nolo­gies (like this) as the weather gets weirder and the pub­lic even­tu­ally starts clam­or­ing for solu­tions. The “let’s geo-engineer the envi­ron­ment” solu­tion is just too lucra­tive for the usual sus­pects to not cram it down our throats:

Geo-engineering: a bad idea whose time has come?

By Deb­o­rah Zabarenko, Envi­ron­ment Correspondent

WASHINGTON | Fri Dec 9, 2011 3:32pm EST

(Reuters) — The main­stream approach to cli­mate change does not seem to be work­ing so some sci­en­tists and pol­i­cy­mak­ers say it may be time to look into some­thing com­pletely dif­fer­ent: re-engineering Earth’s climate.

Var­i­ously called geo-engineering, cli­mate reme­di­a­tion and planet hack­ing, the idea is to do on pur­pose what indus­try and other human activ­i­ties have done inad­ver­tently, which is to change the amount of climate-warming green­house gases in the atmos­phere, and as a result, cool it down.

The con­cept has been around for nearly a cen­tury, from about the same time sci­en­tists and engi­neers noted the warm­ing effect car­bon diox­ide emis­sions had on cli­mate. Until quite recently, the notion has been rel­e­gated to the fringes of debate. Global cli­mate talks have focused instead on curb­ing future emis­sions of green­house gases, known as mitigation.

But in the lead-up to the lat­est round of U.N. cli­mate nego­ti­a­tions in Dur­ban, South Africa, there have been seri­ous exam­i­na­tions of what it might take to start coun­ter­ing the effects of increas­ing car­bon diox­ide in the air.

...

And with severe water short­ages loom­ing over all these won­der­ful mega-cities and boom­ing pop­u­la­tions around the world, we might see a lot more uni­lat­eral geo-engineering like this in the not too dis­tant future:

Time
Sci­en­tists Cre­ate 52 Arti­fi­cial Rain Storms in Abu Dhabi Desert
By Josh San­burn | @joshsanburn | Jan­u­ary 3, 2011

Hail, light­ning and gales came through the state’s east­ern region this sum­mer thanks to scientist-puppetmasters.

As part of a secret pro­gram to con­trol the weather in the Mid­dle East, sci­en­tists work­ing for the United Arab Emi­rates gov­ern­ment arti­fi­cially cre­ated rain where rain is gen­er­ally nowhere to be found. The $11 mil­lion project, which began in July, put steel lampshade-looking ion­iz­ers in the desert to pro­duce charged par­ti­cles. The neg­a­tively charged ions rose with the hot air, attract­ing dust. Mois­ture then con­densed around the dust and even­tu­ally pro­duced a rain cloud. A bunch of rain clouds.

On the 52 days it rained in the region through­out July and August, fore­cast­ers did not pre­dict rain once.

...

Huh, so ion­iz­ers in the desert cat­alyzed the droplet for­ma­tion. Sounds famil­iar.

It looks like pub­lic sup­port for Putin’s “United Rus­sia” party is drop­ping and his response is to to order a sig­nif­i­cant change to the par­lia­men­tary rules that will allow his party to retain power more eas­ily:

Putin orders change in Russia’s par­lia­men­tary elec­tions
By David M. Her­szen­horn
| New York Times

Jan­u­ary 03, 2013

MOSCOW — Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin has ordered a major change in the rules for par­lia­men­tary elec­tions, a move that could help solid­ify his power and influ­ence toward the end of his cur­rent term and insu­late him from dwin­dling pub­lic sup­port for United Rus­sia, the party that nom­i­nated him and cur­rently holds a major­ity in Parliament.

At Putin’s direc­tion, half of the 450 seats in the State ­Duma, the lower house of Par­lia­ment, would be filled using a pro­por­tional sys­tem based on votes for par­ties, with each party then fill­ing its allot­ted seats.

The other half would be filled by direct elec­tion of indi­vid­ual can­di­dates, cre­at­ing a poten­tial open­ing for inde­pen­dent cam­paigns.

The new sys­tem, which the Cen­tral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion is expected to unveil in com­ing weeks, replaces a sys­tem of strict party-list vot­ing. It would be the sec­ond major change to the par­lia­men­tary vot­ing process in less than a decade and essen­tially amounts to a return to a sys­tem that had been in place until 2003. The pro­posal also comes just a year after alle­ga­tions of fraud in the par­lia­men­tary elec­tions in Decem­ber 2011 set off a wave of huge street protests in Moscow.

But while the prospect of indi­vid­ual can­di­da­cies sug­gests a lib­er­al­iz­ing of a polit­i­cal sys­tem often crit­i­cized as heav­ily tilted in favor of Putin and the gov­ern­ing author­i­ties, his­tory shows that they can actu­ally have the oppo­site effect.

This is because indi­vid­u­als endorsed by the major­ity party tend to have an advan­tage in name recog­ni­tion and resources in local races, and because can­di­dates who run as inde­pen­dents can often be enticed to join the major­ity party when the new Par­lia­ment is formed, using perks offered by the pres­i­den­tial admin­is­tra­tion.

In neigh­bor­ing Ukraine, the adop­tion of a mixed elec­toral sys­tem like the one pro­posed by Putin helped Pres­i­dent Vik­tor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions win more seats in elec­tions this fall, despite pub­lic opin­ion polls — and even elec­tion results — that showed sup­port for the party had dropped.

...

Putin’s author­i­tar­ian incli­na­tions and deep ties to Russia’s intel­li­gence and oli­garchs com­mu­ni­ties have always left Russia’s future some­what in doubt. And then there are the, um, ‘issues’ oppo­si­tion lead­ers also have to work through that also leave Russia’s future some­what in doubt. The far-right ‘nation­al­ist’ con­tin­gent of the oppo­si­tion team­ing up with young ide­al­ist has a “Mus­lim Broth­er­hood is going to take over after the youth does the rev­o­lu­tion­ary ground­work” kind of feel to it. Hope­fully some good can come from this new set rules and we’ll see a shift­ing of alliances that allows for an oppo­si­tion coali­tion to emerge that has a real chance at giv­ing Rus­sia a non-fascist future. Of course, that also means the nationalists/fascists might start get­ting poached by “United Rus­sia” in the new sys­tem and who knows how that kind of devel­op­ment could play out. Like “United Rus­sia”, Russia’s per capita influ­ence is ele­vated, to say the least. The country’s fate is poised impact the course of human­ity over the next cen­tury so it’s always a trou­bling devel­op­ment when news like this gets reported.

As a cit­i­zen of the US — another coun­try that dra­mat­i­cally impacts the global com­mu­nity with an even higher per capita influ­ence — all I can say is “Phew! Good thing crises con­trived by far-right power net­works using rigged vot­ing sys­tems could never hap­pen here!”