Oxford2bphd2bholder 2b25e22580259cthere2bhas2bbeen2bno2bcompletely2b2527natural2bweather2bfor2bdecades.25e22580259d.jpg

Oxford PhD Holder: “There Has Been No Completely ‘Natural Weather for Decades.”

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.

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

By Joseph P. Farrell, PhD

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”.