Why is it that with weather manipulation never having been a topic before, EVER, except in some fringe circles - to the point that even among conspiracy theorists it was a fairly fringe theory. There was talk of “chemtrails”, but not even a ton of that, and the main concern there was that it was poisoning us, not that it was cu freak weather events
Suddenly, within 1-2 years it’s gone from not really even being a topic among conspiracy theorists to where even normies are well versed in it, acting like cloud seeding has always been a thing, Meanwhile, liberals, who have said for years that the weather has to be changed to undo the effects of climate change, are now concurrently claiming that there is no way anyone could ever change the weather.
Nevermind the [potential] weather manipulation itself, what the crap sort of sudden mass narrative formation is this, and where did it come from? The stories about weather manipulation formed as fast as the tornados and deluges. Where are they getting these sudden talking points from?
Cloud-seeding began in the late 1940s, before I was born. (If you are in your twenties or thirties, I could be your grandfather.) It IS normal, and nobody talks about it because it is Old Hat. I remember viewing a short documentary video about it on early 1960s television. HAARP has no more effect on weather than bats have on the bells in a belfry. The left specializes in picking up stupid ideas and pushing them hard.
Cloud seeding is weather manipulation. It was done in the past by the CIA/military to affect crop production. A method of war. Just because it's been done a long time doesn't make it 'normal' weather manipulation vs abnormal. It's manipulation for negative effect. You think technology took a seat and was satisfied with cloud-seeding, when heating the ionosphere and steering the result was possible? Are you really that far behind the times on technology? I'm probably older than you,and have studied frequency and related tech most my life, and I'm prepared to discuss how it most certainly does exist and how it operates.
ELF waves and heating the ionosphere are both 'Old Hat' tech now. It was old when this book came out in 1998. https://www.amazon.com/HAARP-Ultimate-Weapon-Conspiracy-Mind-Control/dp/0932813534
Did you read it or others that detail?
Don't try to pull the age card, grandpa, I still have the newspaper I kept after the jfk assassination.
Now would you like to discuss killer space robot tech?
Cloud seeding is what it is, and it began after World War II in the civilian sphere, and still is being done in the civilian sphere---for beneficial effect. Agent Orange was not cloud seeding, but was intended to deprive the Viet Cong of any concealment beneath tree canopies. Heating the ionosphere has no effect on lower layers of the atmosphere, since the ionosphere is virtually a vacuum. The amount of heat deposited is trivial compared to any self-respecting thunderstorm. It will be a close race as to who is older. Did you watch the TV program "Men Into Space"? You can talk about frequency etc., but I spent years designing, and analyzing the effects of, directed energy weapons.
HAARP transmits between 2.7 and 10 MHz. ELF is from 3 to 30 Hz. Not a match.
I didn't keep the U.S. News and World Report magazines I read in the lead-up to the 1960 election. Nor the news accounts of Gagarin's orbital flight.
What do you want to know about killer space robot tech? It goes back to Project Defender's Ballistic Missile Boost Intercept concept (BAMBI) of the 1960s. Essentially Brilliant Pebbles before Lowell Wood came along and thought he was being original. I originated the patent that got Boeing into a competition for a Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP), and we developed and captive flight-tested the first solid-propellant, three-axis-stabilized kill projectile before 1990. Its derivative is flying as the warhead on the Standard SM-3 missile.
Great...but off the subject....and so why do you say using frequency manipulation of weather isn't a thing?
You can talk old missile technology all you want, but it's irrelevant to the subject.
Making blank negative statements without qualifier doesn't count as point.
Yes, heating the ionosphere does produce various effect and that can be qualified by the fact the HAARP does indeed exist. Nor is the tech limited to HAARP. I have background in frequency studies, as I mentioned and understand the concepts and their use.
What do you know about triggering effects by robot/satellite using laser and directed energy? What do you know about scalar energy? Those are germane to the issue here, not solid fueled rockets. I have no problem with scientific discussions or technology of any kind, and being a descendant of Lester Hendershot, I know how real technology can be rejected and demonized and then co-opted by lesser and/or darker minds.
Oh, and by the way. You should know that U.S. News and World Report is a Company rag. You should have switched to Scientific American or hell, even Omni magazine discussed frequency tech, in order to make it appear as if it's science fiction, being another company rag.
How can it be? Either water soaks up microwaves and they simply cannot impart enough energy to make a difference, or the microwaves pass through without absorption. HAARP makes effects on the ionosphere, detected by other instrumentation.
Just pointing out that we have a history of technology and I am familiar with it.
Heating the ionosphere means nothing to the lower layers of the atmosphere. I have a background in atmospheric physics.
What do you want to know about "triggering effects"? I suspect you don't know anything, because there are no space-based lasers or microwave power satellites. The microwave power concepts are chosen BECAUSE they will not interact with weather phenomena. "Scalar energy" is a hobgoblin. I notice so far in this discussion that you allege all kinds of technical familiarity, but I seem to be the only one providing specific information.
In the lead-up to the 1960 election, USNW was a more objective news source than Time or Newsweek. I used to read Scientific American, until it went off the rails in the 1980s concerning the Strategic Defense Initiative.