Thursday, April 30, 2015

Land Grab Scams

All Easements are bad for property owners.
State Law allows for easements of all sorts. Homeowners have easements noted on the plats of their property. Farmers have easements as well. These easements restrict what the property owner can do in the areas where the easements exist. Easements from the centerline of roads can be “taken” by local government to widen roads without compensating the property owner for the “taking” of their land. Most of these easements are excessive. The law needs to be revised to conform to the US Constitution (as written) that guarantees “just compensation” for a government land grab. Unnecessary environmental laws also render land unusable. See:  The article below
Attorney calls easements a ‘government land grab’ Posted on April 29, 2015 Written by hpj.com
In recent years, con­ser­va­tion easements—agreements between landown­ers and non­profit organizations—have gained pop­u­lar­ity as a way to pro­tect wildlife, pro­vide var­i­ous kinds of tax exemp­tions as well as pre­vent land and min­eral devel­op­ment with an eye toward per­ma­nent preservation.
At the same time, there has been con­cerns these ease­ments have caused ero­sion of local tax bases and prop­erty deval­u­a­tions, along with imposed man­age­ment restric­tions, arbi­trary con­trac­tual lan­guage and fears of close rela­tion­ships between multi­na­tional envi­ron­men­tal groups, fed­eral agen­cies and land trusts.
The Kansas Nat­ural Resource Coali­tion, an orga­ni­za­tion of 32 county gov­ern­men­tal units orig­i­nally joined together to fight the list­ing of the lesser prairie-chicken onto the Endan­gered Species List, has since expanded its mis­sion to include what a brochure said is the “col­lec­tive coor­di­na­tion of nat­ural resource con­ser­va­tion and envi­ron­men­tal pro­grams with fed­eral and state gov­ern­men­tal agen­cies,” recently spon­sored a forum at Oak­ley, Kansas, to “unearth facts, facil­i­tate pub­lic dia­logue and develop aware­ness of con­ser­va­tion ease­ment pro­grams, ben­e­fits, restric­tions and ramifications.”
The con­fer­ence included pre­sen­ta­tions from:
—Har­ri­ett Hage­man, a Cheyenne, Wyoming, attor­ney whose prac­tice is actively involved in address­ing the impact of fed­eral and state reg­u­la­tions on land and water use;
—Jesse Richard­son, a land-use pro­fes­sor from the West Vir­ginia Uni­ver­sity Col­lege of Law;
—Kimmi Lewis, a Kim, Col­orado, rancher who is the imme­di­ate past pres­i­dent of the Col­orado affil­i­ate of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stock­grow­ers of Amer­ica, and;
—Ric Frost, a for­mer reg­is­tered water rights adju­di­ca­tion medi­a­tor for the New Mex­ico Third Dis­trict Court and for­mer senior pol­icy ana­lyst with Land and Water USA.
Hage­man, as keynote speaker, said there needs to be more pub­lic dis­cus­sion about the value of con­ser­va­tion ease­ments and the impli­ca­tions they bring to coun­ties in terms of tax­a­tion and long-term prop­erty man­age­ment issues.
Those issues include par­tial own­er­ship of the land by the grantor of the ease­ment while relin­quish­ing the right to use the land for development.
“It often lim­its all devel­op­ment,” Hage­man said. “That includes min­eral devel­op­ment and that sort of thing.”
Ease­ments are con­tracts, and the lan­guage that is used, Hage­man said, will dic­tate how the con­tract is enforced. Often, the ease­ment can be trans­ferrable by the grantee, and some­times, the per­mis­sion of the landowner-grantee is not needed.
“That means you may very well find your­self as the landowner being a part­ner with some­one you never entered into that con­tract with. That can be the fed­eral gov­ern­ment, it can be another land trust, all dif­fer­ent things,” Hageman said.
If the land is sold, the ease­ment remains in perpetuity.
“It doesn’t mat­ter who the land is sold to. It runs with the land,” Hage­man said. “It is held in per­pe­tu­ity. In Wyoming, we inter­pret that to be 999 years. All future landown­ers are bound by the terms of that deed.”
There are tax incen­tives asso­ci­ated with ease­ments and dis­as­ters, too, Hage­man said.
“In Col­orado, when they started pushed (sic) these conserva­tion ease­ments, one of the things they did was require peo­ple to have their land appraised,” Hage­man said. “The land was appraised at higher val­ues than what they ulti­mately were worth. So they got high tax incen­tives. Now, the IRS is attempt­ing to claw back those tax incen­tives. Farm­ers and ranch­ers are now going broke pay­ing the gov­ern­ment the tax relief they never should have received in the first place.”
Hage­man said ease­ments devalue the largest sin­gle hold­ing farm­ers and ranch­ers have.
“The rea­son there is a tax con­se­quence is that there is a dif­fer­ence between the value of the before the ease­ment is granted as com­pared with the value after it’s granted,” Hage­man said. “Ease­ments are inten­tion­ally designed to devalue your property.”
Kansas is the state with the fewest num­ber of fed­er­ally owned acres, Hage­man said.
“I envy you, because com­ing from a state that is made of 50 per­cent gov­ern­ment land, you have a heavy fed­eral impact on what hap­pens in your state,” Hage­man said. “There is an $11 bil­lion main­te­nance back­log in the national parks, which means the coun­try can­not take care of the lands it already has. It’s one of the rea­sons I believe there is such a push for con­ser­va­tion easements.”
With ease­ments, Hage­man said, the IRS can dic­tate land use deci­sions while some­one else is respon­si­ble for the maintenance.
“We need to be talk­ing to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment about man­ag­ing the resources it already has before we start restrict­ing and imping­ing upon pri­vate prop­erty rights through con­ser­va­tion ease­ments,” Hage­man said.
There are plenty of com­pet­ing demands for pri­vate prop­erty, Hage­man said, rang­ing from agri­cul­tural, to indus­trial, to com­mer­cial, to residential.
“There’s oil and gas and min­eral extrac­tion, recre­ation, schools. We have a lim­ited num­ber of acres and munic­i­pal­i­ties that are grow­ing along with high demands for food pro­duc­tion and higher demands for lands for recre­ational use,” Hage­man said.
“So we have to be care­ful about what kinds of restric­tions we want to put on pri­vate prop­erty ownership.”
Amer­ica is fed­er­al­iz­ing its pri­vate prop­erty rights, Hage­man said.
“We are allow­ing gov­ern­ment agen­cies and non-profits to make deci­sions regard­ing land use and we are slowly allow­ing the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to take our pri­vate prop­erty rights by tol­er­at­ing per­pet­ual con­ser­va­tion ease­ments. The man­ner by which this is hap­pen­ing is largely under the radar,” Hage­man said.
She listed a num­ber of orga­ni­za­tions that receive fed­eral dol­lars annu­ally for man­ag­ing ease­ments, rang­ing from $1 mil­lion to the Amer­i­can Farm­land Trust to $100 mil­lion to the Nature Con­ser­vancy, as well as the NRCS award­ing $328 mil­lion for 328 ease­ments in the 2014 allo­ca­tion in the Agri­cul­tural Con­ser­va­tion Ease­ment Program.
“I believe it’s a gov­ern­ment land grab. I’m going to be blunt,” Hage­man said. “Ease­ments become not a means to pro­tect private-sector land through a part­ner­ship between landowner and land trust but are a non-transparent tool for gov­ern­ment to obtain pri­vate prop­erty with­out pub­lic knowl­edge or approval.”
Round­ing out the con­fer­ence was a ques­tion and answer panel dis­cus­sion between Hage­man and Lewis along with Lynn Thur­low, U.S. Depart­ment of Agri­cul­ture Nat­ural Resources Con­ser­va­tion Ser­vice Kansas soil con­ser­va­tion­ist and ease­ment pro­grams coor­di­na­tor; Mike Beam, exec­u­tive vice pres­i­dent of the Kansas Live­stock Asso­ci­a­tion; and Stan­ley Ras­mussen, act­ing direc­tor of the Cen­tral Regional Envi­ron­men­tal and Energy Office for the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of the Army for Instal­la­tions, Energy and Environment.
Jim Carl­son of Gar­den City, Kansas-based Still­wa­ter Tech­ni­cal Solu­tions, who serves as KNRC exec­u­tive direc­tor, led the discussion.
Related Posts
  • Comments
    In recent times we have seen a resurgence of aggressive actions taken by government to seize property and water rights from private property owners.  They are implementing UN Agenda 21 and the Wildings Project aimed at eliminating all private property ownership. Voters need to push back on this unconstitutional activity that violates private property rights. This affront can come from “endangered species”, EPA, BLM, Forest Service, Interior, or State agencies.
    Government has seized pigs and had them destroyed because they were different, seized milk and destroyed it for no good reason, attempted to ban free-range chickens, attempted to declare wetlands that weren’t wetlands, closed fisheries and relocated wolves next to cattle ranches.
    State laws fail to protect property owners from city and county government.  Instead, state laws allow municipalities to do anything they want without voter approval.  UN Agenda 21 implementing consulting and engineering firms are writing city ordinances and running the cities. Cities are increasing the scope and cost of permits, fees, inspections and fines to increase their revenue. City Councils and County Commissions rarely push back and rarely side with the voters.
    Even sidewalk installation is imposed by cities, taking part of everybody’s front yard to build “public space” based on centerline easements. But the property owner gets to continue to pay the same property tax and is responsible for replacing the sidewalk when it breaks or be subject to fines. Cities have plans to put permanent multi-use trails through homeowners’ lots (public space) reducing the value of their home. Voters need to push back.
    Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader 
     
     

GOP Can Get Swing Voters

By DICK MORRIS, Published on TheHill.com on April 28, 2015
 
A false choice dominates current Republican thinking: You have to move to the center to get independents, even though it offends your base and your principles, or you must run to the right, lose swing voters and pray that higher turnout will help you win.
 
But that dichotomy applies only to social issues like abortion or gay marriage, where the extremes of both sides distrust the middle.
 
There are a great number of ways to capture swing voters without compromising the conservative base, issues that animate and motivate the base but also attract independent voters.
 
These are the issues that Republicans can use to win.
 
Immigration and income inequality: Swing voters oppose President Obama's amnesty for illegal immigrants and are appalled by his open border that lets in hundreds of thousands of Central American kids who show up on our doorstep.
 
But while Republicans see immigration as a law and order or cultural values issue, swing voters see it as an economic challenge. For them, immigration and income inequality merge as political issues.
 
The essence of triangulation is to use your tools to fix their car. Use the tool of opposition to illegal immigration to fix the economic inequality car. Republicans should oppose illegal immigration because of its economic impact on American workers. The millions who come here and settle on the bottom of the economic ladder block the upward progress of those already on the lower rungs who want to move up.
 
The Center for Immigration Studies reports that Census data show the proportion of native-born Americans who have full-time jobs has risen by only 0.1 percent since 2000, while among other groups (legal and illegal immigrants and naturalized citizens) it has risen by 5.7 percent in the same period. Virtually all jobs created since 2000 have gone to people who were not born in the United States.
 
Blue-collar Americans have always been threatened by immigration and remain so today. Republicans can win their votes.
 
ObamaCare: From the beginning, Americans have opposed ObamaCare. The latest Rasmussen poll (April 27), like so many others, shows 54 percent disapprove of the program, compared to 42 percent who view it favorably. Republicans can attract swing voters by pounding away at the healthcare reform law. It was Mitt Romney's handicap in 2012 that his record in Massachusetts made him unable to do so.
 
But while Republicans should attack the law's mandates, taxes, lack of choice, quality of care and every other aspect, they should take care to support its ban on rejecting pre-existing conditions and on terminating coverage or raising rates during illness. Otherwise, have at it!
 
Wall Street: Republicans must reject the Wall Street wing of the party and go after the small-business owner and entrepreneur instead. These voters -- and almost all swing voters -- share the view that Wall Street is predatory, self-interested, fraudulent and deceitful. They blanch at the fact that none of the miscreants who caused the sub-prime crisis is in jail or every likely to go there. Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) arguments cater to voters of all types, and Republicans should pick up her lines of attack.
 
Guns: There has been an important change in popular attitudes toward guns. In 1990, Gallup reported that 78 percent of Americans favored stricter gun controls while 19 percent wanted looser controls or supported the current law. Now it's reversed. Only 47 percent want stricter controls and 52 percent support current law or want less regulation. In 1993, Americans said that having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place, 52 percent to 42 percent. Now they say it makes home a safer place, 63 percent to 30 percent. Swings like this offer enormous political opportunities to use guns to pick up swing voters (not necessarily AK-47 assault rifles, but handguns).
 
These issues are the real way to win elections. Keep your base but reach out to the center on the issues over which you find common ground.
 
Source: Dick Morris Published on TheHill.com on April 28, 2015
 
Comments
Republicans should vow to stop all immigration including illegal, legal, refugees and amnesty and demand that we enforce current immigration laws to make jobs available to US citizens.  Insisting on 2nd Amendment Rights is necessary. Republicans need to widely publish their Obamacare Replacement Bill along with a seamless conversion plan.  Republicans need to pass resolutions naming global warming a hoax and a Bill to repeal EPA regulations.  Republicans need a Bill to close the USDOE and scrap Common Core and quit the UN. Half-measures aren’t enough.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Chemtrails Exposed

A History of the New Manhattan Project Posted on April 29, 2015 Written by activistpost.com
“Dis­cov­er­ies and inven­tions are not ter­mi­nals; they are fresh start­ing points from which we can climb to new knowl­edge.” — Dr. Willis R. Whit­ney, founder of Gen­eral Elec­tric Laboratories
After so many years of watch­ing air­planes pro­duce the lines in the sky, largely with­out know­ing of what this Project con­sists or why, we have recently gained an under­stand­ing. Evi­dence sug­gests that today’s chem­trail spray­ing oper­a­tions con­sist of air­planes sat­u­rat­ing our atmos­phere with nano-sized par­ti­cles influ­enced by elec­tro­mag­netic energy for the pur­pose of weather modification.
U.S. patent #4,686,605 “Method and Appa­ra­tus for Alter­ing a Region in the Earth’s Atmos­phere, Ionos­phere and/or Mag­ne­tos­phere” shows how stratos­pheric and tro­pos­pheric aerosols can be manip­u­lated using elec­tro­mag­netic energy in order to mod­ify the weather. The ground-based anten­nas (known as ionos­pheric heaters) needed to pro­duce the appro­pri­ate elec­tro­mag­netic energy exist. For a detailed dis­cus­sion, please see the author’s pre­vi­ous arti­cle “Smok­ing Gun: The HAARP and Chem­trails Con­nec­tion.”
The 1996 U.S. mil­i­tary doc­u­ment “Weather as a Force Mul­ti­plier: Own­ing the Weather in 2025″ out­lines a pro­gram using aerosols sprayed from air­planes which are then manip­u­lated with elec­tro­mag­netic energy in order to mod­ify the weather. This doc­u­ment will be dis­cussed shortly.
The com­mon thread here is weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion; or as the Library of Con­gress calls it, “weather con­trol.” Lots of other evi­dence sup­port­ing this asser­tion exists as well, but these two doc­u­ments are the most salient.
Motives are plenty. Most notably, sig­nif­i­cant direct ben­e­fits can be gained by play­ing finan­cial mar­kets which rise and fall with the weather such as the weather deriv­a­tives and cat­a­stro­phe rein­sur­ance mar­kets; not to men­tion agri­cul­tural and energy com­modi­ties. Enron pio­neered the mar­kets. With fore­knowl­edge of the weather, so many scams could be con­cocted that it bog­gles the mind. Weather rou­tinely changes the course of Human his­tory. It deter­mines what we do every day. It deter­mines the out­comes of wars and influ­ences elec­tions. Con­trol of the weather is God-like power. Money and power junkies want it.
Con­trol­ling Earth’s weather would nec­es­sar­ily require a gigan­tic sci­en­tific effort. Oddly enough, when one looks for a National effort in weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion, one finds a lot. Specif­i­cally, if one looks, one can find a his­tory of weather con­trol pro­grams involv­ing elec­tro­mag­netic energy and atmos­pheric par­ti­cles; all in a coher­ent chrono­log­i­cal order.
This paper is the result of thou­sands of dol­lars and count­less hours spent research­ing many thou­sands of pages of source, orga­ni­za­tional and Gov­ern­ment doc­u­ments related to weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion and the atmos­pheric sci­ences. This arti­cle serves as the foun­da­tion for a series of shortly forth­com­ing arti­cles detail­ing the his­tory and cur­rent state of this Project. May this work help end the spray­ing. For the fact that these envi­ron­men­tal mod­i­fi­ca­tions have been done with­out our informed con­sent, may this work con­tribute to the largest class-action law­suit in history.
This paper exam­ines the ori­gins and devel­op­ment of this; the first plan­e­tary level sci­en­tific endeavor. Now is our oppor­tu­nity to gain a deeper under­stand­ing of the New Man­hat­tan Project.
The Ori­gins of Weather Modification
Peo­ple have been attempt­ing to mod­ify the weather for ever. Most com­monly, man has gone about mak­ing it rain; espe­cially in times of drought. The ear­li­est recorded efforts were those of mys­tics. Local shaman would be called upon to ingest a cer­tain con­coc­tion in order to com­mu­ni­cate with the weather gods and ask for help. In some cases, the sac­ri­fice of cer­tain ani­mals in cer­tain fash­ions may have been the thing to do. Some­times a good old rain dance may have done the trick.
Some early West­ern efforts to stop destruc­tive weather are out­lined in pro­fes­sor James Fleming’s book Fix­ing the Sky. On page 78 he writes, “In ancient Greece, the offi­cial ‘hail war­dens’ of Cleonae were appointed at pub­lic expense to watch for hail and then sig­nal the farm­ers to offer blood sac­ri­fices to pro­tect their fields: a lamb, a chicken, or even a poor man draw­ing blood from his fin­ger was deemed sufficient.”
A lit­tle later pro­fes­sor Flem­ing writes, “In Aus­tria, it was tra­di­tional to ring ‘thun­der bells’ or blow on huge ‘weather horns’ while herds­men set up a ter­rific howl and women rat­tled chains and beat milk pails to scare away the destruc­tive spirit of the storm.”
Much of the early West­ern attempts at weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion involved the det­o­na­tion of explo­sive charges in the lower atmos­phere. It was hypoth­e­sized that atmos­pheric explo­sions cause precipitation.
Early Amer­i­can Involvement
Although there has been much inter­na­tional par­tic­i­pa­tion, this arti­cle focuses on America’s par­tic­i­pa­tion in the New Man­hat­tan Project. Through­out the devel­op­ment of the New Man­hat­tan Project, Amer­ica was the world’s tech­no­log­i­cal leader; espe­cially in the area of mil­i­tary tech­nol­ogy. Amer­ica led the way and devel­oped most of this Project. Amer­ica con­tin­ues to lead the Project today. There­fore the early his­tory of weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion in Amer­ica is relevant.
James Pol­lard Espy (1785–1860) also known as “The Storm King” was the first mete­o­rol­o­gist in U.S. gov­ern­ment ser­vice. Although he never received Fed­eral fund­ing for it, he sug­gested that for­est fires can pro­duce rain­fall and that exper­i­ments in this area should be car­ried out. His mag­num opus was a book called The Phi­los­o­phy of Storms. This book con­tains a long sec­tion enti­tled “Arti­fi­cial Rains.”
The first Fed­er­ally funded weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion field effort took place in Texas in 1891, with funds appro­pri­ated by the Con­gress in the amount of nine thou­sand dol­lars through the Depart­ment of Agri­cul­ture. The exper­i­ment involved weather mod­i­fier Robert St. George Dyren­forth (1844–1910) attack­ing the atmos­phere with bal­loons, kites, dyna­mite, mor­tars, smoke bombs and fire­works. The results were incon­clu­sive, but you can bet that the atmos­phere was absolutely terrified!
From these early efforts until the begin­ning of the sci­en­tific era in 1946, the realm of weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion was inhab­ited largely by a mot­ley col­lec­tion of pseudo-scientists and con artists sim­i­lar to Dyren­forth. These peo­ple, who referred to them­selves as “rain­mak­ers,” trav­eled around the Coun­try (mostly the West), going where local gov­ern­ments were will­ing to pay for their ser­vices. If a cer­tain region was expe­ri­enc­ing a severe drought, peo­ple were often des­per­ate for solu­tions. These rain­mak­ers’ activ­i­ties often involved the mix­ing and open air release of dan­ger­ous chem­i­cals. Some of these efforts were Fed­er­ally funded. Since the days of Robert Dyren­forth, the Fed­eral money has not stopped flowing.
Nikola Tesla
In the late 1800s, inven­tor Nikola Tesla (1856–1943) pop­u­lar­ized the use of elec­tro­mag­netic energy. In his 1905 United States patent num­ber 787,412 “Art of Trans­mit­ting Elec­tri­cal Energy Through the Nat­ural Medi­ums” Tesla describes how elec­tro­mag­netic energy may be sent and received through the atmos­phere. The Supreme Court found that U.S. patent #645,576 “Sys­tem of Trans­mis­sion of Elec­tri­cal Energy” proves he invented radio; not Mar­coni. He pio­neered radar. He invented wire­less sig­nal and power trans­mis­sion. Yes, power can be trans­mit­ted wire­lessly; we’ll have more about that later.
Tesla’s mus­ings and sci­en­tific dis­cov­er­ies pio­neered what are today’s ionos­pheric heaters which use elec­tro­mag­netic energy to cause atmos­pheric per­tur­ba­tions from great dis­tances and play a defin­ing role in the New Man­hat­tan Project. Specif­i­cally, he pio­neered the use of a cer­tain type of elec­tro­mag­netic energy called extremely-low fre­quency (ELF). This is a spe­cific type of energy known to be used in the New Man­hat­tan Project; the other being very-low fre­quency (VLF) elec­tro­mag­netic energy.
In her book Tesla: Man Out of Time, Mar­garet Cheney writes that he did a good deal of the­o­riz­ing about weather con­trol. She also writes that he the­o­rized that the entire earth might be illu­mi­nated by shoot­ing elec­tro­mag­netic energy 35,000 feet up into the atmos­phere. 35,000 feet is about the alti­tude of today’s offend­ing airplanes.
The Begin­ning of the Sci­en­tific Era
The sci­en­tific era of weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion began famously in 1946 with a trio of sci­en­tists from Gen­eral Elec­tric Lab­o­ra­to­ries: Irv­ing Lang­muir, Vin­cent Schae­fer and Bernard Von­negut. Lead­ing the group was the world famous Nobel Peace Prize win­ning sci­en­tist Irv­ing Lang­muir (1881–1957). This trio pop­u­lar­ized the fact that, under cer­tain cir­cum­stances, dump­ing sub­stances from air­planes into clouds causes pre­cip­i­ta­tion. Early exper­i­ments used dry ice while later exper­i­ments pio­neered the use of sil­ver iodide. Also invented were sil­ver iodide gen­er­a­tion equip­ment and many other weather related sci­en­tific instru­ments. Much of this trio’s work here was done in coop­er­a­tion with the Office of Naval Research and the Air Force. Although oth­ers had pre­vi­ously dumped stuff out of air­planes in attempts to mod­ify the weather, the G.E. sci­en­tists prac­ticed a sound sci­en­tific method pre­vi­ously unseen in the field.
Fol­low­ing the famous sci­en­tific weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion efforts of the G.E. Labs trio, the public’s imag­i­na­tion was sparked and a gov­ern­ment reg­u­lated weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion indus­try flour­ished. To this day, the government-regulated weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion indus­try (or “con­ven­tional” weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion indus­try as we will call it) expels dry ice, lead iodide or sil­ver iodide (usu­ally sil­ver iodide) from airplanes.
How­ever, the con­ven­tional weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion indus­try is dis­tinct from the New Man­hat­tan Project and there­fore is not the focus of this arti­cle. The New Man­hat­tan Project employs elec­tro­mag­netic energy to manip­u­late dis­persed par­ti­cles while con­ven­tional weather mod­i­fiers do not. Also, con­ven­tional weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion efforts are con­ducted on a regional basis while the New Man­hat­tan Project is global.
Not long after the sci­en­tific break­throughs of the G.E. Labs trio, fueled by high level polit­i­cal rhetoric and pop­u­lar inter­est, the United States fed­eral gov­ern­ment began pour­ing hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars annu­ally into basic atmos­pheric research. Since then, the United States gov­ern­ment is admit­ted to have spent many tens of bil­lions of dol­lars on weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion and the atmos­pheric sci­ences. Much of that was expended in 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s dol­lars. If one is to con­trol the weather, one must know how the atmos­phere works. Or as geo­engi­neer Dr. Clement J. Todd wrote in 1970, “Our abil­ity to man­age pre­cip­i­ta­tion depends upon four fac­tors: (1) under­stand­ing the phys­i­cal processes of the atmos­phere, (2) real-time knowl­edge of the weather we wish to manip­u­late, (3) devis­ing the opti­mum treat­ment mate­r­ial and tech­nique, and (4) deliv­ery of that treat­ment to the cloud where and when we wish.”
The major­ity of the vast expanses of lit­er­a­ture per­tain­ing to weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion and the atmos­pheric sci­ences is geared towards con­ven­tional weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion. How­ever, both the New Man­hat­tan Project and con­ven­tional weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion are sup­ported by basic atmos­pheric research. So, buried in this body of lit­er­a­ture, one may find glimpses of the New Man­hat­tan Project. The rest of this paper recounts these glimpses.
Bernard Von­negut
One mem­ber of the G.E. Labs trio, Bernard Von­negut (1914–1997) went on to pio­neer weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion research involv­ing the use of arti­fi­cial elec­tric charges and atmos­pheric aerosols. His work in this area was per­formed under Gov­ern­ment con­tracts out­sourced to a research and devel­op­ment firm called Arthur D. Lit­tle Inc.
The ear­li­est recorded instances of elec­tric­ity being inten­tion­ally used to mod­ify par­ti­cles in the atmos­phere can be found in the 1884 exper­i­ments of Sir Oliver Lodge (1851–1940). The 1918 U.S. patent #1,279,823 “Process and Appa­ra­tus for Caus­ing Pre­cip­i­ta­tion by Coa­les­cence of Aque­ous Par­ti­cles Con­tained in the Atmos­phere” by J.G. Bal­sil­lie built upon Lodge’s work. Using this knowl­edge as a basis, Mr. Von­negut resumed Lodge’s work; this time with mas­sive fund­ing and mod­ern­ized sci­en­tific equipment.
Begin­ning in 1953, Bernard Von­negut, Arthur D. Lit­tle et al., con­ducted exper­i­ments involv­ing stain­less steel wires miles long strung from the tops of tele­phone poles, con­nected to a power sup­ply and dis­charg­ing corona. The coro­nal discharge’s effect upon ambi­ent aerosols and the clouds above was mon­i­tored and ana­lyzed. Through 1961, these exper­i­ments were car­ried out in Mass­a­chu­setts, New Hamp­shire, Texas, Illi­nois and New Mex­ico. These types of exper­i­ments are referred to as “space charge” exper­i­ments. The U.S. Sig­nal Corps and the U. S. Coast Guard pro­vided sup­port. Oth­ers per­formed sim­i­lar experiments.
The 1958 “Final Report of the Advi­sory Com­mit­tee on Weather Con­trol” con­tained an arti­cle by Bernard Von­negut, Vin­cent Schae­fer, J. S. Bar­rows and Paul Mac­Cready titled “The Future.” In it they out­line an atmos­phere sat­u­rated with “chem­i­cals” and “alter­ing” atmos­pheric elec­tri­cal vari­ables. It reads:
When the nature of thun­der­storm elec­tri­fi­ca­tion is under­stood it may prove pos­si­ble to con­trol this process by the intro­duc­tion of chem­i­cals into the atmos­phere or by alter­ing elec­tri­cal vari­ables. Such vari­ables might be atmos­pheric con­duc­tiv­ity, field, and space charge, or per­haps the corona giv­ing prop­er­ties of the earth’s surface.
When we become suf­fi­ciently sophis­ti­cated con­cern­ing the dynam­ics of the atmos­phere it is pos­si­ble that weather may be con­trolled by the large scale release of chem­i­cal or more prob­a­bly ther­monu­clear heat energy.
In 1961, Bernard Von­negut, Arnold W. Doyle and D. Read Mof­fett wrote a paper for Arthur D. Lit­tle titled “Research in Elec­tri­cal Phe­nom­ena Asso­ci­ated with Aerosols.” This was a report about their exper­i­ments of the pre­vi­ous 3 months involv­ing the effects of elec­tro­mag­netic energy upon a grounded sphere in a small cham­ber sur­rounded by gas. Please con­sider the impli­ca­tions of that. We will revisit this paper much later.
If you are won­der­ing… yes, Bernard Von­negut was related to the nov­el­ist Kurt Von­negut. They were brothers.
In 1958 the chief White House advi­sor on weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion, Cap­tain Howard T. Orville, said the U.S. defense depart­ment was study­ing “ways to manip­u­late the charges of the earth and sky and so affect the weather” by using an elec­tronic beam to ion­ize or de-ionize the atmos­phere over a given area.
The Depart­ment of Com­merce Weather Bureau reported in 1960 that they were con­duct­ing a weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion study in which, “Chem­i­cals are intro­duced into the cloud which notice­ably changes the sur­face ten­sion of the droplets. Elec­tri­fi­ca­tion effects are being observed by arti­fi­cially elec­tri­fy­ing the droplets and sub­ject­ing them to impressed elec­tric fields.”
For bet­ter or for worse, this super secret pro­gram had a prophet. His name was United States Navy Admi­ral William Fran­cis Raborn (1905–1990).
In the Jan­u­ary 1963 edi­tion of the U.S. Naval Insti­tute Pro­ceed­ings, Admi­ral Raborn out­lined a pro­gram using elec­tro­mag­netic energy to mod­ify the weather. His arti­cle was enti­tled “New Hori­zons of Naval Research and Devel­op­ment.” In this paper, under­neath the head­ing of ‘Envi­ron­men­tal War­fare’ he wrote:
The pos­si­bil­i­ties for the mil­i­tary employ­ment of the “weather weapon” may be as diverse as they are numer­ous. An abil­ity to con­trol the weather could intro­duce greater changes in war­fare than those which occurred in 1945 with the explo­sion of the first nuclear weapons.
A severe storm or hur­ri­cane strik­ing a naval force may well inflict greater dam­age than could an enemy. The capa­bil­ity to change the direc­tion of destruc­tive storms and guide them toward enemy con­cen­tra­tions may exist in the future arse­nal of the naval tac­ti­cal commander.
Ground, sea, air and amphibi­ous oper­a­tions might be sup­ported by the dis­si­pa­tion of fog or clouds, or by the pro­duc­tion of rain or drought. Con­versely, the cre­ation of solid, low over­casts might be used to con­ceal troop con­cen­tra­tions, move­ments, and task force deploy­ments. Large-scale weather con­trol tech­niques might be used to cause exten­sive flood­ing in strate­gic areas or even to bring a new “ice age” upon the enemy. By influ­enc­ing the ionos­phere and atmos­phere simul­ta­ne­ously, mag­netic, acoustic, and pres­sure effects might be gen­er­ated in such a way that ocean-wide sweep­ing of mines would occur.
Cre­at­ing or dis­si­pat­ing atmos­pheric temperature/humidity ducts might mod­ify the refrac­tive index of the atmos­phere enough to influ­ence radar or radio trans­mis­sion. Artificially-induced ionos­pheric storms might pro­duce a black­out of communications.
Cer­tain elec­tro­mag­netic waves are unable to pass through an area of pre­cip­i­ta­tion. A cloud seed­ing gen­er­a­tor could be employed under appro­pri­ate mete­o­ro­log­i­cal con­di­tions to pro­duce pre­cip­i­ta­tion that would inter­fere with the oper­a­tion of radio-guided or remotely-controlled devices or vehi­cles. We already have taken our first steps toward devel­op­ing an envi­ron­men­tal war­fare capa­bil­ity. We are using satel­lite weather data from Tiros II for cur­rent, tac­ti­cal oper­a­tions and more accu­rate, long-range weather pre­dic­tions. Some exper­i­ments in fog dis­si­pa­tion have shown promise, and some exploratory research has been con­ducted on ways to change the head­ing of major storms.
For these rea­sons — and because our advances in sci­ence make it rea­son­able — we are now engaged in plan­ning a ten-year, com­pre­hen­sive study of the atmos­phere, a study which we will des­ig­nate ATMOS. This plan will be co-ordinated with our TENOC oceano­graphic studies.
About the ATMOS pro­gram, the author has failed to find any other sig­nif­i­cant infor­ma­tion. The author has looked over a 1961 report per­tain­ing to the Navy TENOC (Ten Year Pro­gram in Oceanog­ra­phy) pro­gram. Although it did not con­tain any spe­cific infor­ma­tion per­ti­nent to the New Man­hat­tan Project, it did make men­tion of another, clas­si­fied TENOC report.
It is notable that the title of Raborn’s arti­cle includes the word “hori­zon” because the type of elec­tro­mag­netic energy to which he refers is akin to “over the hori­zon radar.” This type of radar is called “over the hori­zon” because it is bounced off the ionos­phere and there­fore is effec­tive far beyond the range of the forty miles or so (depend­ing on ter­rain) afforded by pre­vi­ous radar sys­tems. Forty miles is approx­i­mately the dis­tance one can see over flat land or sea before the cur­va­ture of the Earth obscures points beyond. Over the hori­zon radar, on the other hand, is effec­tive to thou­sands of miles. Today’s ionos­pheric heaters evolved as over the hori­zon radar.
Also of note is the fact that the United States Navy, of which Mr. Raborn was an admi­ral, is today one of the man­agers of the HAARP facil­ity in Alaska. The HAARP facil­ity con­tains the world’s most pow­er­ful ionos­pheric heater which is doc­u­mented to be able to mod­ify the weather.
In the 1967 National Sci­ence Foundation’s ninth annual weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion report, it reads, “ESSA [Envi­ron­men­tal Sci­ence Ser­vices Admin­is­tra­tion] is also inves­ti­gat­ing the effect of cir­rus clouds on the radi­a­tion bud­get of the atmos­phere by study­ing aircraft-produced con­trails which often spread into cir­rus lay­ers cov­er­ing con­sid­er­able frac­tions of the sky. One tech­nique pro­posed for mod­i­fy­ing lower cloud devel­op­ment has been the gen­er­a­tion of a high level cir­rus deck with jet air­craft. By inter­cept­ing solar radi­a­tion at high alti­tude it may be pos­si­ble to influ­ence larger scale cloud devel­op­ment else­where by reduc­ing solar input and reduc­ing con­vec­tive cloud gen­er­a­tion in areas where they are not needed.” This is essen­tially today’s geo­engi­neer­ing thesis.
A lit­tle later in that same report, it reads that their com­puter atmos­pheric sim­u­la­tions, or ‘mod­els’ as they call them, might sim­u­late, “…pro­duc­ing high-level cir­rus cloud cover over an area by means of jet air­craft, insert­ing par­tic­u­late mat­ter into the upper atmos­phere to alter the solar radi­a­tion bal­ance and the like.”
In 1966, the Inter­de­part­men­tal Com­mit­tee on Atmos­pheric Sci­ences Select Panel on Weather Mod­i­fi­ca­tion pro­duced a doc­u­ment titled “Present and Future Plans of Fed­eral Agen­cies in Weather-Climate Mod­i­fi­ca­tion.” On page 17 of this report, it reads, “It is antic­i­pated that there will be a few large-scale facil­i­ties funded for the test­ing of mod­i­fi­ca­tion schemes. Typ­i­cal schemes might be the sus­pen­sion of a spray noz­zle over a val­ley between two moun­tain peaks to pro­duce cloud-sized droplets into which elec­tri­cal charges can be intro­duced in either polar­ity, con­t­a­m­i­nants can be intro­duced, and the drop size spec­trum can be adjusted to any rea­son­able dis­tri­b­u­tion.” The Inter­de­part­men­tal Com­mit­tee on Atmos­pheric Sci­ences sub­se­quently agreed to pro­ceed with the devel­op­ment of a National Weather Mod­i­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram along the lines of this report.
The now defunct Inter­de­part­men­tal Com­mit­tee for Atmos­pheric Sci­ences (ICAS) was cre­ated by the Fed­eral Coun­cil for Sci­ence and Tech­nol­ogy in 1959 in order to over­see and coor­di­nate a wide range of basic atmos­pheric research orig­i­nat­ing from many pre­vi­ously dis­parate gov­ern­ment offices. Their focus was weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion. Mem­bers of the ICAS included the depart­ments of Agri­cul­ture, Com­merce, Defense, Inte­rior, Trans­porta­tion and State as well as the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency, the Energy Research and Devel­op­ment Admin­is­tra­tion, the National Aero­nau­tics and Space Admin­is­tra­tion and the National Sci­ence Foun­da­tion. These are the gov­ern­ment agen­cies which have been involved in weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion all along.
The ICAS pro­duced a series of semi-annual reports between 1960 and 1978. In these reports, ICAS mem­ber orga­ni­za­tions’ weather related sci­en­tific activ­i­ties and expen­di­tures were recounted. The ICAS reports’ areas of study included: Earth’s nat­ural geo­mag­netic energy, dif­fer­ent ways clouds form and dif­fer­ent ways they pre­cip­i­tate, light­ning, hur­ri­canes and other extreme weather, inad­ver­tent weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion, inten­tional weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion and extra-planetary atmos­pheres. The ICAS is duly noted here because so much of the his­tory of the New Man­hat­tan Project is accounted for in the pages of their reports.
In the 1969 ICAS report, under the head­ing of “Cloud Elec­tric­ity Mod­i­fi­ca­tion,” it is writ­ten that the National Sci­ence Foun­da­tion is devel­op­ing, “Means for inject­ing sig­nif­i­cant quan­ti­ties of charge arti­fi­cially into clouds…”
Again in this 1969 report, on page 37 it describes the Army’s inten­tions in the area of weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion. It reads, “Stud­ies will con­tinue on upper atmos­pheric struc­ture and dynam­ics, lasers and other elec­tro­mag­netic prop­a­ga­tion, and acoustic prop­a­ga­tion. New approaches to atmos­pheric mod­i­fi­ca­tion will be studied.”
On page 42 of the 1971 ICAS spe­cial report “A National Pro­gram for Accel­er­at­ing Progress in Weather Mod­i­fi­ca­tion,” the authors write of fog being cleared by air­planes releas­ing chem­i­cals and ‘elec­tri­cal meth­ods’ of fog dissipation.
On page 79 of the 1973 ICAS report, it is writ­ten, “There is a great deal to be learned before we can with con­fi­dence say what effect can be pro­duced by the injec­tion of chem­i­cally active trace gasses and par­tic­u­lates into the lower stratos­phere. New empha­sis has been given to both dynam­i­cal and phys­i­cal mete­o­ro­log­i­cal research rel­e­vant to this question.”
United States patent #5,003,186 “Stratos­pheric Wels­bach Seed­ing for Reduc­tion of Global Warm­ing” was filed by the Hughes Air­craft Cor­po­ra­tion in 1991. The patent describes a method for dis­pers­ing par­tic­u­lates into the upper atmos­phere in order to save us from global warm­ing. The author David B. Chang sug­gests that alu­minum oxide be used for this pur­pose. Lab tests from around the world have shown alu­minum to be the num­ber one chem­trail ingredient.
“One pro­posed solu­tion to the prob­lem of global warm­ing,” it reads, “involves the seed­ing of the atmos­phere with metal­lic par­ti­cles. One tech­nique pro­posed to seed the metal­lic par­ti­cles was to add the tiny par­ti­cles to the fuel of jet air­lin­ers, so that the par­ti­cles would be emit­ted from the jet engine exhaust while the air­liner was at its cruis­ing altitude.”
The first men­tion of alu­minum occurs in this pas­sage, “The method com­prises the step of seed­ing the green­house gas layer with a quan­tity of tiny par­ti­cles of mate­ri­als char­ac­ter­ized by wavelength-dependent emis­siv­ity or reflec­tiv­ity, in that said mate­ri­als have high emis­siv­i­ties in the vis­i­ble and far infrared wave­length region. Such mate­ri­als can include the class of mate­ri­als known as Wels­bach mate­ri­als. The oxides of metal, e.g., alu­minum oxide, are also suit­able for the purpose.”
The sec­ond men­tion of alu­minum occurs a lit­tle later. It reads, “Another class of mate­ri­als hav­ing the desired prop­erty includes the oxides of met­als. For exam­ple, alu­minum oxide (Al2O3) is one metal oxide suit­able for the pur­pose and which is rel­a­tively inexpensive.”
The Hughes Air­craft Cor­po­ra­tion was acquired by and is now inte­grated into Raytheon.
A 1994 doc­u­ment pro­duced by Stan­ford Research Inter­na­tional called “Mul­ti­ple Instru­ment Stud­ies of Chem­i­cal Releases and Heat­ing at Arecibo” details three bar­ium releases of 48 kilo­grams each over Puerto Rico. The bar­ium clouds pro­duced by these rocket-borne explo­sions were sub­se­quently hit with man-made elec­tro­mag­netic energy from an ionos­pheric heater and thus turned into a plasma. Bar­ium has been found to be the num­ber two chem­trail ingredient.
In 1996 the Air Force pro­duced a pre­vi­ously men­tioned doc­u­ment called “Weather as a Force Mul­ti­plier: Own­ing the Weather in 2025.” The doc­u­ment was pro­duced by the Depart­ment of Defense and writ­ten as ordered by the chief of staff of the Air Force, Ronald R. Fogle­man. “Own­ing the Weather” was but one in a series of 39 doc­u­ments speak­ing to a great over­haul of Air Force oper­a­tions to be achieved by the year 2025. The larger set of doc­u­ments is called “Air Force 2025.” “Own­ing the Weather” describes a sys­tem of weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion com­bin­ing atmos­pheric aerosols with elec­tro­mag­netic energy.
On page 2 the doc­u­ment reads, “Prior to the attack, which is coor­di­nated with fore­casted weather con­di­tions, the UAVs begin cloud gen­er­a­tion and seed­ing oper­a­tions. UAVs [unmanned aer­ial vehi­cles] dis­perse a cir­rus shield to deny enemy visual and infrared (IR) sur­veil­lance. Simul­ta­ne­ously, microwave heaters cre­ate local­ized scin­til­la­tion to dis­rupt active sens­ing via syn­thetic aper­ture radar (SAR) sys­tems such as the com­mer­cially avail­able Cana­dian search and res­cue satellite-aided track­ing (SARSAT) that will be widely avail­able in 2025. Other cloud seed­ing oper­a­tions cause a devel­op­ing thun­der­storm to inten­sify over the tar­get, severely lim­it­ing the enemy’s capa­bil­ity to defend. The WFSE mon­i­tors the entire oper­a­tion in real-time and notes the suc­cess­ful com­ple­tion of another very impor­tant but rou­tine weather-modification mission.”
The doc­u­ment mostly speaks to mil­i­tary com­bat appli­ca­tions, but there are some very inter­est­ing quotes. Here’s one, “In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national secu­rity pol­icy with both domes­tic and inter­na­tional appli­ca­tions.” Let’s hear more about those “domes­tic applications”
On page 34 the doc­u­ment reads, “The abil­ity to mod­ify the weather may be desir­able both for eco­nomic and defense reasons.”
Also in 1996, as part of the same series con­tain­ing “Own­ing the Weather,” the Air Force pro­duced a doc­u­ment enti­tled “An Oper­a­tional Analy­sis for Air Force 2025″ which briefly out­lines some­thing they call a “weather analy­sis and mod­i­fi­ca­tion sys­tem.” This sys­tem is described as employ­ing both par­tic­u­late seed­ing and microwave energy for the pur­pose of weather modification.
Under the head­ing of “Weather Analy­sis and Mod­i­fi­ca­tion Sys­tem,” the doc­u­ment reads, “A global net­work of sen­sors pro­vides ‘weather war­riors’ with the means to mon­i­tor and accu­rately pre­dict weather activ­i­ties and their effects on mil­i­tary oper­a­tions. A diverse set of weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion tools allows manip­u­la­tion of small-to-medium scale weather phe­nom­ena to enhance friendly force capa­bil­i­ties and degrade those of the adversary.”
In the mid-nineties, Lawrence Liv­er­more Lab­o­ra­to­ries sci­en­tists Edward Teller, Low­ell Wood and Rod­er­ick Hyde wrote a series of papers call­ing for the spray­ing of mega­tons of alu­minum to save us from global warm­ing. The mid-nineties was when reports of chem­trail spray­ing in Amer­i­can skies began pour­ing in. If you will recall, alu­minum has been found to be the num­ber one chem­trail ingredient.
In their 1997 paper “Global Warm­ing and Ice Ages,” the Liv­er­more Labs trio wrote, “It has been sug­gested that alu­mina injected into the stratos­phere by the exhaust of solid-rocket motors might scat­ter non-negligible amounts of sun­light. We expect that intro­duc­tion of scattering-optimized alu­mina par­ti­cles into the stratos­phere may well be over­all com­pet­i­tive with use of sul­fur oxides; alu­mina par­ti­cles offer a dis­tinctly dif­fer­ent envi­ron­men­tal impact profile.”
They con­tinue to espouse the virtues of stratos­pheric alu­mina in the foot­notes writ­ing, “Alu­mina, like sul­fate, is ubiq­ui­tous in the ter­res­trial bios­phere, and its stratos­pheric injec­tion seem­ingly poses no sig­nif­i­cant envi­ron­ment issues.”
In con­clu­sion
So there you have an evo­lu­tion­ary his­tory of a project employ­ing sprayed par­ti­cles and the elec­tri­fi­ca­tion of clouds for the pur­pose of weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion. Is this a coin­ci­dence? Are all these exam­ples sim­ply iso­lated, one-off events not a part of a larger over­all plan? What are the odds of these data points evolv­ing in a chrono­log­i­cal order such as they have with­out being part of a coor­di­nated effort? One may be look­ing at some­thing like a quadrillion to one; and that is conservative.
For five days only, from Thurs­day, Feb­ru­ary 19 through Mon­day, Feb­ru­ary 23, my ebook Chem­trails Exposed will be avail­able for free from Amazon.
Stay tuned. God will­ing, this arti­cle is only the first of many com­ing in this year; 2015. The heavy lift­ing (study­ing the his­tory of weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion) is com­plete. The next papers will come much eas­ier because they involve smaller top­ics and half or more of the work on each is already done. Although the topic will remain secret until pub­li­ca­tion, you can expect the next arti­cle in a cou­ple of months, pos­si­bly sooner. Until then, keep fir­ing in the infor­ma­tion war. Thank you.
Notes:
Adven­ture into the Unknown: the first 50 years of the Gen­eral Elec­tric Research Lab­o­ra­tory by Lau­rence A. Hawkins, pub­lished by William Mor­row & Com­pany, 1950
U.S. patent #4,686,605 “Method and Appa­ra­tus for Alter­ing a Region in the Earth’s Atmos­phere, Ionos­phere and/or Mag­ne­tos­phere,” 1987
“Weather as a Force Mul­ti­plier: Own­ing the Weather in 2025″ by Col. Tamzy J. House, Lt. Col. James B. Near, Jr., LTC William B. Shields (USA), Maj. Ronald J. Celen­tano, Maj. David M. Hus­band, Maj. Ann E. Mer­cer and Maj. James E. Pugh, pub­lished by the United States Air Force, 1996
The Smartest Guys in the Room by Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind, pub­lished by the Pen­guin Group, 2004
The Weather Chang­ers by D.S. Halacy, Jr., pub­lished by Harper and Row, 1968
Fix­ing the Sky by James Roger Flem­ing, pub­lished by Colum­bia Uni­ver­sity Press, 2010
U.S. patent #787,412 “Art of Trans­mit­ting Elec­tri­cal Energy Through the Nat­ural Medi­ums,” 1905
U.S. patent #645,576 “Sys­tem of Trans­mis­sion of Elec­tri­cal Energy,” 1900
Tesla: Man Out of Time by Mar­garet Cheney, pub­lished by Simon & Schus­ter, 1981
Early His­tory of Cloud Seed­ing by Bar­ring­ton S. Havens, pub­lished by the Lang­muir Lab­o­ra­tory at the New Mex­ico Insti­tute of Min­ing and Tech­nol­ogy, the Atmos­pheric Sci­ences Research Cen­ter at the State Uni­ver­sity of New York at Albany and the Research and Devel­op­ment Cen­ter of the Gen­eral Elec­tric Com­pany, 1978
Inter­de­part­men­tal Com­mit­tee for Atmos­pheric Sci­ences reports 1960–1978, pub­lished by the Fed­eral Coun­cil for Sci­ence and Technology
“Depart­ment of the Inte­rior Pro­gram in Pre­cip­i­ta­tion Man­age­ment for 1970″ by Dr. Clement J. Todd as it appeared in the “Pro­ceed­ings of the Twelfth Inter­a­gency Con­fer­ence on Weather Mod­i­fi­ca­tion” 1970
U.S. patent #1,279,823 “Process and Appa­ra­tus for Caus­ing Pre­cip­i­ta­tion by Coa­les­cence of Aque­ous Par­ti­cles Con­tained in the Atmosphere”
“Tech­nique for Intro­duc­ing Low-Density Space Charge into the Atmos­phere” by B. Von­negut, K. May­nard, W.G. Sykes and C.B. Moore, pub­lished by Arthur D. Lit­tle and the Jour­nal of Geo­phys­i­cal Research, vol­ume 66, num­ber 3, March, 1961
“The Future” by Bernard Von­negut, Vin­cent Schae­fer, J. S. Bar­rows and Paul Mac­Cready, pub­lished in the Final Report of the Advi­sory Com­mit­tee on Weather Con­trol, p201, 1958
Research in Elec­tri­cal Phe­nom­ena Asso­ci­ated with Aerosols by Bernard Von­negut, Arnold W. Doyle and D. Read Mof­fett, pub­lished by Arthur D. Lit­tle, 1961
Angels Don’t Play this HAARP: advances in Tesla tech­nol­ogy by Jeane Man­ning and Dr. Nick Begich, pub­lished by Earth­pulse Press, p78, 1995
1st National Sci­ence Foun­da­tion annual weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion report, p14, 1960
“New Hori­zons of Naval Research and Devel­op­ment” by William Fran­cis Raborn, pub­lished in U.S. Naval Insti­tute Pro­ceed­ings, Jan­u­ary, 1963
“Ten Year Pro­gram in Oceanog­ra­phy: TENOC” by the U.S. Navy, March 13, 1961
9th National Sci­ence Foun­da­tion annual weather mod­i­fi­ca­tion report, 1967
“Present and Future Plans of Fed­eral Agen­cies in Weather-Climate Mod­i­fi­ca­tion” by the Inter­de­part­men­tal Com­mit­tee on Atmos­pheric Sci­ences Select Panel on Weather Mod­i­fi­ca­tion, 1966
Inter­de­part­men­tal Com­mit­tee on Atmos­pheric Sci­ences mem­o­ran­dum to Homer E. Newell dated June 21, 1966, as it appeared in the appen­dix to “Present and Future Plans of Fed­eral Agen­cies in Weather-Climate Mod­i­fi­ca­tion” by the Inter­de­part­men­tal Com­mit­tee on Atmos­pheric Sci­ences Select Panel on Weather Mod­i­fi­ca­tion, 1966
“The Inter­de­part­men­tal Com­mit­tee on Atmos­pheric Sci­ences: A Case His­tory” by Robert E. Morrison
U.S. patent #5,003,186 “Stratos­pheric Wels­bach Seed­ing for Reduc­tion of Global Warm­ing,” 1991
“Mul­ti­ple Instru­ment Stud­ies of Chem­i­cal Releases and Heat­ing at Arecibo” by Stan­ford Research Inter­na­tional, pub­lished by Stan­ford Research Inter­na­tional, 1994
“Air Force 2025″ by the U.S. Air Force, pub­lished by the U.S. Air Force, 1996
“An Oper­a­tional Analy­sis for Air Force 2025″ by the U.S. Air Force, pub­lished by the U.S. Air Force as part of “Air Force 2025″ by the U.S. Air Force, pub­lished by the U.S. Air Force, 1996
Global Warm­ing and Ice Ages by Edward Teller, Low­ell Wood and Rod­er­ick Hyde, pub­lished by the Lawrence Liv­er­more National Lab­o­ra­tory, 1997
Web­sites:
http://agenda21news.com/2015/04/chemtrails-exposed-a-history-of-the-new-manhattan-project/#more-5559