https://gizadeathstar.com/2019/06/weather-controls-two-forgotten-events-the-rapid-city-flood-and-jfks-speech-at-the-un/
As
I sit down to start combing through this weeks' "finals box" and going
through articles to blog about, the weather is again turning nasty,
dumping yet more rain on completely water-sogged soil. So naturally this
one jumped right to the head of the list, because I'm living in the
middle of weather modification, and someone is doing it. There's a
catch, though: that "someone" may not be God, because after decades of
chemtrail spraying, dumping heavy metals and "other stuff" into the
atmosphere, and the creation of a few large ionospheric heaters around
the world, as Elana Freeland said to me in her interview on this site in
the members' area, "there's no such thing as completely natural
weather."
It wasn't, however, just my interest this week, as I received a quite number
of "weather-control-related" articles. The problem was picking which
ones to talk about. And two popped right to the head of the list. And
one of them brought back a memory. On June 9, 1972 I was on summer
vacation, fifteen years old, and ready to start my sophomore year in
high school in the fall semester. The news that day carried the story of
a tragedy: Rapid City, on the other side of the state from Sioux Falls
and the state's second largest city, and the largest city in what South
Dakotans call "West River", the part of the state west of the Missouri
River, had experienced a sudden torrential rain, and a flash flood.
Lives were lost, houses were swept away, and the state was stunned.
Flash floods just do not happen in Rapid
City. Anyone who has been there and is familiar with the topography of
the city can easily understand why floods are rare, particularly the
deluge the city suffered. A flood in Rapid City was almost as
unthinkable as a tornado in Nome, Alaska. Then it emerged that the state
had been engaged in its own weather modification program,
seeding clouds to create rain, and lessen chances of hail. Studies had
been done by the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology,
coincidentally located in Rapid City. (The following article is courtesy
of R.B. and many others):
While this article includes only the
first paragraph of the paper, it is that first paragraph that concerns
us here, for it forms part of my high octane speculation:
It is out of the juxtaposition of four events that this paper has emerged: (1) Early in 1972, South Dakota planned for the first season of a state weather management program to increase precipitation and suppress hail. (2) At the same time, field research on cloud seeding was being carried on by the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences (IAS), South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, under contract to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (3) A sociological study of the response of South Dakotans to weather modification was undertaken with initial interviewing begun in January of 1972. (4) On June 9, 1972, Rapid City, South Dakota experienced a disastrous flood. Cloud seeding by the IAS had been carried out in the area as the storm began. (Emphasis added)
What caught my eye here was the statement,
italicized in the quotation above, that this study was conducted under a
contract of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which basically manages the
country's water resources, dams, and so on. But I have to wonder - and
herewith my high octane speculation of the day - if this program was
not, perhaps, a "beta test" for another kind of reclamation altogether,
namely, causing disasters, and then picking up land on the cheap, while
extending centralized authority. The assumption and narrative has always
been that the Rapid City flood was an accident, but with the fires in
California, and the recent flooding in the American heartland, one has
to wonder. Whatever the possibilities here, the other disturbing
implication of this article is that any speculation about who my be
engaged in weather modification must not only include nation-states, but
anyone with access to the technology to do so, and cloud seeding is one
such comparatively simple technology. Corporate actors, or states and
provinces themselves, could be engaged in the activity.
The implication of this is that with
several potential actors on stage, each with their own purposes for
whatever weather modification they may be engaged in, the overall
cumulative results to the total system cannot be gauged accurately. The potential for unpredictable results thus grows.
To give a simplistic example, suppose Country A wants to steer a
hurricane into Country B's coastal areas in order to disrupt crucial
manufacturing and infrastructure, but Country C doesn't want this, and
intervenes and attempts to steer the hurricane in a completely different
direction. The result of the two agendas is that Country D is
hit with the hurricane, which was not a target of either actor. The
result is "natural" in so far as it is what happens when systems
interact, but it was not natural in that the result may not have happened without the human manipulation.
The inevitable result of this
possibility will be an attempt to centralize control of all weather
modification technologies and projects into a global system of
regulation and control. And ponder, for a moment, the implications of that:
a region or area of the world not going along with the diktats of that
central authority could be subjected to wither droughts, or leveling
floods and storms.
And that, it seems, was the agenda all
along, if one listens carefully to this speech at the United Nations
General Assembly in September 1961 by President John F. Kennedy(and
thanks to K.S. and many others who passed this along):
Of course, the creation of such a central
and global authority has been and will remain elusive, as nations and
groups with access to the technologies - and particularly the more
exotic technologies - will balk at surrendering their capabilities to a
central authority that they perceive as being under the influence of
potential adversaries, and that's the rub, for it means for the
foreseeable future that we will remain in the situation of many "weather
control actors", with all the potential consequences I've speculated on
today.
No comments:
Post a Comment