June 24, 2019 By Joseph P. Farrell

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):

The Impact of the Rapid City Flood on Public Opinion about Weather Modification

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.

See you on the flip side...