I do not "go off", as you put it. What I have done is to present valid critical analysis of operations done by people who have published their claims. If someone publishes a report on something that has serious repercussions on the environment, it is a perfectly legitimate form of environmental activism to subject that claim to an environmental impact study.
In fact, there are quite a few people who have done cloudbusting whom I have not criticized and the reason for that is that they have done nothing to criticize. Rafi Rosen, Neil Snyder, Jerome Eden, John Trettin, Chuck Kelley, and many others have done cloudbusting and I have not been at all critical of them.Contrary to what you may think, I am not opposed to all cloudbusting; There are plenty of situation in which cloudbusting is needed, and provided it is done PROPERLY, I would have no objection.
In fact, I did not criticize YOU for any operational blunders either, because, as far as I know, you did not make any. All I have said about your project in Mexico was that you should pay more attention to the underlying THEORY of how a cloudbuster works instead of scorning theory and concentrating on immediate results. But in the report you published, there was nothing I could find that indicated you did any harm, so I did not say anything critical of you on that grounds.
Would you rather that nobody was being critical of any cloudbusting done by anybody regardless of how much damage it might do? Do you think people who want to take up cloudbusting should be beyond criticism? Do you think that it should be done by anyone, anytime, anyplace, without any accountability? Would you like to see a mass movement of cloudbusters in every backyard? Do you want to see Homer Simpson playing with a cloudbuster?
What I want is very simple:
That those who take it upon themselves to influence the weather should take responsibility by making their operations public;
they should do this in advance so the public can have a chance to comment;
they should consult with a trained ecologist before doing any long-term project;
They should monitor ecological effects during any long-term project;
they should carry insurance to guarantee ability to compensate anyone whom they harm;
they should put the needs of the natural life-support systems of the biosphere first, not any anthropocentric political, ideological, or economic interests;
and they should voluntarily comply with reasonable environmental protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the Wilderness Act, etc.
Do you have any problem with any of those suggestions? Do you have any reasons why they should not be followed? They are all standard procedures nowadays for almost any type of project. Nobody today tries to get away with doing anything that could possibly have adverse effects on the environment without first having someone with training in relevant fields do an Environmental Impact Study. Why should cloudbusting be an exception?
I have been in correspondence with several people in Texas about the drought there. I have no objection to properly-done cloudbusting to intervene in an unusually severe and unusually prolonged drought. I have no objection to restoration of the NORMAL weather conditions that usually prevail in an area. I cannot see that causing any ecological harm.
What is likely to cause harm is if a number of people are all working at the same time, unknown to each other, and in at least some cases, bound to be counter-acting each other's operations. Add to that that most of them will not understand the orgone theory of the atmosphere and are just blindly pointing pipes at the sky without knowing what will happen or why, and you have the makings of a certain disaster.
Plus, there is the fact that a drought does not "just happen" without any cause. Droughts are caused by something, and to get good and lasting results, you need to deal with that "something", not just make rain. Just as in medicine, dealing with the CAUSES of the problem is the best way to solve it, not just dealing with the symptoms, such as a lack of rainfall.
And since there are now so many websites that irresponsibly give instructions on how to build a cloudbuster, it is more than probable that there are already several people in Texas trying to break the drought, and the obvious fact that they are not succeeeding shows they are not doing it correctly. Which raises the inevitable question: Are they making it worse?
And if you or anyone else withholds information on what is being done and who is doing it for fear of criticism by environmentalists concerned about possible harmful side-effects, that can only contribute to the chances that the drought is being enhanced by somebody's mistakes.
In fact, there is some reason to suspect that an ill-advised project to weaken hurricanes or divert them away from the North American mainland could be one reason for the persistence of the drought; Those strong circulatory systems are a major part of the natural mechanism by which the atmosphere cleanses itself of DOR. Since DOR is even more strongly attracted to water and to storm systems than is normal, motile orgone, hurricanes are differentially drawn farther inland when there is a lot of DOR present.
This automatic self-regulating process would limit the duration of a drought to just until the next passing hurricane came close enough to be drawn toward the DOR-barrier, cleaning it out. But if someone is deliberately preventing the normal passage of hurricanes close enough to the Gulf to get caught up in the DOR field over Texas, they could be unwittingly contributing to the length of the drought.
Another possible nightmare scenario is if someone is using a cloudbuster manipulated by electrical servo-motors, as DeMeo and others of his stable have done. The electrical excitation of even a 12-volt battery, if located squarely within the highly-excited field of the cloudbuster, is sufficient to cause an expansion and counter-act the contraction effect of a draw for rain. DeMeo made this mistake in California and prolonged a drought there without realizing that it was his own equipment that was adding to the problem.
And it is very possible that the current drought in Texas is being added to in the same way by someone who thinks he is being "modern" and using "new, improved" equipment.
Jerry, this whole subject is a can of worms. I fully agree with you that research needs to be done. But research needs to be done responsibly. Keeping it secret for fear of criticism by environmentalists is not the way to help add to the sum of human knowledge.
--- On Tue, 8/9/11, Jerry Decker <email@example.com> wrote:
From: Jerry Decker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: News Story - Texas drought will harm wildlife habitat for years
To: "joel carlinsky" <email@example.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2011, 8:55 PM
You've got to be kidding...you seriously think that I'd tell you anything about my cloudbusting projects and watch you go off?
No way...you'll know by anomalies...and it might not be me but others...
So, I look for anomalies...thats what points out things of interest or
potential problems. We have a baseline with slight ripples positive and negative and they are very consistent...when there are sudden spikes, something is up.
Texas sure needs it as do other parts of the country, maybe something MASSIVE...
Hmmm...anyway...busy on a few projects and one really friggin big one...
Take care and take your pills...
Jerry in Ixt
joel carlinsky wrote:
Please let me know if you are thinking of doing any cloudbusting.