Dear Dr.......................,  

Thank you for your long letter explaining your interest in cloudbusting. If you really want to learn more about cloudbusting, the first thing you have to do is unlearn most of what you have already found on the internet. The internet is a very unreliable source of information and most of what you have found out is wrong.

1. The term, "cloudbuster" is misleading; it reflects the history of the device, not it's function. Breaking up clouds was the first thing a cloudbuster was found able to do, so it was called a cloudbuster, and is still called that, even though it can also create clouds, change their direction of motion, and do many other things.

2. The term "cloudbuster" properly refers ONLY to the original device invented by Reich. The gadgets of Don Croft and his followers are not cloudbusters, no matter what the Croftians choose to call them.

3. There has not been any improvement in cloudbuster design since it was first invented. All the claims of "new, improved" models of equipment are bogus. The myth of new, improved models of cloudbusting equipment was started by a con-man named Trevor Constable for advertising purposes. There is no better way to do weather-work than with the original type of cloudbuster.

4. Cloudbusters are not radionics devices and radionics devices cannot do the things a cloudbuster can do.

5. "Tuning" is not a concept in cloudbusting. Anyone who talks about "tuning" a cloudbuster does not understand it.

6. "Resonance" is another red herring. The cloudbuster does not depend upon resonance.

7. The same goes for "geometry" The functioning of a cloudbuster has little or nothing to do with any specific ratio of length to diameter. The phenomenon is not geometric.

8. The effect of a single cloudbuster is not "local'; some of my own operations in Amherst, Massachusetts, were clearly seen in Hancock, Maine, some 300 miles away. In Australia, I saw results up to 1500 miles from my operations site. A contact in Chile has reported similar long-range effects.

9. No electrical current is used in cloudbusting. In fact, any electrical stimulus will interfere with the operation. No electrical device can do anything to the weather except screw things up. Any claims of a device other than the Reich cloudbuster being able to control the weather should be treated with extreme skepticism.

10. That specifically applies to the Wells-Newman device of David Wells and his "Weather Rangers" cult. The atmosphere does not function on the basis of electromagnetism and no electromagnetic device can control atmospheric behavior. What is possible with the use of electricity however, is to IRRITATE the atmospheric energy field and cause additional problems.

11. That also applies to the HAARP array of microwave antennas in Gakona, Alaska. HAARP is not a weather control system and the internet rumors of some secret government weather control program using HAARP are nothing but wild tales with no basis in fact. There is no way any microwave antenna array could possibly control the weather, though it could, like any strong electrical excitation source, add more irritation to an already over-charged system and trigger droughts or atmospheric upheavals.

12. There are probably several hundred people who have fooled around with cloudbusting at least once or twice in the past 60-odd years, and it is anybody's guess how many of them are active at any given time. Most of them either fail to get results due to their ignorance of how to use a cloudbuster properly, or fail to recognize results when they see them because they have no idea what to expect.

13. In countries like the United States, where there are many people who have found out about cloudbusting via the internet, it is likely that anything the weather does has been influenced by somebody with a cloudbuster. That means that any drought, flood, hurricane, or other unusual; weather event is probably caused at least in part by someone.

14. While cloudbusting is illegal, under numerous environmental protection laws, no effort has yet been made by the law enforcement authorities to prosecute anyone for the many cases of homicide and other side-effect caused by incompetent and irresponsible misuse of cloudbusters. The deaths from flooding in the recent hurricane are an example of such negligent homicide by the people who were trying to divert the storm away from the coast.

15. There is nothing new or unknown about cloudbusting; It has been known for over two generations now. If someone does not know about it, that is a defect in that person's education, not an indication of a defect in the technique.

16. There is also nothing secret about cloudbusting; All the information was published over 50 years ago. Anyone who claims to have some secret information on the subject is lying. That also applies to any claims of military involvement in cloudbusting. There is none. No military service has ever had any interest in cloudbusting.

I hope this counters some of the misconceptions abounding on the internet.


Joel Carlinsky
( Former orgone biophysics student of Dr. Eva Reich )