Practicing Atmospheric Medicine

Oh Mister Hatfield, you've been good to us: You've made it rain in ways promiscuous! From Saugus down to San Diego's Bay They bless you for the rains of yesterday.      But Mister Hatfield, listen now;      Make us this vow: Oh, please, kind sir, don't let it rain on Monday! And other doings full of fun and glee For New Year's Day are planned abundantly From Saugus down to San Diego's Bay And they will bless you on tomorrow's day,       Great moistener, if you will listen now       And make this vow: Oh, please, kind sir, don't let it rain on Monday!*

This little jingle about Charles Hatfield, the famous early 20th century rainmaker, illustrates perfectly the anthropocentric self-centered attitude toward the environment common in those days. Today, at least one might dare to hope, nobody could seriously wish to alter the natural weather conditions for the sake of an outdoor party.

 The purpose of any properly-done cloudbusting operation is not to either increase or decrease rainfall to some desired amount. What the responsible operator will want to do is RESTORE ATMOSPHERIC SELF-REGULATION. The amount of rain is not the goal. The point in a drought, as in any other situation involving unwelcome weather, such as if it is too cold, too warm, too wet, too dry, or too frequent or too severe storms, is not to "fix" the weather by changing it to what you think it ought to be. The course of action to follow is to help the atmosphere recover the ability to regulate ITSELF, and THEN LEAVE IT ALONE.

That is the difference between the practice of Atmospheric Medicine, and attempts at "weather modification" no matter how well-intended, which in reality amount to mere vandalism of an atmosphere that is already damaged and malfunctioning, frequently due to prior human activities.

Conventional scientific thinking does not deal with the all-important issue of Atmospheric Homeostasis, the ability of the atmosphere to regulate itself, at least under normal conditions, and thereby providing the weather that the local native species of plants and animals are adapted to and need. And conventional scientific thinking does not recognize that the atmosphere can sometimes become "sick", or "injured" and need help to recover and resume normal functioning.

In fact, the whole concept of the atmosphere as a self-regulating homeostatic system, comparable to a living organism, with states of health or disease, is so contrary to the concepts of conventional meteorology that there is no common ground or point of departure for establishing a conversation on the subject.

That is why any attempts to invent a technology of "weather modification" are misguided. The real need is for a method of "atmospheric therapy" to heal the injury and return the atmosphere to a healthy state in which it will no longer need help and will again be able to produce rain on IT'S OWN schedule, not on yours.

The difference is that of the difference between a doctor and a dictator. Any form of medical treatment which does not at least try to return the patient to health, and instead, proposes  to make him addicted to a particular treatment, permanently dependent on the doctor to decide what he shall do and when, is not a method of therapy; it is an attempt to take over and rule his life. That is true of medical treatment of humans, and it is also true of veterinary medicine when the patient is of some other species. And it is also true of the practice of Atmospheric Medicine, in which the patient being treated is the largest living organism we know of, the atmosphere.

And healing the atmosphere means healing the ecosystem, which is the biological expression of the atmosphere upon which it depends. Any weatherworking is working on the entire biosphere, not just the atmosphere alone. Altering weather for any human goal, such as increasing agricultural production, is vandalism of the ecosystem which depends on and is adapted to the prevailing climate and cannot exist if that climate is altered. And if the change in weather conditions lasted long enough to have a significant impact on agricultural production, mass extinctions would be an inevitable side-effect.

So the "Weather Doctor", while treating the atmosphere, is actually treating countless patients of many different species, in fact, the entire ecosystem of the region affected. This form of medical practice is therefore the one which requires the utmost in caution and responsibility, far more than that involved in treating only a single patient.

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

******************************************************************************************************


** At the conclusion of the drought-ridden year 1904 the citizens of the Los Angeles area, who had raised money to hire him, were sing­ing praises of the rainmaker Charley Hatfield, their savior. He had achieved success. The rains had come—and come—and come.    As the New Year approached, however, an ugly thought crept into the minds of some o/ the populace. What if Charley Hatfield made it rain on the day of that stupendous event, the Tournament of Roses Parade? This anon­ymous piece of doggerel, appealing to him for charity on Monday, January 2, the date of the parade, appeared in several newspapers.    Evidently the plea was heard. Although it rained earlier in the day and still sprinkled where Charley was working five miles from the parade, no rain fell during the procession.

IT RAINS ON SHIPS AT SEA

The rain is raining all around,
It falls on field and tree,
It rains on the umbrellas here,
And on the ships at sea.
-------Robert Louis Stevenson



A lot of people think rain falling into the sea is not needed and is just "going to waste", and can be diverted by cloudbusting to an inland area suffering from drought without causing any problems. That is not correct. Rain falling at sea serves a useful purpose, in fact, several of  them. Rain falling at sea should not be diverted or interfered with.

The temperature of the oceans close to the surface is partly regulated by the temperature of the rainwater falling into the sea, and since both biological and chemical processes are highly dependent on temperature, the biology and chemistry of the upper levels of the ocean are greatly affected by the amount of rain falling into the water.

Most marine organisms are able to live in only a rather narrow temperature range, so, since rain over the ocean is usually significantly colder than the upper levels of the ocean water, the ocean is kept cold by the rain falling on it, and if there was no rain, it would soon heat up from the sunlight it received and become too warm for many, if not all, forms of marine life to survive.

Of at least equal importance to the direct effects of temperature, is that the amount of oxygen and other atmospheric gases seawater can hold in solution is dependent on temperature, with colder water being able to hold more gases, so if the water warmed up, it would lose oxygen content, making it less able to support life.

Warmer seas would also be able to hold onto less CO2, so the warmer sea would release CO2 into the atmosphere. Since the amount of CO2 dissolved in seawater is more than the amount already in the atmosphere, that would significantly alter the composition of the atmosphere, with major consequences for terrestrial life.

Salinity can be as important as temperature in determining density of seawater in some regions such as the western tropical Pacific and the far North Atlantic. Rain reduces the salinity, especially in regions of very heavy rain. Some tropical areas get 3,000 to 5,000 millimeters of rain each year. Since denser saltier water sinks into the ocean contributing to the global circulation patterns and mixing, any significant decrease in rain would cause an increase in salinity and would change the ocean currents, with drastic effects on the world climate.

Salinity - NASA Science

Rainwater forms in conditions of very high orgonotic charge, and since water readily absorbs orgone, the rain that falls contains a higher charge than most other water. So the falling rain carries orgone it has absorbed in the upper atmosphere into the sea, helping to keep the seawater energetically charged. Since the ability of seawater to support life depends on the concentration of orgone in the water, this process of maintaining the orgonotic charge of the seawater is of crucial importance to the viability of the marine ecosystem.

 Of equal, or possibly even greater importance, is the addition of microscopic living organisms to the oceans to maintain the biological material available for phytoplankton to feed upon. Raindrops also often contain bacteria which have formed in the atmosphere from the organic material that is created from condensation of energy when the atmospheric energy field contracts, or in relatively rare cases of very high orgonotic charge in the atmosphere, directly from the condensing energy field without the intermediate stage of formation of unorganized biological material first.

In either case, these living organisms come down with the rain, and this added biological material is essential as a base to the oceanic food chain, providing organic substance that the next step up in the food chain, the phytoplankton, need for their survival. So, without rain falling into the oceans, life in the oceans would soon cease to exist.

Seawater: Composition

Women And Cloudbusting

"Women tend to be intuitive global thinkers. They consider multiple sources of information within a process that can be described as simultaneous, global in perspective and will view elements in the task in terms of their interconnectedness. Women come to understand and consider problems all at once. They take a broad or "collective" perspective, and they view elements in a task as interconnected and interdependent. Women are prone to become overwhelmed with complexities that "exist", or may exist, and may have difficulty separating their personal experience from problems.
Men tend to focus on one problem at a time or a limited number of problems at a time. They have an enhanced ability to separate themselves from problems and minimize the complexity that may exist. Men come to understand and consider problems one piece at a time. They take a linear or sequential perspective, and view elements in a task as less interconnected and more independent. Men are prone to minimize and fail to appreciate subtleties that can be crucial to successful solutions. A male may work through a problem repeatedly, talking about the same thing over and over, rather than trying to address the the problem all at once."
Michael G. Conner, Psy.D,

Understanding The Differences Between Men and Women

If asked who did the first cloudbusting, almost everyone at all familiar with orgonomy will answer, "Wilhelm Reich". And they would be wrong. Reich INVENTED the cloudbuster, but he was not the first person to do cloudbusting. That honor belongs to his daughter, Dr. Eva Reich, who told me of standing knee-deep in the pond at Orgonon with a pipe in each hand, while her father stood on the bank telling her which way to point them.

Most of the people who have done cloudbusting have screwed up and done more harm than good. I have carefully documented numerous case histories of the environmental damage done by irresponsible cloudbusting. And until it was brought to my attention recently by a woman who had read my blog, it has escaped my attention entirely that in nearly every case, the person who had screwed up was a man.

Following Eva Reich, many other women have done cloudbusting either on their own or helping a man with a project. Mary Lee Poe, Shafia Lau, Linda Giroux, Marissa Del Monaco, Caroline Cooper, Therrie Cook, Kathy Schliening, and many others come to mind. Yet, as far as I know, none of them has made the stupid mistakes that have been made by men in the field. There has been only one case of a weather-related disaster caused by a female operator that I know of, and in that instance, she was acting under the direction of a man who was in charge of the project.

My correspondent suggested that a woman's menstrual cycle predisposes her to accept natural rythyms and cycles, instead of trying to charge into a situation and force nature to give in, as a man tends to do. That may be. But it is also possible that women are less likely to seek power and dominance over nature, and better able to relate to healing a sick and damaged atmosphere instead of trying to control it.

Also, a search on the internet for scientific findings on psychological differences between men and women finds that women tend more to wholistic thinking than men do, and that is the kind of thinking that is needed for doing cloudbusting safely. Wholistic thinking, in fact, is exactly the kind of thinking needed in the study of ecology in general, not just in cloudbusting.

Whatever the reason, and there could be several factors involved, the data available to date indicates that women make better cloudbuster operators than men do.

The Freudian symbolism of the cloudbuster is often remarked upon, but there is another, deepèr symbolism that so far as I recall, has not ever been mentioned in print: The cloudbuster is a passive device. It does not project energy. It acts as a conduit and energy is drawn through it into water, into which it is grounded. Nothing is put into the atmosphere by a cloudbuster. But nearly every man, on first hearing a description of a cloudbuster, asks, "What comes out of the pipes?" or "What do they shoot out?"

 I have heard this sort of question hundreds of times, but always from a man, never from a woman. Men seem to automatically make the assumption that the cloudbuster pipes "shoot out" something, and are usually surprised and doubtfull when informed otherwise, while women seem to grasp the concept of "drawing" or "attracting" energy without difficulty. Indeed, some men, usually the most "macho" types, refuse to accept it even when told and instead develop their own theories that claim a cloudbuster "shoots out" energy instead of drawing it, a claim that is easily disproven by observation and experiment and rests on obvious Freudian symbolism instead of rational thinking based on factual observation..

Freud famously said, "Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar". Well, a cloudbuster is a functioning device, and the functioning of it depends on the configuration it has. It has nothing to do with any symbolism. It is not a part of the human body. A cloudbuster is only a cloudbuster. And those who cannot understand that are poorly qualified to operate one.

So, sorry, boys, the girls have an advantage here. You just don't measure up.

"RESTORING" DESERTS

The other day, Jerry Deckler  posted a link on his Keelynet website to an article on overpopulation to his readers, along with his comment that we need to "restore deserts and colonize other planets".

One might think that a prominent advocate of technolological solutions to problems would suggest that maybe some of the brilliant inventors he promotes could devote at least some of their time to thinking up new and more effective methods of birth control instead of just taking it for granted that population will increase and nothing can be done about it except to grow more food for the ever-increasing hordes and find someplace else to stash them. But Jerry shows little interest in slowing the growth of population. His solution, aside from emmigration to other planets, is using more land on this planet for farming.

Now, if Jerry wants to emmigrate to some other planet, that is fine with me. I will even buy him a one-way ticket. But the idea of "restoring deserts" as a solution to the problem of too many people on this planet is absurd.

Presumably, Jerry does not mean to restore the desert and then keep it preserved as a wilderness area. He obviously means that it would then be used as farmland to grow food for the surplus human population. This shows an incredible ignorance of population dynamics, since population will always continue to grow up to the limits of available food supply, and also of ecology, agriculture, soil science, and several other fields of study that would need to be involved in such a project.

The ecological footprint of the human species on this planet involves far more than food supply; there are many other services provided by the natural life-support systems of the earth that are essential to human life and cannot be eliminated without making human life impossible. And if even more stress is placed on those essential life-support systems by consuming even more land in growing food, the end result will be mass die-off by some means other than simple starvation. The need for the reprocessing of air by plant life is one well-known example of a service provided by the biosphere. There are many others.

About one third of the land surface of this planet is drylands, either desert or semi-desert. About half of that dryland area, including most of the semi-desert, has become desertified in the last 2,000 years or so because of human, mainly agricultural, activity. Livestock grazing, deforestation, and impounding or dirverting waterways for irrigation has been the main cause of most of the desertification in the past few thousand years.

If the climate regime were to be restored to what it was before the desertification began, that would only be the beginning of the long job of restoration of the desert. Before the job was finished, a long series of successional stages would have to be gone through, and none of them could be shortened or skipped.

The profussion of vegetation that springs up in a desert after a rain consists of hardy pioneer species that can grow in wet sand, but they only exist for the time they need to prepare the soil for the next stage of restoration. After there is a network of roots to hold the soil to prevent erosion, and some organic matter has been added to the soil to provide essential fertilizer for them, the next stage of plants will gradually take over from the first-stage growth. The succesive stages will each contribute their portion until the climax ecosystem of the area is reached.

Concurrently with the succeeding stages of plant life development,  earthworms would need to spread out and recolonize their
former range. There are literally thousands of different species of earthworms, each adapted to a specific range of climate, soil type, plant types, etc., and their processing of the soil is vital to determing the type of vegetation that will eventually grow there. The process cannot be hurried. It would take years, possibly centuries, of processing by earthworms before the soil was ready to support a growth of plant life of the type it had supported before becoming desert.

Far from being fallow land, needing only water to become fertile farmland, many of the dryland areas of the world are desertified BECAUSE of agriculture. To suggest that MORE agriculture is a solution to a problem CAUSED by agriculture means ignoring history.

If water were simply added to a desert region in some impoverished third-world country, the farmers there would need a huge infusion of cash aid from the United States and other first-world countries to buy the petroleum-based fertilizers they would need to add to the desert sands to grow anything. They would need aid to buy tractors to plow the ground
if they were to raise crops without waiting for the slow, natural spread of earthworms to aerate the soil and mix it with organic matter. They would then have the problem of salinization of the soil, which usually happens when desert soils are irrigated.

Anyone who imagines merely adding water would turn a desert into a breadbasket obviously knows nothing of farming. Or of the several scientific disciplines such as soil chemistry which would need to be involved in such an ill-advised project, And since Jerry has recently advocated promiscuous, indiscriminate, random, and unco-ordinated cloudbusting by untrained operators as a solution to a drought, it is reasonable to suspect he has cloudbusting in mind when he advocates "restoring deserts".

There have already been several attempts made to use cloudbusters to "restore deserts". All of them have caused disasters. James DeMeo once did rainmaking in Arizona at the wrong time of year, devastating desert wildlife that needs the usual dry season for breeding and raising their young. He also did a summer-long project in Arizona that increased the usual summer rainfall to 500% of normal. Ask any farmer what 5 times normal rainfall would do to his crops. Most desert plants swell up and burst if they get twice normal rainfall.

DeMeo also did a "desert greening" project in Eritria, East Africa for several years. His success in "greening the desert" in Eritria resulted in floods in normally dry Northern Kenya, followed by 20,000 deaths from insect-bourne diseases carried by the extra insects that proliferated in all the standing water left by the floods he caused.

There is also a cloudbusting project that has been underway for several years in Algeria to "green the desert". This project has devastated local ecosystems and moved the stagnant, hot, dry air mass that normally sits over North Africa up to Europe, causing devastating heat waves in Europe and Russia on several ocassions. The people doing this insane project think they can get rid of residual radioactivity from French nuclear bomb tests in Algeria in the 60s by burning cow dung in a Hindu ritual, and since they believe they are working under divine direction directly from God,  they will not listen to any advice from a mere ecologist.

Reich was raised on a farm. He knew full well that simply adding rain to a desert would be counter-productive. That is why, in his report on his expedition to Arizona, in 1955, he wrote, " It was never the goal of this expedition to make rain over desert lands. Rain, if it could have been obtained, would have drowned the developing proto-vegetation and prevented  the discoveries made of how to revive a land that has been a desert for thousands of
years".

Yet despite this perfectly clear statement, many people who have read that report still read it as a report of a "rainmaking expedition" that "made rain" in the desert. And some of them advocte repetition of this "rainmaking project". One can only wonder if they bring the same reading skills to the rest of their education.

Is Someone Prolonging The Texas Drought By Sabotaging Hurricanes?

This hurricane season has been a rather deficient one in some respects. There have been a number of tropical storms, and some of them have reached hurricane strength while out at sea, but the number of tropical storms that have hit the North American mainland at hurricane speeds is less than what would historically be expected. A lot of damage has been done by flooding from some of these storms, but hardly any from high winds.

The distinction made by meteorologists between a hurricane and a mere tropical storm is an arbitrary one, depending on the speed of sustained winds. There is no natural division or "magic number" that would distinguish them. The operative factor is sustained wind speed. So the question before us now is, has something been sapping the energy of these storms and reducing their wind speed? And if something has been doing that, is that "something" of human origins?

In the past, cloudbusters have been used to divert hurricanes away from the East Coast and steer them out to sea. This procedure is not always successful, and there has been at least one case in which an attempt backfired and the hurricane went inland farther than it otherwise would have. In another case, an attempt to draw directly from a hurricane to weaken it drew it inland to the location of the operator.

A direct draw from a fully-developed hurricane is not adviseable. A hurricane at full power is usually too strong for a cloudbuster to weaken and may even draw additional energy into itself via the cloudbuster, and increase in strength instead of declining. That is what happened in Queensland, Australia last March when an idiot named Ash Palise tried to weaken an approching cyclone and it ended up as the strongest cyclone ever in Australian history.

In the normal course of events, a strong storm off a coast will veer inland if there is a drought over the interior of the land mass. That is an entirely predictable matter of simple orgone physics. A drought is caused by a build-up of DOR. DOR attracts water and also the highly-charged storm system, far more strongly than healthy, motile orgone does. So if there is a lot of DOR in an area, more storms will be attracted to that area, and they will be drawn from a longer distance away.

This will result in an end to the drought since the fast motion of the high winds forming the system will sweep away the stagnated DOR energy field, re-mobilizing it and restoring the normal pulsation that creates rain at more or less regular intervals. This natural self-cleansing mechanism of the atmosphere is an annual event, the duration of most droughts being thus limited by the annual hurricane season.

Some DOR is normal. DOR is a stage in the metabolism of atmospheric energy, and before humans began to produce more of it than nature does, the annual influx of high winds in the recurrent storm seasons kept the spread of deserts in check in most years. In the last several decades, as the widespread use of radioactivity, and to a lesser, but still significant extent, electromagnetic, technology, has increased the DOR-burden of the atmosphere, droughts have tended to increase in both duration and intensity and deserts have been spreading. Hurricanes are therefore more important than ever.

But over the same time frame, there has also been an increase in the number of cloudbusters. The advent of the internet has exponentially expanded the number of backyard hobbyists who have found out from some website how to build a cloudbuster, but have no idea how the atmosphere functions and how a cloudbuster should be used to help it to function better in cases where it has suffered a malfunction due to DOR-infestation.

Instead, far from being aware of the atmosphere as a homeostatic self-regulating system, most of these hobbyists think of the cloudbuster as a method of "weather control" and imagine they can use it to "control the weather", as if the atmosphere had no will of it's own.

And, inevitably, some idiot will think of preventing hurricanes. Some fool who gets his science education from a 30-second sound-bite on an evening news program aimed at the intellectual level of Homer Simpson will will think he can "save lives" and "prevent disaster" by diverting hurricanes away from the land and out to sea. Or by weakening them so they will lack the high speed winds that are the essential factor in re-mobilization of DOR.

And if someone has been doing that this season, either by using a cloudbuster strong enough to actually weaken a hurricane, or by sophisticated cloudbusting techniques that compensate for the lack of sufficient draw and make it possible to weaken a hurricane instead of strengthening it, and if the lack of full-strength hurricanes has been the result of such interference by someone suffering from such irrational hubris, the unusual length of the drought in Texas has been one of the results of this disruption of natural mechanisms for restoring the atmosphere to normal behavior. The drought would normally have ended long since if the annual hurricane season had been allowed to run it's normal course.

And this sort of unintended side-effect of cloudbusting is one reason nobody should attempt cloudbusting without several years of study and experimentation in the field of orgone biophysics.

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

Jerry Is At It Again

Jerry Decker is at it again. A few weeks ago he posted instructions on his website ( www.Keelynet.com ) on how to make a cloudbuster, and urged all his readers in his home state of Texas to build cloudbusters to combat the drought underway there. I pointed out the recklessness of urging an unknown number of untrained operators to randomly point cloudbusters in all directions with no idea what results to expect.

 Jerry refused to listen to any advice, and insisted he would continue to urge his readers to build cloudbusters despite the dangers I pointed out, and also, despite the fact that I called to his attention that Texas law requires a license to do any form of weather modification, so he was in effect, urging his readers to break the law as well as to recklessly endanger both their health and the environment. .

 Now he has posted yet another item dealing with the subject of weather control, again demonstrating the same pathological urge for power over the natural world that lies at the roots of so many of the environmental problems facing the world today. This time it is a phantasmagorical plan to sabotage tornadoes. This mechanistic method, thought up in the 1930s would not work, of course, since the real forces behind tornado formation are orgone-energetic factors, not presure differences, as mechanistic science imagines, but the fact that Jerry saw fit to post an article about it shows that he is still interested in subjecting the atmosphere to human control. It also shows he has no conception whatsoever of the orgonotic factors involved in weather formation. If he had, he would know such a mechanistic method would not work.

When will these anthropocentric authoritarians and compulsive control-freaks learn that interference with the natural processes of the atmosphere is not a good idea? Tornadoes do not "just happen". As first explained by Reich in an article published in 1955 under the title, The Medical DOR-buster,: Part One, and reprinted in the volume, Selected Writings, by Wilhelm Reich, available from the Wilhelm Reich Museum in Rangely, Maine, they are a healing, self-cleansing response of the atmosphere to an unusually high concentration of DOR, the toxic, stagnant form of atmospheric energy that naturally forms in certain locations at certain times of the year, but is increasingly prevalent nowadays because of the use of nuclear technology.

 The strong circulatory motion of the tornado develops as a self-cleansing mechanism of the atmosphere in an attempt to re-mobilize the immobilized portion of the atmosphere. The more "stuck" and stagnated the local atmosphere is, the more tornadoes, and the stronger they will be.

But if the formation of tornadoes were prevented, the stagnated atmospheric energy field that normally provokes the atmosphere into forming a tornado would remain immobilized and the region would eventually end up with a drought. If the formation of tornadoes were to be prevented over a long enough period of time, the drought tendency would become permanent and the area would become a desert.

The number and strength of tornadoes depends largely on the need for them. If there was no DOR problem building up, there would be no tornadoes. If there are tornadoes, they are there because they are needed, and to interfere with them is short-sighted, misguided vandalism of a vital natural process that is the only way to avoid a far worse problem.

Authoritarian personalities like Jerry Decker and others who advocate "weather control" and  think it would be a great thing if humans could control the weather, therefore are showing by their ignorance of how the atmosphere functions that they are the very people who should not be entrusted with any such power. Nobody with a sound understanding of how the atmosphere behaves and a respect for nature and natural processes would indulge in power-fantasies of preventing tornadoes.



10/06/11 - “A Tornado BUSTER” for the Mid-West (May, 1931)


The drawing illustrates the scheme proposed by Hans Kutschbach to prevent tornadoes in the Mid-west. This scheme, a modification of a similar project by Dessoliers, a French engineer, calls for the construction of a huge revolving cone that will serve to produce artificial whirlwinds, or potential tornadoes. The moist heated air from the surface of the lake swirls about the cone, then rises to the sky, thus equalizing the atmospheric pressure. The advantage of this scheme lies in the fact that the cone virtually holds the potential tornado stationary, so that it does no damage. -

" No damage". Yes. But it would also do no DOR-removal, which is the vital purpose of a tornado in the first place.   A certain amount of DOR is normal, and in the normal course of events, the atmosphere metabolizes it. If it becomes too bad, tornadoes form to get the stuck energy moving again. If that does not happen, a drought will set in that, if no more tornadoes occur, will eventually become more or less permanent desertification.

Before the modern era, tornadoes were common mainly in the far interior of the continent, where the strong circulatory stimulus of the usual annual hurricanes could seldom reach. Now, with the atmosphere under attack by the widespread use of radioactive technology, DOR has been increasing far beyond the previously normal amounts, and therefore tornadoes have become more frequent and have been known to occur outsiude their accustomed range. That is a good thing. It shows that the atmosphere is not yet dead; it is still able to mount a reaction to the presence of DOR and re-start the normal pulsatory motion upon which weather and biological functioning both depend.

It is somewhat ironic that a few weeks ago Jerry was so concerned about the drought in Texas that he was urging his readers to build cloudbusters to combat it, and now he is posting an article about a mechanistic method intended to suppress the very process of nature that could end a drought.

And it is even more ironic that a distinct possibility exists that the main reason the drought has gone on so long, instead of being brought to a natural end by the impulse imparted by a passing hurricane to the DOR-field that is obstructing the pulsation that would bring rain, is that someone may very well be using a cloudbuster to divert hurricanes away from the Gulf Coast or at least to drain off energy from them so they are reduced to mere heavy rains and lack the powerful impulse needed to re-mobilize DOR.

Any attempt to reduce the strength or frequency of these vital components of the atmosphere is nothing less than an attack on the ability of the earth to support life. And the Jerry Deckers of the world, by advocating such destructiveness, are attacking the atmosphere with the intent to destroy it, regardless of how they rationalize their goals.

Electrical "Rainmaking"

Many electrical inventiuons exist that are claimed to "control the weather". This is a falacy. In the case of an electrical stimulus to the atmosphere, it can only do what oranur does, not all the other things a cloudbuster can do. Oranur excitation applied to the atmosphere will indeed break up clouds, and will, if in the right amounts and in the right location, block clouds and storm fronts from moving into an area, but it will not be able to create clouds, and it will not make the atmosphere contract smoothly and peacefully, on a regular, recurring basis, all by itself, without any human intervention.

What it will do instead, is over-expand the atmosphere until it reaches it's capacity level and can expand no more. Then the atmosphere will contract, but in a sudden, sharp, eratic way, raggedly and uneavenly, like a horse that is "bucking". Oranur makes the atmosphere behave eratically, more chaotically, and the results may indeed include sudden, uncontrollable rain, but nothing like the normal smooth pulsation that leads to more-or-less regular rainfall over a longer period of time without any more artificial stimulation being needed.

This is exactly what Trevor Constable did throughout his entire 40 year career in "weather engineering". His track record shows that he always got unusually extreme rainstorms, which he thought were better for impressing his prospective customers, and in every place he operated, there was never any long-lasting return to normal climate. Instead, he inflicted added damage on the already damaged atmosphere and after the rains he caused ended, the drought always returned. In the meantime, most of the time, he caused floods that did as much harm as the droughts.

The total DOR burden in the region would be increased, not decreased, and unless the "rainmaing" work is continued, the area will lapse into an even worse drought as soon as the work stops.

This would not be immediately obvious to a mechanistic-thinking untrained "weather engineer" who thinks that if it rains when he operates, he is "making rain"  and that if he wants to get rain and he does get rain, that means he is "controlling the weather" because it did what he wanted it to do.

That kind of thinking is the way most of these control-freaks think about things. Instead of trying to first know how the atmosphere behaves under normal conditions, then figure out what has gone wrong and why there is a drought, and then go from there to figure out what needs to be done to fix it and make it return to normal, they butt in and force it to rain without doing a thing to restore it to normal pulsation and normal cycles of rainfall that come automatically with regular alternating expansion and contraction.

Electrical oranur devices are not doing anything like what the cloudbuster does. What they do is inflict more damage upon an already damaged atmosphere. And every time they add more to the already existing burden of DOR in the area, and further weaken the ability of the atmosphere to pulsate regularly, they just make it that much harder to restore atmospheric health and regular freely pulsating motion that will go on indefinitely by itself, without further intervention.

Adding oranur to the atmosphere to "make rain" is like an athlete taking steroids; it may indeed "work", at least for a time, but unlike ordinary exercise, it hurts, not helps, his general, over-all physical condition. The goal of the atlete who takes steroids is not the improvement of his fitness, but to win contests, and steroids may help him do that, but at the same time, they will harm his health and in the long term, be bad for him.

Electrical excitation of the atmosphere may "make rain", at least some of the time, but in the long term, it will make a desert out of an area that was only having a short-term drought before some bungler tried to interfere by "making rain" and really was making more DOR instead.

 In addition, there will of course be direct biological effects on the health of all living things in the affected area, and those will not be good effects. It is true that mild oranur can sometimes be good for a sick organism that may need a little extra stimulation, but most living organisms get along fine without oranur and if they are healthy to begin with, it would not be good for them, any more than taking every medicine that can help the sick person is a good idea for a person who is not already sick. .

Of course, the professional rainmaker, wanting repeat business, would consider making rain for one time only better than restoring normal rainfall paterns to a region on a long-term basis because it means more business for him. When the drought returns, he will be hired again and again every time, especially since he has now demonstrated his ability to "make rain". Each time, it will be a little bit harder to get the atmosphere to react to the excitation and over-expand until a sudden sharp discharge is provoked and a ragged contraction sets in, and each time he will keep on adding more and more excitation until it does what he wants it to do. And at last, it will be worn out, and the added DOR will be too much for it, and it will stop responding to electrical stimulation and what started out as only a drought in a normally-moist region will become a permanent desert.

And when he cannot get results any longer, the rainmaker will give up, take the money he has been paid for all the "successful" operations he did, and go someplace else that is having a drought, and sell his services there.

Response To A Letter From Jerry Decker

When Jerry Decker posted his report on his cloudbuster experiment in Mexico, I wrote to him, asking for clarification on some points he had mentioned in his article. My letter to him read, in part:

Hi, Jerry,

...............................You somehow managed to write an entire article on cloudbusting without any reference to the orgone energy continuuum which is the real object of the cloudbusting, the effects on weather being only a side-effect, and not always the most noticeable or most important. ................

 

......................I also would like to know who are these unnamed "experts" you consulted. I can think of a few people I would consider experts on cloudbusting, but none of them are likely to be known to you. And none of them would have used any such terminology as "standing colomnuar wave", which you do. . Also, none of them would claim a change in normal atmospheric patterns could be caused that would persist for years, as you claim. That simply is not how the atmosphere works.

 

The only way a long-term change in atmosphric orgone pulsation can be produced with a cloudbuster is by removal of a DOR barrier that has been obstructing normal flow. This is what I would suspect you did in Mexico, judging by your results. I would think a DOR barrier had formed in the region, and knowingly or not, you removed it, allowing normal flow to resume. That is a much simpler hypothesis than a new, previouslñy unknown phenomena of a cloudbuster somehow being able to set up new, long-lasting changes in weather patterns since it relies only on already known and experimentally demonstrated observations of how cloudbusting actually works.

 

The people who make claims about long-term weather changes and use terminology derived from electromagnetic theory like "standing collomular wave", which you used in your article, are people who do not understand orgone energy, do not understand the role of DOR in droughts and desert formation, and are not people I would consider experts in the field of cloudbusting.

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

Jerry's reply is presented here, along with my comments in italics:


Hola Joel!

I posted just enough about my experiment for my purposes...never claimed to be an expert...and I have an entirely different set of friends and understanding than you....so my information might not fit your frames of reference.

I have received several emails of support and personal experiences with their own experiments that confirm mine.

How many more people do you know of who are fooling around with cloudbusters?

I know how fanatical you are about your version of orgonomy so I didn't say anything as I figured it would set you off with clarifications and wanting to instruct me.

And of course you do not want any instruction.

I can't remember one single thing you've ever told me in the past that was technical or had enough information to do anything with it or prove it.

Correct. I do not usually try to tell people anything that would help or encourage them to do anything witrh cloudbusters.

Your claim of being able to direct lightning

Actually, that was Trevor Constable who made that claim, not me.

and all your experiments in cloudbusting..not one word about details and not one reference where you had documented any of it for study by anyone...just your word...so now you want me to tell you everything??? Why should I?

I promised the people who sent me my plans I would not post them on the net or pass them around..

Say again? You did post the plans for your cloudbuster on the net.

.they have been doing weather modification with a secret group for many years, far, far longer than you

I have been doing cloudbusting since 1967, so if they have been at it far far longer than that they must be in their 80s by now.

 and with successes beyond what anyone remotely suspects.

So we can blame them for all the weather-related disasters that have happened in the last 50-odd years?

A small group of us in Dallas found a direct correlation to their claims that we have created and tested many times. I think it could be the inner secret of Reich that none of his adherents even suspect.

Reich did not have any "secrets"; He published his findings, as a scientist is supposed to do. The idea that there are some sort of "secrets" about his or for that matter, any scientist's work, is a projection by people who are so paranoid they cannot understand openness in science. There is no such thing as a secret in science. Science is a body of PUBLIC knowledge, confirmed by others working in the field, not a body of secret information held by some individual or group.

Eva Reich worked closely with her father for the last 7 years of his life, a period which includes the entire time he worked on cloudbusting. How likely is it that he witheld some "secrets" from her and his other co-workers?

I met them many years ago at a conference and we have stayed in touch many years and swapped information...so when I was ready to come to Mexico and do the experiment, they offered to give me a copy of the technique they used for so many years.

So I'm not at liberty to give out all the details...a matter of trust and respect.

Anyway....did my thing, worked as intended and no negative effects lo these many years.

There is a new electronic device, roughly a foot square which claims to produce or dissipate rain within a 20 mile radius..

And of course, you believe the claims without demanding any evidence?

Such a claim is so at odds with what we know about the way the atmosphere functions that it would require the strongest possible evidence. The word of an unknown inventor is not enough to just throw overboard all the solidly established knowledge of how the atmospheric orgone energy behaves which has been tested over generations now by numerous people throughly familiar with the initial discoveries of Reich and confirmed by experimental evidence many times by many independent investigators.

.the inventor is friggin BRILLIANT and refuses to give out the details or sell them for fear many people dicking with the weather would hose it worldwide...and I agree with him...

But still you have no hesitation in posting plans for the construction of a cloudbuster, which, unlike this alleged new gadget, has long been PROVEN to be effective.

luckily he sent me a copy of the plans and details about his and a tight group of trusted friends, experiments...all I can say is WOW!!!

Only one other electronic device I know of worked like this, I had discovered the plans in some very old documents

Can't be too old; electronics has been around for less than a century. And electronics is as well-understood as anything in use today. If there was any way anything electronic could affect the weather at the distances you claim, it would be well-known to all of the millions of people who are familiar with electronics.

And so what you are saying boils down to first, that someone other than Reich had discovered some way to affect the atmosphere decades before Reich invented the cloudbuster, and , second, that all Reich and everyone else working in the field of orgone biophysics all these years have discovered about how orgone energy behaves is wrong, and the atmosphere really behaves in a very different way, since from what we know of orgone energy, no "electronic box" can be expected to do what you describe.

You also are saying that the theory of electronics must be wrong, since there is no way in modern electronics theory that anything electronic could do what you claim this "electronic" device does.

So, if it is really possible for something "electronic" to change weather conditions over any significant area, the orgone theory must be wrong. SO HOW DOES THE CLOUDBUSTER WORK, THEN, IF THE ORGONOMIC THEORY OF ATMOSPHERIC FUNCTIONING IS INCORRECT?

and sent them to him...he built and tested it and it so phreaked out my friend who built it that he dissassembled it and buried the parts...he said it was just too dangerous to be messing with....it had a lot of other amazing effects than weather, thats what scared him..

Sounds like he at least may have some common sense.

Anyway....we only see the tips of icebergs....I happen to agree that full details of such things shouldn't be posted for any dick to play with...but parts of it can be posted and those who are serious will fill in the rest...hopefully they won't be scuzbags and sell it or use it to cause harm...intentionally or by not considering all the ramifications.

What you posted was enough for anyone to build a working cloudbuster. How much more irresponsible can you get?

Sorry Joel, as much as you think you know about orgonomy and Reich...I don't think you hold a candle to my secret friends..

I have met and spoken with nearly everyone who worked with Reich in the 1950s, and if there were any others, I would have heard of them. And having been told by Eva Reich that I impressed her as more knowledgeable in this field than anyone else she knew of, I hardly think your evaluation of my knowledge of orgonomy is conclusive. How much have you studied of orgonomy, Jerry? What makes you such an expert in the field that you are qualified to judge how much I know?

..they are now old and retired...possibly dead...haven't heard from them in about 5 years now...guess I should check up on them to see if they are still around.

Wonder how much information and discoveries have been lost because we don't or CAN'T  post everything we and others know? 

Please don't get me embroiled with your groups or their adherents...what I did has been posted and thats enough for me. I have no interest in arguing with or being chastized by people I don't know about my experiment. It's none of their business..

Wrong. It is everyone's business if you do anything that affects the environment that other people have to live in. You have no more right to do cloudbusting than to dump pollution into the air or water. Cloudbusting is just as much the business of the public as pollution is, and for the same reason; it can harm people who have not given their consent to be used as guinea pigs in your experiments.

.they can do their own experiments and share them or not...

Just too many other fascinating things to study and experiment with...I might try that electronic device just to see if it does what the inventor says,

So you might also decide to spread radioactive dust around from an airplane "just to see what it does"? Do you really think satisfying your personal curiousity is justification for risking the lives of other people who do not give their informed consent to be affected by your experiment?  That sounds like something only a psychopath would say, Jerry. How does it differ from capturing people off the streets and doing experimental surgery on them? Or is your scientific curiousity so strong you would do that too?

 but no solid plans for it at this point.

Jerry W. Decker