Tactics Against Cloudbusting

I do not think orgonomy will ever be accepted by the scientific mainstream. It is too far out of step for that to ever happen. Not only paid scientists, but any educated layman who has a good understanding of modern science, knows better that to agree with anything so "obviously wrong".

 

I think some people's desire for research funding to become available has made them too optimistic about the prospects for acceptance of the orgone theory. It will not happen in our lifetime.It would be better for them to search for private sources of research funding instead of waiting for governments to fund orgone research.

 

But if it ever did happen that the scientific world got converted, it would be a total disaster. Then millions of idiots would take up cloudbusting as a sport. The result would be atmospheric chaos and more destruction than this world could ever hope to survive. And you can forget about government reulation. It is physically impossible to stop any great number of cloudbuster-freaks from building and using secret cloudbusters. They are too easy to make and the materials are too easy to get.

Cloudbusting is already illegal. There are laws almost everywhere that could be used to ban cloudbusting if the prosecutors wanted to enforce them. In America, the Wilderness Act makes it illegal to "alter the pristine character of a designated Wilderness Area. That would include altering the weather of such an area, and since there are many such designated areas, and the typical cloudbuster operation covers so much ground, it is impossible to use one in the western states without violating that law.

The Endangered Species Act makes it illegal to do anything that affects the habitat of an endangered species, and there are so many of them that any orop would violate that law also.

The National Environmental Policy Act makes it a requirement to hold public hearings to allow the public to commnent before doing anything that would affect the environment.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a requirement that any weather-modification project must notify them at least ten days in advance of the start of operations. There is a $10,000 fine for failure to notify them.

In Australia, all weather modification needs a specific act passed by the legislature, and is not allowed without such an act. In the European Union, international human rights agreements forbid doing any scientific experiments on people without their consent, so to do a weather-control experiment it would be necessary to get the consent of every person in the area to be affected, or it would be a violation of the rights of anyone who did not give consent to be experimented upon.

There are also financial liability issues involved. In several American states, cloudseeders are required to have insurance coverage to guarentee they can compensate anyone whose property is damaged by their operations. Those laws would also apply to cloudbusting.

When Trevor Constable wrote an article about his using an aircraft for airbourne cloudbusting operations in Hawaii, I contacted the Federal Aviation Administration and told them about it. I sent them a picture of the airplane that Constable had published in his article about it, showing the equipment attached to the outside of the small airplane. They investigated, and the pilot had his license suspended for a time. It is illegal to attach anything to the outside of an aircraft that might alter the flight characteristics of the aircraft. This is an excellent example of how activists can use existing laws to obstruct atmosphere abuse without having to convince anybody about the effectiveness of cloudbusting.

So cloudbusting is already illegal almost everywhere. Anyone doing cloudbusting is in violation of several laws that already exist. What we need to do is be creative in thinking up ways to get those laws enforced without having to convince the scientific community or the government that cloudbusters work.

 

Anyway, what makes anyone think the government could be trusted to use it any more responsibly than anyone else? They would do as many wrong things with it as most people.

 

The Orgonomic Ecology  blog, www.orgonomicecology.blogspot.com , is not aimed at winning converts to orgonomy. It is aimed at people who already know at least something about cloudbusting and are not scientists and are willing to at least consider that it might work. If 01% of my readers end up joining me in a campaign to stop cloudbuster malpractice, that would be a good result.

 

There are other things that can be done to put pressure on individuals and companies  besides passing laws, and it would only take a small number of people to do some of them, so I do not need to win over the whole public. Boycotts, public exposure and shaming, and sabotage of equipment used in their activities, driving up their expenses, are all tactics that have been used successfully by various movements.

 The Animal Rights movement is one good example of a group that uses tactics that can be used by a small minority to put pressure on evildoers despite lack of majority suport.

 By exposing the ecological problems caused by his cloudbusting, I have been able to persuade several people to stop donating to DeMeo's research fund. This reduces his ability to go on cloudbusting expeditions.

 

I do not need a majority. I need a few good determined activists who are not afraid to be out of step with the mainstream of their culture. And the blog is intended to help me find them. If I can get a few people who are willing to work hard on the issue of atmosphere abuse by cloudbuster malpractice, that will be enough. I do not need the scientists or government. Especially since that is impossible anyway.

 

So my trying to educate those few who might be interested in helping with a campaign is not inconsistant with my saying it would be better to discredit orgonomy to the public to help keep down the numbers of cloudbuster freaks who would take it up as a sport if they found out about it.

Hurricane Near Australia

This storm ( link to news story below ) looks like it is being augmented by a foolish attempt to weaken it by someone in South Queensland pointing a cloudbuster at it. While it is often possible to divert a storm with a properly/designed cloudbuster operation, there is no case on record of anyone ever succeeding in weakening a full-blown hurricane by drawing from it.

 Such a draw would be more likely to increase the strength of the storm since by the orgonomic potential, a very strong storm system would draw energy the other way, from the water the cloudbuster was grounded into, into the storm,via the cloudbuster.

I have seen this happen on a small scale. Once, when I was using a small DORbuster ( a miniature of the cloudbuster ) grounded into a bucket of water inside a small accumulator to experiment on breaking up jet aircraft contrails, I pointed it at a small, but apparently strongly/charged cloud. Instead of the cloud breaking up, it grew! There was more water in the cloud than in my bucket, so the draw went the other way, and the DORbuster acted as a conduit for the cloud to draw energy out of the bucket.

But some people do not know that. And if someone draws from a strong storm system, the likely result would be to greatly strengthen the storm, which is what seems to have happened in this case. 

A Mr. Ash Palise, who happens to live in Queensland, has been engaged in cloudbusting operations lately and judging from the incredible level of stupidity involved, this looks like his work. Investigations to confirm this suspicion continue. Mr. Palise can be contacted at <ashtweth@gmail.com> if you want to send him an e/mail and express your opinion of his experiments in weather control.

Please forward this message to everyone on your list. The people of Australia need to be warned about this incompetent individual monkeying with their weather..

Hurricane Diversion

Reich and Bill Moise published several reports in the 50s in Reich's journal,C.OR.E., on their having successfully diverted hurricanes out to sea that had been predicted to hit the East Coast. Blasband published reports in the Journal of Orgonomy of his having done likewise in the late 60s and early 70s. So there is little room for doubt that a cloudbuster can divert a hurricane if the operation is begun early enough.

The method is to draw from the direction of the land, weakening the orgone potential inland, so the potential out to sea becomes relatively stronger. This attracts the storm out to sea, away from the weaker potential inland.

Since a cloudbuster works by altering the orgonomic potential in one part of the sky to make that in some other part of the sky relatively stronger, the same result would reasonably be expected from any other method of building up a relatively strong potential in one location compared to another location.

So if someone on shore had a device operating that excited the local orgone field into a higher state of activity, the storm would be attracted towards that device. Then, if some other factor also was at work, such as the normal vector of these types of storm, which is what you suggested, the ultimate vector of the storm would be about what the pictures from space are showing now, a compromise vector that, together with the normal path of such storms, indicates an unusual build-up of charge in South Queensland, where Ash, who has a device that can excite the local orgone field, happens to live.

Cloudbusters And Inventions

                                Cloudbusters  And  Inventions
                                              by Joel Carlinsky

Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod in 1749. The lightning rods used today are exactly the same as those Franklin invented. There has been no improvement in design in the more than 250 years since. Why is that? While hundreds, even thousands, of new inventions and improved technologies have come and gone, the simple lightnimng rod has never been improved upon.

The reason is not hard to understand. It rests on the physics of lightning and the basic nature of the lightning rod itself. Lightning seeks the easiest path to the ground. A simple conductive rod provides that pathway. No improvement in design is possible because the present design is the most simple and direct solution to the problem of how to protect buildings from lightning which the physics of lightning will allow.

The Reich cloudbuster is in a similar position. There are well-known and well-established laws of orgone energy, tested by a large number of experiments that have been independently verified by many individuals over many years, and the cloudbuster, as designed by Reich in 1952, is the application of those laws. One of those laws is that orgone energy is strongly attracted to water. Another is that DOR, the stagnant, toxic form of orgone, is even more strongly attracted to water than is the motile, healthy form of orgone. And another is that it is the build-up of DOR in the atmosphere that underlies droughts, and desert-formation.

To restore normal rainfall patterns in a drought-stricken area, the DOR that is the cause of the drought must be drained off and disposed of. The cloudbuster does exactly that,. The metal tubes act as a conduit, and the water into which the tubes are grounded acts to attract the DOR from the atmosphere through the tubes into the water. The principle is so simple it is almost impossible to misunderstand it.

Nevertheless, some people do somehow manage to accomplish that incredible intellectual feat. And they proceed to add all sorts of charms to the cloudbuster in an effort to improve the effectiveness of it. They incorporate cones, pyramids, magnets, crystals, and other new-age junk into the design, thinking they are inventing brilliant improvements on the cloudbuster. The fact that none of this increases the attraction of water for orgone or DOR in the sky, or the ability of tubes to form a conduit, does not occur to them.

Another such failure to grasp the principles underlying cloudbusting is the attempt to eliminate the need to ground a cloudbuster into water. Some people have thought that if the tubes were connected to an orgone accumulating device instead of to water, that would suffice. Others have thought that some favored geometrical shape would provide attraction and allow the elimination of water grounding. Still others have thought that if the tubes were in motion, with power provided by some kind of motor, the result would be an effective cloudbuster despite a lack of any connection to water.

 Needless to say, none of these innovations has ever done anything except serve to add additional excitation to the already over-excited atmosphere, ultimately leading to complications and more problems.

And then there are those whose creative genius and inventiveness leads them to claim the cloudbuster does not draw energy at all, but projects it instead. They think the cloudbuster somehow is a source of ¨''beams'' of energy ''shooting out'' from it into the atmosphere. Some of them think the water the cloudbuster is grounded into is the source of this energy and that the tubes of a cloudbuster, when inserted into the water, somehow ''break free'' the energy contained in the water, and it is then ''shot forth'' into the air through the tubes.

And if that was not enough to be wrong about, they then proceed to use newer models that dispense with water-grounding, leaving them without any explanation of where the energy they think is being ''shot out'' by the tubes is coming from. Apparently they think some geometrical shapes can create orgone energy from nothing.

And when they build their ''new, improved'' model of the cloudbuster, they somehow manage to convince themselves it is working. Part of this is due to what is called

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and part of it is not knowing about some of the laws of orgone energy. Orgone energy systems each have their specific capacity level, the amount of orgonotic charge they are able to hold. Up to that level, an orgone energy system attracts more energy from it's surroundings, including weaker systems nearby. When the capacity level is reached, there is a sudden discharge. In general, the higher the charge, the more expanded the system is and when it discharges, there is a series of sudden, sharp contractions.

In the case of an atmospheric system, when the atmosphere is highly-charged it is in a state of expansion and the weather will be clear and dry. When there is a discharge, there will be rapid contraction, followed closely by rain. Normally, the atmosphere pulsates, expanding and contracting regularly, with regular rainfall as a result. DOR inhibits this cycle, and can cause the process to become stuck at either stage of the pulsation, with chronic expansion causing drought, and a lasting contraction causing floods.

Any form of irritation by secondary energies such as radioactivity or electrical current, especially high-voltage alternating current, will make the atmosphere expand. If there is a drought, there is already a state of chronic expansion, and the added excitation of an electrical device will increase the expansion. Up to the point of the system's capacity. Then there will be a discharge, characterized by a sudden, sharp contraction, or a series of contractions, resulting in rain. Frequently, excessive rain, far more than would ever fall normally in that region.

This sometimes gives the impression of being able to ''bring rain'' by means of some electromagnetic device or some other device that creates excitation, such as a moving orgone accumulator, which becomes excited by fast passage through the orgone field of the earth, and in turn, excites that ambient field by rapid passage through it.

But the rain, even if far more than would be normal or desireable for that area, does not end the drought problem. Eventually, the rain will stop as the contraction levels off, and then the drought will resume. Droughts do not ''just happen''. They are caused by build-up of DOR, and unless the DOR is removed, the drought will continue.

So a device that uses a moving orgone accumulator will only add to the already excessive excitation, causing a temporary break in the drought by over-exciting the atmosphere until it contracts in reaction, but since it does not draw off the DOR that is the cause of the drought into a body of water, the break will be only temporary, even when the amount of rain is more than normal, and the drought will resume.

So if someone makes a claim to have invented an improvement on the original basic design of the cloudbuster, and that improvement consists of some geometrical shape that is allefged to ''shoot out'' orgone energy, or of a moving orgone accumulator or accumulators, spinning around but not connected to any body of water, and not acting as a conduit to conduct atmospheric DOR to water, and if the device is made to move by means of an electrical motor, anyone familiar with basic orgone physics would know instantly what that device does and how it does it.

And what any such device does, is to excite the atmosphere into an even greater state of expansion, until it reacts by contracting sharply, which will only cause rain to fall, but will not solve a drought problem. What it will do, in fact, is make the long-term drought problem worse. There will still be a local infestation of DOR, and the atmospheric orgone will be further weakened and less able to contract by itself the next time. The next episode of drought will last longer as a result of such an ill-advised inteervention.

Proper cloudbusting would be to do DOR-removal, restoring the ability of the atmosphere to pulsate normally, and produce rain at more or less regular intervals. For that, it is necessary to provid a conduit to draw DOR down out of the sky into a body of water. This is a conclusion reached by fiollowing the basic laws of orgione energy. And it is not going to change.

No new invention will ever be invented that enables cloudbusting to be done properly without the cloudbuster being grounded into water. No new invention will ever be invented that uses some geometrical shapes to ''shoot out''  any ''beams'' of orgone energy. Nobody is ever going to solve a drought problem, which is caused by build-up of DOR in the atmosphere, by over-exciting the already over-expanded atmosphere to the point of collapse into a state of contraction. All that can be done that way is to ''make rain'', which does not solve the drought. It just makes it worse.

And anyone who thinks they have a better way to do cloudbusting needs to go back to grade school and study how orgone energy functions. We do not need any better cloudbusters. What we need is better operators.

 We need more knowledge of how the atmospheric energy behaves, both in it's normal state, and when it is behaving pathologically as a result of DOR. It is there, in the study of the behavior of the atmosphere, to improve the knowledge and techniques of the operator, not in some ''new, improved'' gadget, that advances in cloudbusting will be made.

Ash Palise And The Spider

Ash Palise And The Spider

 

              The Screw-up That Caused The Worst Floods In Australian History

                                           by Joel Carlinsky

 

 

 

Here, copied from a video posted by Ash Palise, is a picture of the so-called "spider unit" device he used to cause atmospheric energy changes to test out a new orgone energy field meter he had purchased from James DeMeo.

 

The spider unit was developed by Trevor Constable. It consists of small orgone accumulators mounted on a wheel that spins around. The rapid motion of the accumulators through the energy field of the earth causes excitation of the earth's field, and in stagnant conditions, can break up the stagnation, restoring normal pulsation, and allowing usual rainfall patterns to resume.

 

But if the stagnation is too strongly entrenched it will take much more time to get results, and if the device is kept spinning too long in an effort to get results, the excitation will only increase the drought tendencies, up to the point of the capacity level of the atmospheric system. Then the atmosphere will contract sharply and suddenly in a reaction to the over-expansion caused, and prolonged, heavy rains will be the result.

 

In the case of the recent rains in Queensland, Ash Palise was testing his new field meter, and was not aware the spider device could affect the weather. He thought of it only as a way to change the readings on his meter. So he was not expecting any great effect on the weather, and was not looking for any. When it came, he did not recognize it as a result of his own operations.

 

The effect was rendered much greater than usual because of another thing he did not know. Any strong source of electrical current is contra-indicated near any form of orgone equipment. Electrical voltage excites orgone energy in a way that differs only in degree from that of nuclear energy, which has a much stronger effect on orgone devices, rendering them highly toxic.

 

To rotate the device, Ash used an electric motor, visible in the photograph, underneath the center of the device, which had two harmful effects.

 

 First, it increased the over-excitation of the orgone atmosphere surrounding the unit, making the atmosphere expand more than it would otherwise have before sharply contracting, more than it normally would have, so the rain that resulted was more than it would have been otherwise.

 

Second, the field of an operating cloudbuster has effects on humans who stay too near it for two long, which is why many of the most well-informed cloudbuster operators use remote-controlled cloudbusters so they can operate them from a safe distance without having to remain close to them. Ash was not aware of this, nor was he aware that electrical excitation would make the toxic effects on the operator even stronger than in the case of a cloudbuster alone, without any associated electrical voltage.

 

The effects caused by strong electrical stimulation of orgone devices are the same type, though less intense, as the oranur effects caused by introducing radioactivity into an accumulator. The oranur effect is typified by a high degree of variability, hitting each individual at his weakest spot, bringing up into noticeable symptomatology any latent illnesses and sub-clinical weaknesses an individual might have.

 

In some people, this might mean having a stroke or heart attack many years earlier than they would otherwise have had it. In others, the weakest spot might be behavioral, and a latent predisposition to mental illness might manifest. That seems to be what has happened to Ash Palise.

 

 

Spider device used by Ash Palise to start the catastrophic rains in Queensland, Australia, January, 2011. This photo from his own posted material shows that he had and was using this type of equipment within the time-frame that would produce the results I have described.

 

Once the rain had started, Ash, still not realizing he had caused it in the first place, tried to stop it, using a standard, water-grounded cloudbuster. He asked advice via e-mail from his contacts in America, but either because of their advice, or in spite of it, he drew from too high an angle, closely aproximating a vertical draw, causing the already sharply-contracted atmosphere to contract still more, increasing the strength and duration of the rains he was trying to stop.

 

The rest is already well-known.

 

 

 

A Letter To A Critic

I have not singled Ash out for any special approbation. In the past six months or so, I have been equally critical of a group called the Weather Rangers, who were planning to try to interfere with hurricanes and tornadoes, and a German-based group who are conducting a desert-greening program in Algeria which caused the heat-wave in Europe and Russia this past summer. And my highly critical over-view of the numerous cloudbusting blunders by James DeMeo remains prominently posted on my website.

I have also been equally critical of Trevor Constable in the past, though since he is now retired from cloudbusting it would be moot to spend time on him now. And I wrote numerous critical posts about the attempt by John Hutchinson to clean up the Gulf oil spill by blasting the water with sound waves without first seeking to find out what effects that might have on the many forms of marine life that navigate by sound and might become disoriented by his undersea noise machine.

My whistle-blowing about Ash is right in keeping with my exposing other individuals and groups who conduct cloudbusting operations that result in disasters. On the other hand, I would like to point out that when someone does cloudbusting that does not cause any problems, I do not criticize. I am not against all cloudbusting. What I am against is improper cloudbusting.

And while man-made radioactivity is a more serious problem, it is not one that I can say anything about that has not already been said by others, while cloudbusting is a topic upon which I can say something the people who read it are not likely to see elsewhere.

Accidental Confirmation

In a recent mocking and condescending e-mail to me, Jamie Ogg wrote

   "Blaming Ash for Australia floods is absurd. Actually Ash worked
   to prevent the continuation of the floods with advice from others
   in CB work more knowledgeable about weather than you. (and no joel
   I was not the one giving him advice on that) Maybe we should blame
   the Brazil floods on you."

I was not in Brazil, but Ash was in Queensland. And you have just confirmed that he did do cloudbusting in an effort to reduce the rainfall. Since he himself has already admitted he also did cloudbusting before the rains started, I now have the following sequence of events. First, Ash uses a dry excitation device, a so-called "Spider Unit", invented by Trevor Constable, to shift atmospheric potentials to get readings on his orgone field meter. He mistakenly thinks this device will not affect the weather, but the conditions are so highly charged that it adds enough extra excitation to the already over-stretched atmosphere that the atmosphere reacts with a strong contraction which causes a lot of rain.

Second, not realizing he himself caused the rain, he tries to stop it, asking advice from friends in America, most likely Ken Schwartz. His second intervention, using a properly grounded cloudbuster, draws from too high an angle, closely aproximating a vertical draw,  and therefore adds to the contraction and makes the rain worse, but he does not realize that it was his attempt to stop the rain that made it worse.

Third, I figured out what was happening and when the topic came up on the Keelynet list, I send an off-list e-mail to Jerry Decker explaining my hypothesis on the subject. Jerry sent it to several of his contacts and one of them forwarded it to Ash. Ash responded with his usual barrage of vituperation and threats, which he send copies of the several people including Jamie Ogg.

Jamie then wrote to me in a mocking, condescending tone, and included in his letter the line quoted above, confirming that Ash had done cloudbusting in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the rain.

The rest is deduced from a solid background knowledge of the orgone functioning of the atmosphere and how it reacts to cloudbusting.

Jamie says he was not the one Ash was taking technical advice from. I believe him. Jamie knows better than to do the things Ash did. If he had been the one advising Ash, the whole sequence of events would not have happened. But with Ken Schwartz advising Ash, it would be almost certain to happen. Schwartz claims to have been trained in cloudbusting by Trevor Constable. That is a lie. I contacted Peter Lindemann, who was a student of Constable for many years. He told me Schwartz was never a student of Constable and did not receive any training from him. He said Schwartz only interviewed Constable a couple of times for some articles he wrote for a website.

So this was a case of an untrained imposter advising Ash, and the result was a catastrophe. And now Ash is either in denial or trying to cover up his role in causing the disaster, but Jamie has accidentally revealed the fact that Ash did attempt to intervene and therefore confirmed my hypothesis.

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