Michael’s “Intended” Artwork for his Film UNconventional Grey
Introducing the Unfinished Third Geoengineering Film of Michael J. Murphy
UNconventional Grey
(links Below)
By Elana Freeland
August 2023
The unfinished third documentary UNconventional Grey by Michael J. Murphy has been missing in action since 2016, the year Murphy had planned to release it. It is his third film of truth-telling about Geoengineering, the other two being What in the World Are They Spraying?(2010) and Why in the World Are They Spraying? (2012).
Congressional investigation asap on weather modification. #ConusOWSWeaponizedWeather
Shaw air force base in Lyndsey grahams state of south carolina is the south conus ows weaponized weather control center. Offit airforce base near Omaha nebraska is the global Conus OWS weaponized weather control center. Scott air force base in bellview illinois is the ows weaponized weather control center for the North and north east all the way from the usa to the north pole. Weapons of mass destruction #ConusOWSWeaponizedWeather List of Weather Modification Companies
Seeding Operations and Atmospheric Research (SOAR) old website
The Edwards Aquifer
Colorado River Municipal Water District – Engineering WXMOD
Trans Pecos Weather Modification Association
Military
USAF Reserve – Aerial Spray Unit – Youngstown AFB
NASIC/DEKA – US Air Force Wright-Patterson AFB
Other
Aquiess / Drake International – Global Rain Project
Meteo Systems – Weathertec
Austrailian Rain Technologies – ATLANT
Ionogenics – ELAT
Evergreen Aviation: Supertanker
Kansas Water Office
Future of Weather Control
A Plan for the next phase in Weather Modification Science and Technology Developement – Raytheon addressing the Weather Modification Association 2005 | Link
Air Force Aims for Weather Control | Link
The work involves using plasma an ionized gas to reconfigure the ionosphere. MIRAGE would employ a microwave transmitter on the ground and a small rocket that shoots chaff into the air to produce about a liter of plasma at 60–100 km. (36– 60 mi.) in altitude, changing the number of electrons in a select area of the ionosphere to create a virtual barrier. Ionosphere reconfiguration offers two major applications of interest to the military: bouncing radars off the ionosphere, also known as over-the-horizon radar, and the ability to jam signals from the Global Positioning Satellite system, according to John Kline, the lead investigator for MIRAGE (Microwave Ionosphere Reconfiguration Ground based Emitter). | Link
Vision 2020 – US Air Force Space Command | Link
Over the past several decades, space power has primarily supported land, sea, and air operations–strategically and operationally. During the early portion of the 21st century, space power will also evolve into a separate and equal medium of warfare. Likewise, space forces will emerge to protect military and commercial national interests and investment in the space medium due to their increasing importance.
Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 – US Air Force | Link
An Operational Analysis for Air Force 2025: An Application of Value-Focused Thinking to Future Air and Space Capabilities – US Air Force | Link
NASA accidentally shows proof of Large-Scale Weather Manipulation in satellite images
3 years ago
As a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, this site may earn from qualifying purchases. We may also earn commissions on purchases from other retail websites.
Is this a massive conspiracy? Or is it possible that NASA really is playing around with our weather on Earth?
Many people would most likely agree we are looking at a massive conspiracy, while others believe the evidence is right in front of us.
This year’s Caribbean hurricane season has turned ‘weather’ into a dominant subject in the world.
Catastrophic damage has been witnessed in the Caribbean, where entire Islands were swept away by the incredible power of mother nature. However, is this just mother nature’s work, or is there something ELSE going on?
For decades have ‘conspiracy theories’ about weather control circulated the internet, and rumors of weather control by the government have become ever so popular.
What was considered as an impossible feat, today is possible thanks to decade-long geoengineering efforts that have given us the ability to control the weather: resulting in a two-way street that can destroy our planet as much as it can help.
Climate engineering commonly referred to as geoengineering, also known as climate intervention, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of affecting adverse global warming.
So where is that EVIDENCE? Where can I see with my own eyes that our weather is actually being manipulated?
Well, see for yourself.
Located just off the coast of Africa. Changing the weather has become a reality fro humanity, but it seems that we arent really able to control it, are we?Just off the coast of Australia, this images shows how bad it can get. The above image, perfectly explain what Dane Wigington, writing for Wakeup-World, and Davide Wolfe describes as “many variances of radio frequency cloud impacts”This images shows the coast of California. Maybe its time to stop weather modification projects before we mess up Earth’s climate for good.Off Africa’s west coast. Are we in danger to lose control?Another image from Africa’s west coast.Weather control off the coast of Spain. We are changing the weather, and its not for the good of the human population.Here is another image off the African coast.
Africa’s coastal regions are a hot zone for weather geoengineering efforts even though they are referred to by mainstream media as nothing more than the result of “dust” in the air, notes Dane Wigington who quotes an excerpt from a Fox9 News article:
“Right now, much of the Gulf of Mexico and parts of the Caribbean have slightly warmer than normal ocean temperatures which would normally aid in tropical development.
“But there is so much dust and dry air in the atmosphere that storms are getting choked off before they even get started.”
Dane indicates how radio frequency transmissions can alter cloud formations, and that its the result of the“spraying of toxic electrically conductive heavy metals”. Now take a wild guess and imagine everything we breathe.Is HAARP really responsible for weather changes? In this next image, Dane clearly points out that the enigmatic set of clouds formed near a HAARP Station, which eventually generated the unique looking cloud patterns.
China is massively expanding its weather-control project, and is aiming to be able to cover half the country in artificial rain and snow by 2025, the government said Tuesday.
Dozens of other countries — including the US — also have such programs, but Beijing has the world’s largest, employing around 35,000 people, The Guardian reported.
In a statement, China’s State Council said that the country’s cloud seeing project will expand fivefold to cover an area of 2.1 million square miles and be completed by 2025. (China encompasses 3.7 million square miles, meaning the project could cover 56% of the country’s surface area.)
The project will be at a “worldwide advanced level” by 2035, the State Council said, and will help alleviate “disasters such as drought and hail” and facilitate emergency responses “to forest or grassland fires.”
People visit the Forbidden City during a blue sky summer day on August 29, 2019 in Beijing, China.
Generating artificial rain and snow is fairly simple in principle. Spraying chemicals like silver iodide or liquid nitrogen into clouds can make water droplets condense, and fall as rain or snow.
In June 2016, China allocated $30 million to its cloud seeding project, and started firing bullets filled with salt and minerals into the sky.https://95d92e9bdb1674adb87250a2d5b1195d.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
A year later, China spent $168 million on a huge supply of equipment to facilitate the project, including four aircraft and “897 rocket launchers,” The Guardian said.
In “The Real Truth about Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change: Paragraph-by-Paragraph Comments on an Article by Dr. William Happer,” Dr. Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs at the Climate Institute in Washington, DC, takes on the prominent ‘skeptic’ Princeton physicist and Marshall Institute board chairman with a detailed and illuminating rebuttal.
Dr. William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, who also serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Marshall Institute in Washington DC, has been a prominent and outspoken critic of the science of climate change, its impacts, and proposed policies to deal with it. In the June/July 2011 issue of First Things, Dr. Happer published a summary of his views: “The Truth About Greenhouse Gases: The dubious science of the climate crusaders” (see http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases). The paper is so misleading that, in my view, it merits a paragraph-by-paragraph response. Indeed, being an alumnus of Princeton University and having devoted my career to study of climate change science, preparing a response almost seemed an obligation.
In offering these comments, my intent is to present the findings and perspectives of the national and international science community, illuminated with insights gained over more than four decades of seeking to improve understanding of how the Earth system works and is affected by natural and human events. In contrast to Dr. Happer’s view that the science of climate change is like a house of cards (i.e., find one flaw and the whole sense of understanding will fall), I have tried to give a sense of why, as Professor Henry Pollack of the University of Michigan has put it, the science of climate change is like a rope hammock (i.e., with lots of interconnections and linkages, such that weaknesses or failure of any particular detailed finding does not weaken the overall strength of scientific understanding).
Unless footnoted, the views I have offered are primarily drawn from IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report and/or from perspectives on climate change that are summarized at http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/science-in-six-findings.html and references, including a review paper, that can be downloaded from that site.
The full set of points made by Dr. Happer is included below, in paragraph-by-paragraph order, with my comments on each paragraph immediately following. To assist in referring to Dr. Happer’s various paragraphs, I have numbered the paragraphs sequentially, and my response is provided in italics. To provide a sense of the issues covered, the table gives a sense of the questions that an independent moderator might ask that would lead to the exchange regarding each paragraph, and the reader may want to use this to jump to comments and responses on a topic of particular interest.
A key to Will Happer’s assertions and Mike MacCracken’s responses:
1. Is the climate change community really off on a “climate crusade”?
2. Is CO2 a pollutant or a vital molecule for life on Earth—or both?
3. On what basis is EPA moving to regulate CO2?
4 through 7. Isn’t CO2 a nutrient for plants? Don’t we really want to have a higher CO2 concentration? Wasn’t the CO2 level actually nearly too low? Won’t more CO2 be beneficial?
8 and 9. How high can the CO2 level be without impacting human health? What is the optimal range for the CO2 concentration?
10 and 11. Is the increasing CO2 concentration really having adverse impacts?
12 and 13. Will increasing CO2 really cause warming? Is it really human activities causing the warming?
14 through 17. What does the history of Earth’s climate tell us over centuries to tens of millions of years? Hasn’t the Earth’s climate always been changing? So what makes the present warming significant?
18, 19, and 20. Has the IPCC really considered what has been learned from the study of Earth’s climatic history?
21 and 22. Is the “hockey stick” curve indicating recent warming really solid? Don’t the hacked emails show that climate data were manipulated?
23, 24 and 25. Has peer-review been compromised? Isn’t it biased?
26. Will the warming in response to the rising CO2 concentration be significant? How fast will these changes be occurring?
27. Will shifting to renewables enrich a few with political ties at the expense of the majority?
28, 29 and 30. Are computer models reliable enough to depend on? Aren’t they tuned and therefore unreliable? Can they really be used to project into the future?
31, 32, and 33. What has led to climate change being seen as so controversial? Has the science been co-opted by politics? How large is the funding for climate change research?
34 and 35. Are the views of those who are critical of the climate change results being suppressed? Aren’t their reputations being impugned?
36, 37, and 38. Are professional societies being corrupted by the climate change proponents? Has the American Physical Society misrepresented the views of its members?
39, 40 and 41. Is the public getting a balanced picture of climate change science? What is the trend in public understanding and viewpoint? Is the public just being rushed to judgment?
42 and 43. Aren’t there other environmental problems more deserving of emphasis than climate change? Where should the attention lie?
From MacCracken’s conclusion:
Building a better future can only be accomplished by facing up to the impacts that increasing CO2 emissions are having on the climate, on sea level, and on ocean acidification. That Dr. Happer is slowing this down by putting forth scientific statements that indicate so little understanding (presumably, because of reading too narrowly or with too closed a mind) is very disappointing. In the years that I was at Princeton and the grading system went from 1 (high) to 7 (low), I regret to say that Dr. Happer would have earned the 7. This grade was actually hard to get because it indicated “flagrant neglect” in one’s studies. For his generally uninformed and limited discussion and understanding of climate change science, however, I very much regret to say that Dr. Happer seems clearly to have earned that designation.
Credit…The New York Times ArchivesSee the article in its original context from April 17, 1976,
SANTA MONICA, Calif.— “From space one could control the earth’s weather, cause drought and floods, change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, make temperate climates frigid,” then‐Senator Lyndon B. Johnson told a joint session of Congress in 1957. Like many other legislators, he accepted Defense Department fantasies that the United States was in race with the Soviet Union to develop environmental weapons.
Mr. Johnson as President made the fantasies real by ordering rainmaking in Southeast Asia, Between 1967 and 1972 he and President Richard M. Nixon authorized at least $3.6 million annually on secret cloud‐seeding over North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in an attempt to muddy trails and slow enemy movements.
Although in one instance this enhanced rainfall by 30 percent, Pentagon officials call the operations failure. But the Pentagon defends them as humane, saying, “Raindrops don’t kill people; bombs do.” (The Department of Defense denies it was seeding over North Vietnam in 1971 when that nation suffered the heaviest rains since 1945. In 1945. a million Vietnamese died of flood and famine.)
Can a nation that tampers with natural balances deny responsibility for what follows? This question, together with recognition that United States policy condemns warfare aimed at civilians, prompted Senator Claiborne Pell in 1973 to introduce a resolution calling for an international treaty to prohibit environmental warfare “or the carrying out of any research or experimentation directed thereto.” The Senate voted 82 to 10 to approve the resolution, which lacks force of law.
Last August, at the 31‐nation United Nations conference of the Committee on Disarmament, in Geneva, the United States and Soviet Union jointly proposed a draft convention to ban “military or any other hostile use of environmental techniques.” Unfortunately it is far weaker than the Senate resolution. For example, it fails to prohibit military research or development of environmental‐modification techniques, and allows all “peaceful” work on such things.
The Pentagon says its Climate Dynamics program, formerly Project Nile Blue, is peaceful and needed to detect Soviet attempts to disrupt North American weather. (Because the treaty appoints no inspection agency to enforce its ban, leaving nations to bring evidence of violations to the United Nations Security Council, treaty ratification would justify increased funding for Climate Dynamics monitoring.)
But Climate Dynamics researchers. using computer models of oceans and atmosphere, have studied ways to melt the polar ice caps, generate destructive storms, and otherwise use “key environmental instabilities” to release huge amounts of energy. They have found how the United States, acting secretly from space, could inflict bad weather on the Soviet Union, thereby ruining harvests and keeping that country dependent on United States grain imports.
In the Soviet Union, engineers are reversing the Arctic‐flowing Pechora River and creating inland seas, actions that experts say will alter global climate. This is “peaceful.”
In 1975 the National Academy of Sciences reported that cooling in the Northern Hemisphere since the 1940’s makes the start of a new ice age within 100 years a small but real possibility. Scientists cannot determine whether the cooling is caused by humans or if one nation’s had weather is caused by another’s weather‐modification programs, so the potential for hostility arising from such programs is obvious. Global climatic changes will prompt many nations to use such modification techniques, but the world’s unstable political climate demands that such techniques be internationally regulated, with adequate safeguards and with reparations for those who suffer drought or storm damage.
The draft treaty could be a step toward such regulation. But the treaty allows some weather warfare by prohibiting only techniques having “widespread, long‐lasting or severe effects harmful to human welfare.” What does this mean? The tiniest tampering with natural balances can set off chain reactions with unforeseen consequences.
Senator Pell and Representatives Gilbert Gude and Donald M. Fraser have proposed that all United States environmental‐modification research—by civilians, the military and the Central Intelligence Agency—he put under Congressional control. Until this is done and the United States amends the draft treaty to eliminate loopholes and cloudy language, few nations will believe we want environmental warfare banned.
Lowell Ponte is author of the forthcoming booh “The Cooling,” about climatic change and modification.
The proven success of Weather Modification, Inc., in atmospheric and weather operations is evident by our lengthy and impressive client listing speaks for itself. Our reputation for successful cloud seeding and meteorological services leads our veteran pilots, experienced meteorologists and radar engineers around the world. Our valued clients include private and public insurance companies, water resource management organizations, as well as federal and state government research organizations.
