Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Non-Lethality: John B. Alexander, The Pentagon's Penguin
Non-Lethality: John B. Alexander, The Pentagon's Penguin
by Armen Victorian
from MindControlForums Website
The following article which appeared in the U.K. magazine, LOBSTER, in June 1993, is reproduced at the request of the author. (LOBSTER magazine, which specializes in intelligence and conspiracy matters, is published twice yearly.)
’Non-Lethality: John B. Alexander, The Pentagon’s Penguin’, was republished in Nexus (October/November, 1993) as ’Psychic Warfare and Non-Lethal Weapons’ under Henry Azadehdel’s ’hobby’ name of Armen Victorian
On April 22, 1993, both BBC1 and BBC2 showed on their main evening news bulletins a rather lengthy piece concerning America’s latest development in weaponry - the non-lethal weapons concept. David Shukman, BBC Defense Correspondent interviewed (Retired) U.S. Army Colonel John B. Alexander and Janet Morris, two of the main proponents of the concept (1). The concept of non-lethal weapons is not new. Non-lethal weapons have been used by the intelligence, police and defense establishments in the past (2).
Several western governments have used a variety of non-lethal weapons in a more discreet and covert manner. It seems that the U.S. government is about to take the first step towards their open use.
The current interest in the concept of non-lethal weapons began about a decade ago with John Alexander. In December 1980 he published an article in the U.S. Army’s journal, MILITARY REVIEW, "The New Mental Battlefield," referring to claims that telepathy could be used to interfere with the brain’s electrical activity. This caught the attention of senior Army generals who encouraged him to pursue what they termed "soft option kill" technologies.
After retiring from the Army in 1988, Alexander joined the Los Alamos National Laboratories and began working with Janet Morris, the Research Director of the U.S. Global Strategy Council (USGSC), chaired by Dr Ray Cline, former Deputy Director of the CIA (3). I examine the background of Janet Morris and John Alexander in more detail below.
Throughout 1990 the USGSC lobbied the main national laboratories, major defense contractors and industries, retired senior military and intelligence officers. The result was the creation of a Non-lethality Policy Review Group, led by Major General Chris S. Adams, USAF (retd.) former Chief of Staff, Strategic Air Command (4). They already have the support of Senator Sam Nunn, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. According to Janet Morris, the military attaché at the Russian Embassy has contacted USGSC about the possibility of converting military hardware to a non-lethal capability.
In 1991 Janet Morris issued a number of papers giving more detailed information about USGSC’s concept of non-lethal weapons (5). Shortly after, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, VA, published a detailed draft report on the subject titled "Operations Concept for Disabling Measures." The report included over twenty projects in which John Alexander is currently involved at the Los Alamos national Laboratories.
In a memorandum dated April 10, 1991, titled "Do we need a Non-lethal Defense initiative?" Paul Wolfwitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, wrote to Defense Secretary Dick Cheney,
"A U.S. lead in non-lethal technologies will increase our options and reinforce our position in the post-Cold War world. Our Research and Development efforts must be increased."
HOW LETHAL IS NON-LETHAL?
To support their non-lethal weapons concept, Janet Morris argues that while,
"war will always be terrible... a world power deserving its reputation for humane action should pioneer the principles of non-lethal defense (6)." In "Defining a non-lethal strategy," she seeks to establish a doctrine for the use of non-lethal weapons by the U.S. in crisis "at home or abroad in a life serving fashion."
She totally disregards the offensive, lethal aspects inherent in some of the weapons in question, or their misuse, should they become available to "rogue" nations. Despite her arguments that non-lethal weapons should serve the U.S.’s interests,
"at home and abroad by projecting power without indiscriminately taking lives or destroying property (7)," she admits that "casualties cannot be avoided (8)."
Closer examination of the types of weapons to be used as non-lethal invalidates her assertions about their non-lethality. According to her white paper, the areas where non-lethal weapons could be useful are,
"regional and low intensity conflict (adventurism, insurgency, ethnic violence, terrorism, narco- trafficking, domestic crime) (9)."
She believes that,
"by identifying and requiring a new category of non-lethal weapons, tactics and strategic planning" the U.S. can reshape its military capability, "to meet the already identifiable threats" that they might face in a multipolar world "where American interests are globalized and American presence widespread (10)."
THE POTENTIAL INVENTORY
Janet Morris’ "White Paper" recommends "two types of life-conserving technologies":
ANTI-MATERIAL NON-LETHAL TECHNOLOGIES
To destroy or impair electronics, or in other ways stop mechanical systems from functioning. Amongst current technologies from which this category of non- lethal weapons would or could be chosen are:
Chemical and biological weapons for their anti-materiel agents "which do not significantly endanger life or the environment, or anti-personnel agents which have no permanent effects (11)."
Laser blinding systems to incapacitate the electronic sensors, or optics, i.e. light detection and ranging. Already the Army Infantry School is developing a one-man portable and operated laser weapons system known as the Infantry Self-Defense System. The U.S. Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineer Center (ARDEC), is also engaged in the development of non-lethal weapons under their program called "Low Collateral Damage Munitions" (LCDM). The LCDM is trying to develop technologies leading to weapons capable of dazzling and incapacitating missiles, armored vehicles and personnel.
Non-lethal electromagnetic technologies.
Non-nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse weapons (12). As General Norman Schwartzkopf has told the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, one such weapons stationed in space with a wide-area-pulse capacity has the ability to fry enemy electronics. But what would be the fate of enemy personnel in such a scenario? In a join project with the Los Alamos National Laboratories and with technical support from the Army’s Harry Diamond Laboratories, ARDEC are developing High Power Microwave (HPM) Projectiles. According to ARDEC, the Diamond lab has already "completed a radio frequency effects analysis on a representative target set" for (HPM).
Among the chemical agents, so-called super caustics - "Millions of times more caustic than hydrofluoric acid (13)" - are prime candidates. An artillery round could deliver jellied super-acids which could destroy the optics of heavily armored vehicles or tanks, vision blocks or glass, and "could be used to silently destroy key weapons systems (14)."
On less lethal aspects the use of net-like entanglements for SEAL teams, or "stealthy" metal boats with low or no radar signature, "for night actions, or any sea borne or come-ashore stealthy scenario" are under consideration (15). More colorful concepts are the use of chemical metal embitterment, often called liquid metal embitterment and anti-materiel polymers which would be used in aerosol dispersal systems, spreading chemical adhesives or lubricants (i.e. Teflon-based lubricants) on enemy equipment from a distance.
ANTI-PERSONNEL NON-LETHAL TECHNOLOGIES
Hand-held lasers which are meant "to dazzle," could also cause the eyeball to explode and to blind the target.
Isotropic radiators - explosively driven munitions, capable of generating very bright omni-directional light, with similar effects to laser guns.
High-power microwaves (HPM) - U.S. Special Operations command already has that capability within their grasp as a portable microwave weapon (16). As Myron L. Wolbarsht, a Duke University opthalamist and expert in laser weapons stated:
"U.S. Special Forces can quietly cut enemy communications but also can cook internal organs (17)."
Another candidate is Infrasound - acoustic beams. In conjunction with the Scientific Applications and Research Associates (SARA) of Huntingdon, California, ARDEC and Los Alamos laboratories are busy "developing a high power, very low frequency acoustic beam weapons." They are also looking into methods of projecting non-diffracting (i.e. non-penetrating) high frequency acoustic bullets. ARDEC scientists are also looking into methods of using pulsed chemical lasers. This class of lasers could project,
"a hot, high pressure plasma in the air in front of a target surface, creating a blast wave that will result in variable but controlled effects on materiel and personnel."
Infrasound. Already some governments have used it as a means of crowd control - e.g. France.
Very low frequency (VLF) sound (20-35 KHz), or low-frequency RF modulations can cause nausea, vomiting and abdominal pains.
"Some very low frequency sound generators, in certain frequency ranges, can cause the disruption of human organs and, at high power levels, can crumble masonry (18)."
The CIA had a similar program in 1978 called Operation Pique, which included bouncing radio or microwave signals off the ionosphere to affect mental functions of people in selected areas, including Eastern European nuclear installations (19).
JOHN ALEXANDER
The entire non-lethal weapon concept opens up a new Pandora’s Box of unknown consequences. The main personality behind it is retired Colonel John B. Alexander. Born in New York in 1937, he spent part of his career as a Commander of Green Berets Special Forces in Vietnam, led Cambodian mercenaries behind enemy lines, and took part in a number of clandestine programs, including Phoenix. He currently holds the post of Director of Non-lethal Programs in the Los Alamos National Laboratories.
Alexander obtained a BaS from the University of Nebraska and an MA from Pepperdine University. In 1980 he was awarded a PhD from Walden University (20) for his thesis "To determine whether or not significant changes in spirituality occur in persons who attended a Kubler-Ross life/death transition workshop during the period June through February 1979." His dissertation committee was chaired by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross.
He has long been interested in what used to be regarded as "fringe" areas. In 1971, while a Captain in the infantry at Schofield Barracks, Honolulu, he was diving in the Bemini Islands looking for the lost continent of Atlantis. He was an official representative for the Silva mind control organization and a lecturer on Precataclysmic Civilizations (21).
Alexander is also a past President and a Board member of the International Association for Near Death Studies; and, with his former wife, Jan Northup, he helped Dr C.B. Scott Jones perform ESP experiments with dolphins (22).
PSI-TECH
Retired Major General Albert N. Stubblebine (Former Director of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command) and Alexander are on the board of a "remote viewing" company called PSI-TECH. The company also employs Major Edward Dames (ex Defense Intelligence Agency), Major David Morehouse (ex 82nd Airborne Division), and Ron Blackburn (former microwave scientist and specialist at Kirkland Air Force Base).
PSI-TECH has received several government contracts. For example, during the Gulf War crisis the Department for Defense asked it to use remote viewing to locate Saddam’s Scud missiles sites. Last year (1992) the FBI sought PSI-TECH’s assistance to locate a kidnapped Exxon executive (23).
With Major Richard Groller and Janet Morris as his co-authors, Alexander published THE WARRIOR’S EDGE in 1990 (24). The book describes in detail various unconventional methods which would enable the practitioner to acquire "human excellence and optimum performance" and thereby become an invincible warrior (25). The purpose of the book is "to unlock the door to the extraordinary human potentials inherent in each of us. To do this, we, like governments around the world , must take a fresh look at non-traditional methods of affecting reality. We must raise human consciousness of the potential power of the individual body/mind system - the power to manipulate reality. We must be willing to retake control of our past, present, and ultimately, our future (26)."
Alexander is a friend of Vice President Al Gore Jnr, their relationship dating back to 1983 when Gore was in Alexander’s Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). NLP "presented to selected general officers and Senior Executive Service members (27)" a set of techniques to modify behavior patterns (28). Among the first generals to take the course was the then Lieutenant General Maxwell Thurman, who later went on to receive his fourth star and become Vice-Chief of Staff at the Army and Commander Southern Command (29). Among other senior participants were Tom Downey and Major General Stubblebine, former Director of the Army Intelligence Security Command.
"In 1983, the Jedi master (from the Star Wars movie - author) provided an image and a name for the Jei Project (30)."
Jedi Project’s aim was to seek and "construct teachable models of behaviorable/physical excellence using unconventional means (31)." According to Alexander the Jedi Project was to be a follow-up to Neuro-Linguistic Programming skills. By using the influence of friends such as Major General Stubblebine, who was then head of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, he managed to fund Jedi. In reality the concept was old hat, re-christened by Alexander.
The original idea which was to show how "human will power and human concentration affect performance more than any other single factor (32)" using NLP skills, was the brainchild of three independent people; Fritz Erikson, a Gestalt therapist, Virginia Satir, a family therapist and Erick Erickson, a hypnotist.
JANET MORRIS
Janet Morris, co-author of THE WARRIOR’S EDGE, is best known as a science fiction writer but has been a member of the New York Academy of Sciences since 1980 and is a member of the Association for Electronic Defense. She is also the Research Director of the U.S. Global Strategy Council (USGSC). She was initiated into the Japanese art of bioenergetics, Joh-re, the Indonesian brotherhood of Subud, and graduated from the Silva course in advanced mind control.
She has been conducting remote viewing experiments for fifteen years. She worked on a research project investigating the effects of mind on probability in computer systems. Her husband, Robert Morris, is a former judge and a key member of the American Security Council (33).
In a recent telephone conversation with the author (34), Janet Morris confirmed John Alexander’s involvement in mind control and psychotronic projects in the Los Alamos National Laboratories. Alexander and his team have recently been working with Dr Igor Smirnov, a psychologist from the Moscow Institute of Psychocorrelations. They were invited to the U.S. after Janet Morris’ visit to Russia in 1991.
There she was shown the technique which was pioneered by the Russian Department of Psycho-Correction at Moscow Medical Academy. The Russians employ a technique to electronically analyze the human mind in order to influence it. They input subliminal command messages, using key words transmitted in "white noise" or music (35). Using an infrasound very low frequency-type transmission, the acoustic psycho-correction message is transmitted via bone conduction - ear plugs would not restrict the message.
To do that would require an entire body protection system. According to the Russians the subliminal messages by-pass the conscious level and are effective almost immediately.
C.B. SCOTT JONES
Jones is the former assistant to Senator Clairborne Pell (Democrat, Rhode Island). Scott Jones was a member of U.S. Naval Intelligence for 15 years, as well as Assistant Naval Attaché, New Delhi, India, in the 1960s. Jones has briefed the President’s Scientific Advisory Committee, and has testified before House and Senate Committees on intelligence matters.
After the navy he,
"worked in the private sector research and development community involved in the U.S. government sponsored projects for the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command."
He has been head of the Rockefeller Foundation for some time and chairs the American Society for Psychical Research (36).
BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Alexander and C.B. Jones are members of the AVIARY, a group of intelligence and Department of Defense officers and scientists with a brief to discredit any serious research in the UFO field. Each member of the Aviary bears a bird’s name. Jones is FALCON, John Alexander is PENGUIN.
One of their agents; a UFO researcher known as William Moore, who was introduced to John Alexander at a party in 1987 by Scott Jones, confessed in front of an audience at a conference held by the MUTUAL UFO NETWORK (MUFON) on July 1, 1989, in Las Vegas, how he was promised inside information by the senior members of the AVIARY in return for his obedience and service to them. He participated in the propagation and dissemination of disinformation fed to him by various members of the AVIARY.
He also confessed how he was instructed to target one particular individual, an electronics expert, Dr Paul Bennewitz, who had accumulated some UFO film footage and electronic signals which were taking place in 1980 over the Menzano Weapons Storage areas, at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. As a result of Moore’s involvement, coupled with some surreptitious entries and psychological techniques, Bennewitz ended up in a psychiatric hospital.
Just before the publication of my first paper unmasking two members of the AVIARY (37) I was visited by two of their members (MORNING DOVE and HAWK) who had travelled to the U.K. with a message from the senior ranks advising me not to go ahead with my expose. I rejected the proposal.
Immediately after the publication of that paper, and with the full knowledge that myself and a handful of colleagues knew the true identities of their members, John B. Alexander confessed that he was indeed a member of the AVIARY, nicknamed PENGUIN. The accuracy of our information was further confirmed to me by yet another member of the AVIARY, Ron Pandolphi, PELICAN. Pandolphi is a PhD in physics and works at the Rocket and Missile section of the Office of the Deputy Director of Science and Technology, CIA.
In his book, OUT THERE (38), the NEW YORK TIMES journalist Howard Blum refers to "a UFO Working Group" within the Defense Intelligence Agency. Despite DIA’s repeated denials (39), the existence of this working group has been confirmed to me by more than one member of the group itself, including an independent source in the Office of Naval Intelligence.
The majority of the group’s members are senior members of the AVIARY:
Dr Christopher Green (BLUEJAY) from the CIA (40)
Harold Puthoff (OWL) ex-NSA
Dr Jack Verona (RAVEN) (DoD, one of the initiators of the DIA’s Sleeping Beauty project which aimed to achieve battlefield superiority using mind-altering electromagnetic weaponry)
John Alexander (PENGUIN)
Ron Pandolphi (PELICAN)
The mysterious "Col. Harold E. Phillips" who appears in Blum’s OUT THERE is none other than John B. Alexander.
John Alexander’s position as the Program Manager for Contingency Missions of Conventional Defense Technology, Los Alamos National Laboratories, enabled him to exploit the Department of Defense’s Project RELIANCE "which encourages a search for all possible sources of existing and incipient technologies before developing new technology in-house (41)" to tap into a wide range of exotic topics, sometimes using defense contractors, e.g. McDonnel Douglas Aerospace.
I have several reports, some of which were compiled before his departure to the Los Alamos National Laboratories when he was with Army Intelligence, which show Alexander’s keen interest in any and every exotic subject:
UFOs
ESP
psychotronics
anti-gravity devices
near death experiments
psychology warfare
non-lethal weaponry
John Alexander utilizes the bank of information he has accumulated to try to develop psychotronic, psychological and mind weaponry. He began thinking about non-lethal weapons a decade ago in his paper "The New Mental Battlefield." He seems to want to become a "Master."
If he ever succeeds in this ambition the rest of us ordinary mortals had better watch out.
NOTES:
1. Letter dated 2 April, 1993, to author from Mrs Victoria Alexander.
2. The U.S. Army Chemical and Military Police used "Novel Effect Weapons" against the women protesters at the Greenham Common Base.
3. The United States Global Strategy Council is an independent think tank, incorporated in 1981. It focuses on long-range strategic issues. The founding members were Clare Boothe Luce, General Maxwell Taylor, General Albert Wedemeyer, Dr Ray Cline (Co-chair), Jeane Kirkpatrick (Co-chair), Morris Leibman, Henry luce III, J. William Middendorf II, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer USN (retd), General Richard Stillwell (retd), Dr Michael A. Daniles (President), Dr Dalton A. West (Executive Vice President). Its Research Directors were Dr Yona Alexander, Dr Roger Fontaine, Robert L. Katula and Janet Morris.
4. NONLETHAlITY: DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL POLICY AND EMPLOYING NONLETHAL MEANS IN A NEW STATEGIC ERA - a Project of the U.S. Global Strategy Council, 1991, p.4. Other staff members of the USGSC are Steve Trevino, Dr John B. Alexander and Chris Morris.
5. The USGSC has issued a wide variety of papers on the Nonlethal Weapons Concept. For example, IN SEARCH OF NONLETHAL STRATEGY (Janet Morris); NONLETHALITY: A GLOBAL STRATEGY - WHITE PAPER; NONLETHALITY BRIEFING SUPPLEMENT No.1; and NONLETHALITY IN THE OPERATIONAL CONTINUUM.
6. IN SEARCH OF A NONLETHAL STRATEGY, Janet Morris, p.1.
7. NONLETHALITY: A GLOBAL STRATEGY - WHITE PAPER, p.3. 8. IN SEARCH OF... P.3.
9. In the recent cult siege in Waco, Texas, a "nonlethal" technique, projecting sublimal messages, was used to influence David Kuresh - without effect.
10. NONLETHALITY: A GLOBAL STRATEGY - WHITE PAPER, p.2.
11. The computer data base compiled during the CIA/Army’s Project OFTEN, examining several thousand chemical compounds, during 1976-1973, is a most likely candidate for any chemical agents for nonlethal weapons.
12. The British MoD is already developing a "microwave bomb." Work on the weapon is going on at the Defence Research Agency at Farnborough, Hampshire. See SUNDAY TELEGRAPH September 27, 1992, partly reproduced in LOBSTER 24, p.14. The Royal Navy is already in possession of laser weapons which dazzle aircraft pilots. The Red Cross has called for them to be banned under the Geneva Convention because could permanently blind.
13. IN SEARCH OF A NONLETHAL STRATEGY, p.13.
14. Ibid.
15. The U.S. Navy, through its Project SEA SHADOW, has already developed a stealth boat. Like the Lockheed F117A, stealth fighter, it leaves no radar signature - BBC, Newsround, April 28, 1993.
16. Taped conversation with Janet Morris, March 1, 1993.
17. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, January 4, 1993.
18. IN SEARCH OF A NONLETHAL STRATEGY, p. 14.
19. REMOTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, Anna Keeler (FULL DISCLOSURE, Ann Arbor, U.S.A., 1989) p.11.
20. Walden University, 801 Anchor Road Drive, Naples, Fl. 33904, U.S.A. Walden University considers itself a non-traditional university and does not offer any undergraduate courses to its students.
21. Brad Steiger, MYSTERIES OF SPACE AND TIME (Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey) pp.72 and 3. The U.S. Army Command and General College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, issued this on Alexander’s career: "Colonel John B. Alexander, U.S. Army Retired, manages Antimateriel Technology at Los Alamos National Laboratories, Los Alamos, New Mexico. His military assignments included; Advanced Systems Concepts Office, Laboratory Command; manager, Technology Integration Office, Army Material Command; assistant deputy chief of staff, Technology Planning and Management, Army Material Command; and chief, Advanced Human Technology, Intelligence and Security Command."
22. Taped telephone conversation with Dr Scott Jones, August 17, 1992.
23. Taped telephone conversation with Maj. Edward Dames, June 27, 1992; and THE BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, December 1992, p.6.
24. THE WARRIOR’S EDGE, Col. John B. Alexander, Maj. Richard Groller and Janet Morris, (William Morrow Inc., New York, 1990).
25. Ibid. p.9.
26. Ibid. pp.9 and 10.
27. Ibid p.47.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid. pp.72 and 3.
31. Ibid. p.12.
32. Ibid. p. 13.
33. The American Security Council (ASC) Box 8, Boston, Virginia 22713, USA. ASC is militarist, anti-communist and right-wing. Formed in the mid 1950s, the Council acts as a right-wing think tank on foreign policy and lobbies for the expansion and strengthening of U.S. military forces. In 1985 the ASC had 330,000 members. See, for example, the entry for the ASC in THE RADICAL RIGHT: A WORLD DIRECTORY, compiled by Ciaran O Maolain (Longman, London 1987).
34. Taped telephone conversation with Janet Morris, March 1, 1993.
35. In 1989 a U.S. Department of Defense consultant and contractor explained to the author how he was asked to examine the possibility of devising operational methods of transmitting subliminal messages through the TV screen.
36. "Will the Real Scott Jones please stand up?" - unpublished paper by George Hansen and Robert Durant, February 20, 1990, pp.4 and 5.
37. "The Birds" Armen Victorian, in U.K. UFO Magazine, Vol.11 No.3, July/August 1992, pp 4-7.
38. OUT THERE, Howard Blum (Simon and Schuster, London 1990) pp.44, 46-51, 55-57.
39. DIA’s letters to author dated July 12, 1991, July 8, 1992 and December 18, 1992.
40. Dr Chistopher "Kit" Green, BLUEJAY, has admitted that the CIA has compiled over 30,000 files on UFOs, 200 of which are extremely interesting. Green was a key CIA member in examining the UFO problem for several years.
41. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Institutional Plan Fiscal Year 1992 - Fiscal Year 1997, p.14.
by Armen Victorian
from MindControlForums Website
The following article which appeared in the U.K. magazine, LOBSTER, in June 1993, is reproduced at the request of the author. (LOBSTER magazine, which specializes in intelligence and conspiracy matters, is published twice yearly.)
’Non-Lethality: John B. Alexander, The Pentagon’s Penguin’, was republished in Nexus (October/November, 1993) as ’Psychic Warfare and Non-Lethal Weapons’ under Henry Azadehdel’s ’hobby’ name of Armen Victorian
On April 22, 1993, both BBC1 and BBC2 showed on their main evening news bulletins a rather lengthy piece concerning America’s latest development in weaponry - the non-lethal weapons concept. David Shukman, BBC Defense Correspondent interviewed (Retired) U.S. Army Colonel John B. Alexander and Janet Morris, two of the main proponents of the concept (1). The concept of non-lethal weapons is not new. Non-lethal weapons have been used by the intelligence, police and defense establishments in the past (2).
Several western governments have used a variety of non-lethal weapons in a more discreet and covert manner. It seems that the U.S. government is about to take the first step towards their open use.
The current interest in the concept of non-lethal weapons began about a decade ago with John Alexander. In December 1980 he published an article in the U.S. Army’s journal, MILITARY REVIEW, "The New Mental Battlefield," referring to claims that telepathy could be used to interfere with the brain’s electrical activity. This caught the attention of senior Army generals who encouraged him to pursue what they termed "soft option kill" technologies.
After retiring from the Army in 1988, Alexander joined the Los Alamos National Laboratories and began working with Janet Morris, the Research Director of the U.S. Global Strategy Council (USGSC), chaired by Dr Ray Cline, former Deputy Director of the CIA (3). I examine the background of Janet Morris and John Alexander in more detail below.
Throughout 1990 the USGSC lobbied the main national laboratories, major defense contractors and industries, retired senior military and intelligence officers. The result was the creation of a Non-lethality Policy Review Group, led by Major General Chris S. Adams, USAF (retd.) former Chief of Staff, Strategic Air Command (4). They already have the support of Senator Sam Nunn, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. According to Janet Morris, the military attaché at the Russian Embassy has contacted USGSC about the possibility of converting military hardware to a non-lethal capability.
In 1991 Janet Morris issued a number of papers giving more detailed information about USGSC’s concept of non-lethal weapons (5). Shortly after, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, VA, published a detailed draft report on the subject titled "Operations Concept for Disabling Measures." The report included over twenty projects in which John Alexander is currently involved at the Los Alamos national Laboratories.
In a memorandum dated April 10, 1991, titled "Do we need a Non-lethal Defense initiative?" Paul Wolfwitz, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, wrote to Defense Secretary Dick Cheney,
"A U.S. lead in non-lethal technologies will increase our options and reinforce our position in the post-Cold War world. Our Research and Development efforts must be increased."
HOW LETHAL IS NON-LETHAL?
To support their non-lethal weapons concept, Janet Morris argues that while,
"war will always be terrible... a world power deserving its reputation for humane action should pioneer the principles of non-lethal defense (6)." In "Defining a non-lethal strategy," she seeks to establish a doctrine for the use of non-lethal weapons by the U.S. in crisis "at home or abroad in a life serving fashion."
She totally disregards the offensive, lethal aspects inherent in some of the weapons in question, or their misuse, should they become available to "rogue" nations. Despite her arguments that non-lethal weapons should serve the U.S.’s interests,
"at home and abroad by projecting power without indiscriminately taking lives or destroying property (7)," she admits that "casualties cannot be avoided (8)."
Closer examination of the types of weapons to be used as non-lethal invalidates her assertions about their non-lethality. According to her white paper, the areas where non-lethal weapons could be useful are,
"regional and low intensity conflict (adventurism, insurgency, ethnic violence, terrorism, narco- trafficking, domestic crime) (9)."
She believes that,
"by identifying and requiring a new category of non-lethal weapons, tactics and strategic planning" the U.S. can reshape its military capability, "to meet the already identifiable threats" that they might face in a multipolar world "where American interests are globalized and American presence widespread (10)."
THE POTENTIAL INVENTORY
Janet Morris’ "White Paper" recommends "two types of life-conserving technologies":
ANTI-MATERIAL NON-LETHAL TECHNOLOGIES
To destroy or impair electronics, or in other ways stop mechanical systems from functioning. Amongst current technologies from which this category of non- lethal weapons would or could be chosen are:
Chemical and biological weapons for their anti-materiel agents "which do not significantly endanger life or the environment, or anti-personnel agents which have no permanent effects (11)."
Laser blinding systems to incapacitate the electronic sensors, or optics, i.e. light detection and ranging. Already the Army Infantry School is developing a one-man portable and operated laser weapons system known as the Infantry Self-Defense System. The U.S. Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineer Center (ARDEC), is also engaged in the development of non-lethal weapons under their program called "Low Collateral Damage Munitions" (LCDM). The LCDM is trying to develop technologies leading to weapons capable of dazzling and incapacitating missiles, armored vehicles and personnel.
Non-lethal electromagnetic technologies.
Non-nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse weapons (12). As General Norman Schwartzkopf has told the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, one such weapons stationed in space with a wide-area-pulse capacity has the ability to fry enemy electronics. But what would be the fate of enemy personnel in such a scenario? In a join project with the Los Alamos National Laboratories and with technical support from the Army’s Harry Diamond Laboratories, ARDEC are developing High Power Microwave (HPM) Projectiles. According to ARDEC, the Diamond lab has already "completed a radio frequency effects analysis on a representative target set" for (HPM).
Among the chemical agents, so-called super caustics - "Millions of times more caustic than hydrofluoric acid (13)" - are prime candidates. An artillery round could deliver jellied super-acids which could destroy the optics of heavily armored vehicles or tanks, vision blocks or glass, and "could be used to silently destroy key weapons systems (14)."
On less lethal aspects the use of net-like entanglements for SEAL teams, or "stealthy" metal boats with low or no radar signature, "for night actions, or any sea borne or come-ashore stealthy scenario" are under consideration (15). More colorful concepts are the use of chemical metal embitterment, often called liquid metal embitterment and anti-materiel polymers which would be used in aerosol dispersal systems, spreading chemical adhesives or lubricants (i.e. Teflon-based lubricants) on enemy equipment from a distance.
ANTI-PERSONNEL NON-LETHAL TECHNOLOGIES
Hand-held lasers which are meant "to dazzle," could also cause the eyeball to explode and to blind the target.
Isotropic radiators - explosively driven munitions, capable of generating very bright omni-directional light, with similar effects to laser guns.
High-power microwaves (HPM) - U.S. Special Operations command already has that capability within their grasp as a portable microwave weapon (16). As Myron L. Wolbarsht, a Duke University opthalamist and expert in laser weapons stated:
"U.S. Special Forces can quietly cut enemy communications but also can cook internal organs (17)."
Another candidate is Infrasound - acoustic beams. In conjunction with the Scientific Applications and Research Associates (SARA) of Huntingdon, California, ARDEC and Los Alamos laboratories are busy "developing a high power, very low frequency acoustic beam weapons." They are also looking into methods of projecting non-diffracting (i.e. non-penetrating) high frequency acoustic bullets. ARDEC scientists are also looking into methods of using pulsed chemical lasers. This class of lasers could project,
"a hot, high pressure plasma in the air in front of a target surface, creating a blast wave that will result in variable but controlled effects on materiel and personnel."
Infrasound. Already some governments have used it as a means of crowd control - e.g. France.
Very low frequency (VLF) sound (20-35 KHz), or low-frequency RF modulations can cause nausea, vomiting and abdominal pains.
"Some very low frequency sound generators, in certain frequency ranges, can cause the disruption of human organs and, at high power levels, can crumble masonry (18)."
The CIA had a similar program in 1978 called Operation Pique, which included bouncing radio or microwave signals off the ionosphere to affect mental functions of people in selected areas, including Eastern European nuclear installations (19).
JOHN ALEXANDER
The entire non-lethal weapon concept opens up a new Pandora’s Box of unknown consequences. The main personality behind it is retired Colonel John B. Alexander. Born in New York in 1937, he spent part of his career as a Commander of Green Berets Special Forces in Vietnam, led Cambodian mercenaries behind enemy lines, and took part in a number of clandestine programs, including Phoenix. He currently holds the post of Director of Non-lethal Programs in the Los Alamos National Laboratories.
Alexander obtained a BaS from the University of Nebraska and an MA from Pepperdine University. In 1980 he was awarded a PhD from Walden University (20) for his thesis "To determine whether or not significant changes in spirituality occur in persons who attended a Kubler-Ross life/death transition workshop during the period June through February 1979." His dissertation committee was chaired by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross.
He has long been interested in what used to be regarded as "fringe" areas. In 1971, while a Captain in the infantry at Schofield Barracks, Honolulu, he was diving in the Bemini Islands looking for the lost continent of Atlantis. He was an official representative for the Silva mind control organization and a lecturer on Precataclysmic Civilizations (21).
Alexander is also a past President and a Board member of the International Association for Near Death Studies; and, with his former wife, Jan Northup, he helped Dr C.B. Scott Jones perform ESP experiments with dolphins (22).
PSI-TECH
Retired Major General Albert N. Stubblebine (Former Director of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command) and Alexander are on the board of a "remote viewing" company called PSI-TECH. The company also employs Major Edward Dames (ex Defense Intelligence Agency), Major David Morehouse (ex 82nd Airborne Division), and Ron Blackburn (former microwave scientist and specialist at Kirkland Air Force Base).
PSI-TECH has received several government contracts. For example, during the Gulf War crisis the Department for Defense asked it to use remote viewing to locate Saddam’s Scud missiles sites. Last year (1992) the FBI sought PSI-TECH’s assistance to locate a kidnapped Exxon executive (23).
With Major Richard Groller and Janet Morris as his co-authors, Alexander published THE WARRIOR’S EDGE in 1990 (24). The book describes in detail various unconventional methods which would enable the practitioner to acquire "human excellence and optimum performance" and thereby become an invincible warrior (25). The purpose of the book is "to unlock the door to the extraordinary human potentials inherent in each of us. To do this, we, like governments around the world , must take a fresh look at non-traditional methods of affecting reality. We must raise human consciousness of the potential power of the individual body/mind system - the power to manipulate reality. We must be willing to retake control of our past, present, and ultimately, our future (26)."
Alexander is a friend of Vice President Al Gore Jnr, their relationship dating back to 1983 when Gore was in Alexander’s Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP). NLP "presented to selected general officers and Senior Executive Service members (27)" a set of techniques to modify behavior patterns (28). Among the first generals to take the course was the then Lieutenant General Maxwell Thurman, who later went on to receive his fourth star and become Vice-Chief of Staff at the Army and Commander Southern Command (29). Among other senior participants were Tom Downey and Major General Stubblebine, former Director of the Army Intelligence Security Command.
"In 1983, the Jedi master (from the Star Wars movie - author) provided an image and a name for the Jei Project (30)."
Jedi Project’s aim was to seek and "construct teachable models of behaviorable/physical excellence using unconventional means (31)." According to Alexander the Jedi Project was to be a follow-up to Neuro-Linguistic Programming skills. By using the influence of friends such as Major General Stubblebine, who was then head of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, he managed to fund Jedi. In reality the concept was old hat, re-christened by Alexander.
The original idea which was to show how "human will power and human concentration affect performance more than any other single factor (32)" using NLP skills, was the brainchild of three independent people; Fritz Erikson, a Gestalt therapist, Virginia Satir, a family therapist and Erick Erickson, a hypnotist.
JANET MORRIS
Janet Morris, co-author of THE WARRIOR’S EDGE, is best known as a science fiction writer but has been a member of the New York Academy of Sciences since 1980 and is a member of the Association for Electronic Defense. She is also the Research Director of the U.S. Global Strategy Council (USGSC). She was initiated into the Japanese art of bioenergetics, Joh-re, the Indonesian brotherhood of Subud, and graduated from the Silva course in advanced mind control.
She has been conducting remote viewing experiments for fifteen years. She worked on a research project investigating the effects of mind on probability in computer systems. Her husband, Robert Morris, is a former judge and a key member of the American Security Council (33).
In a recent telephone conversation with the author (34), Janet Morris confirmed John Alexander’s involvement in mind control and psychotronic projects in the Los Alamos National Laboratories. Alexander and his team have recently been working with Dr Igor Smirnov, a psychologist from the Moscow Institute of Psychocorrelations. They were invited to the U.S. after Janet Morris’ visit to Russia in 1991.
There she was shown the technique which was pioneered by the Russian Department of Psycho-Correction at Moscow Medical Academy. The Russians employ a technique to electronically analyze the human mind in order to influence it. They input subliminal command messages, using key words transmitted in "white noise" or music (35). Using an infrasound very low frequency-type transmission, the acoustic psycho-correction message is transmitted via bone conduction - ear plugs would not restrict the message.
To do that would require an entire body protection system. According to the Russians the subliminal messages by-pass the conscious level and are effective almost immediately.
C.B. SCOTT JONES
Jones is the former assistant to Senator Clairborne Pell (Democrat, Rhode Island). Scott Jones was a member of U.S. Naval Intelligence for 15 years, as well as Assistant Naval Attaché, New Delhi, India, in the 1960s. Jones has briefed the President’s Scientific Advisory Committee, and has testified before House and Senate Committees on intelligence matters.
After the navy he,
"worked in the private sector research and development community involved in the U.S. government sponsored projects for the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command."
He has been head of the Rockefeller Foundation for some time and chairs the American Society for Psychical Research (36).
BIRDS OF A FEATHER
Alexander and C.B. Jones are members of the AVIARY, a group of intelligence and Department of Defense officers and scientists with a brief to discredit any serious research in the UFO field. Each member of the Aviary bears a bird’s name. Jones is FALCON, John Alexander is PENGUIN.
One of their agents; a UFO researcher known as William Moore, who was introduced to John Alexander at a party in 1987 by Scott Jones, confessed in front of an audience at a conference held by the MUTUAL UFO NETWORK (MUFON) on July 1, 1989, in Las Vegas, how he was promised inside information by the senior members of the AVIARY in return for his obedience and service to them. He participated in the propagation and dissemination of disinformation fed to him by various members of the AVIARY.
He also confessed how he was instructed to target one particular individual, an electronics expert, Dr Paul Bennewitz, who had accumulated some UFO film footage and electronic signals which were taking place in 1980 over the Menzano Weapons Storage areas, at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico. As a result of Moore’s involvement, coupled with some surreptitious entries and psychological techniques, Bennewitz ended up in a psychiatric hospital.
Just before the publication of my first paper unmasking two members of the AVIARY (37) I was visited by two of their members (MORNING DOVE and HAWK) who had travelled to the U.K. with a message from the senior ranks advising me not to go ahead with my expose. I rejected the proposal.
Immediately after the publication of that paper, and with the full knowledge that myself and a handful of colleagues knew the true identities of their members, John B. Alexander confessed that he was indeed a member of the AVIARY, nicknamed PENGUIN. The accuracy of our information was further confirmed to me by yet another member of the AVIARY, Ron Pandolphi, PELICAN. Pandolphi is a PhD in physics and works at the Rocket and Missile section of the Office of the Deputy Director of Science and Technology, CIA.
In his book, OUT THERE (38), the NEW YORK TIMES journalist Howard Blum refers to "a UFO Working Group" within the Defense Intelligence Agency. Despite DIA’s repeated denials (39), the existence of this working group has been confirmed to me by more than one member of the group itself, including an independent source in the Office of Naval Intelligence.
The majority of the group’s members are senior members of the AVIARY:
Dr Christopher Green (BLUEJAY) from the CIA (40)
Harold Puthoff (OWL) ex-NSA
Dr Jack Verona (RAVEN) (DoD, one of the initiators of the DIA’s Sleeping Beauty project which aimed to achieve battlefield superiority using mind-altering electromagnetic weaponry)
John Alexander (PENGUIN)
Ron Pandolphi (PELICAN)
The mysterious "Col. Harold E. Phillips" who appears in Blum’s OUT THERE is none other than John B. Alexander.
John Alexander’s position as the Program Manager for Contingency Missions of Conventional Defense Technology, Los Alamos National Laboratories, enabled him to exploit the Department of Defense’s Project RELIANCE "which encourages a search for all possible sources of existing and incipient technologies before developing new technology in-house (41)" to tap into a wide range of exotic topics, sometimes using defense contractors, e.g. McDonnel Douglas Aerospace.
I have several reports, some of which were compiled before his departure to the Los Alamos National Laboratories when he was with Army Intelligence, which show Alexander’s keen interest in any and every exotic subject:
UFOs
ESP
psychotronics
anti-gravity devices
near death experiments
psychology warfare
non-lethal weaponry
John Alexander utilizes the bank of information he has accumulated to try to develop psychotronic, psychological and mind weaponry. He began thinking about non-lethal weapons a decade ago in his paper "The New Mental Battlefield." He seems to want to become a "Master."
If he ever succeeds in this ambition the rest of us ordinary mortals had better watch out.
NOTES:
1. Letter dated 2 April, 1993, to author from Mrs Victoria Alexander.
2. The U.S. Army Chemical and Military Police used "Novel Effect Weapons" against the women protesters at the Greenham Common Base.
3. The United States Global Strategy Council is an independent think tank, incorporated in 1981. It focuses on long-range strategic issues. The founding members were Clare Boothe Luce, General Maxwell Taylor, General Albert Wedemeyer, Dr Ray Cline (Co-chair), Jeane Kirkpatrick (Co-chair), Morris Leibman, Henry luce III, J. William Middendorf II, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer USN (retd), General Richard Stillwell (retd), Dr Michael A. Daniles (President), Dr Dalton A. West (Executive Vice President). Its Research Directors were Dr Yona Alexander, Dr Roger Fontaine, Robert L. Katula and Janet Morris.
4. NONLETHAlITY: DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL POLICY AND EMPLOYING NONLETHAL MEANS IN A NEW STATEGIC ERA - a Project of the U.S. Global Strategy Council, 1991, p.4. Other staff members of the USGSC are Steve Trevino, Dr John B. Alexander and Chris Morris.
5. The USGSC has issued a wide variety of papers on the Nonlethal Weapons Concept. For example, IN SEARCH OF NONLETHAL STRATEGY (Janet Morris); NONLETHALITY: A GLOBAL STRATEGY - WHITE PAPER; NONLETHALITY BRIEFING SUPPLEMENT No.1; and NONLETHALITY IN THE OPERATIONAL CONTINUUM.
6. IN SEARCH OF A NONLETHAL STRATEGY, Janet Morris, p.1.
7. NONLETHALITY: A GLOBAL STRATEGY - WHITE PAPER, p.3. 8. IN SEARCH OF... P.3.
9. In the recent cult siege in Waco, Texas, a "nonlethal" technique, projecting sublimal messages, was used to influence David Kuresh - without effect.
10. NONLETHALITY: A GLOBAL STRATEGY - WHITE PAPER, p.2.
11. The computer data base compiled during the CIA/Army’s Project OFTEN, examining several thousand chemical compounds, during 1976-1973, is a most likely candidate for any chemical agents for nonlethal weapons.
12. The British MoD is already developing a "microwave bomb." Work on the weapon is going on at the Defence Research Agency at Farnborough, Hampshire. See SUNDAY TELEGRAPH September 27, 1992, partly reproduced in LOBSTER 24, p.14. The Royal Navy is already in possession of laser weapons which dazzle aircraft pilots. The Red Cross has called for them to be banned under the Geneva Convention because could permanently blind.
13. IN SEARCH OF A NONLETHAL STRATEGY, p.13.
14. Ibid.
15. The U.S. Navy, through its Project SEA SHADOW, has already developed a stealth boat. Like the Lockheed F117A, stealth fighter, it leaves no radar signature - BBC, Newsround, April 28, 1993.
16. Taped conversation with Janet Morris, March 1, 1993.
17. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, January 4, 1993.
18. IN SEARCH OF A NONLETHAL STRATEGY, p. 14.
19. REMOTE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, Anna Keeler (FULL DISCLOSURE, Ann Arbor, U.S.A., 1989) p.11.
20. Walden University, 801 Anchor Road Drive, Naples, Fl. 33904, U.S.A. Walden University considers itself a non-traditional university and does not offer any undergraduate courses to its students.
21. Brad Steiger, MYSTERIES OF SPACE AND TIME (Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey) pp.72 and 3. The U.S. Army Command and General College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, issued this on Alexander’s career: "Colonel John B. Alexander, U.S. Army Retired, manages Antimateriel Technology at Los Alamos National Laboratories, Los Alamos, New Mexico. His military assignments included; Advanced Systems Concepts Office, Laboratory Command; manager, Technology Integration Office, Army Material Command; assistant deputy chief of staff, Technology Planning and Management, Army Material Command; and chief, Advanced Human Technology, Intelligence and Security Command."
22. Taped telephone conversation with Dr Scott Jones, August 17, 1992.
23. Taped telephone conversation with Maj. Edward Dames, June 27, 1992; and THE BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS, December 1992, p.6.
24. THE WARRIOR’S EDGE, Col. John B. Alexander, Maj. Richard Groller and Janet Morris, (William Morrow Inc., New York, 1990).
25. Ibid. p.9.
26. Ibid. pp.9 and 10.
27. Ibid p.47.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid. pp.72 and 3.
31. Ibid. p.12.
32. Ibid. p. 13.
33. The American Security Council (ASC) Box 8, Boston, Virginia 22713, USA. ASC is militarist, anti-communist and right-wing. Formed in the mid 1950s, the Council acts as a right-wing think tank on foreign policy and lobbies for the expansion and strengthening of U.S. military forces. In 1985 the ASC had 330,000 members. See, for example, the entry for the ASC in THE RADICAL RIGHT: A WORLD DIRECTORY, compiled by Ciaran O Maolain (Longman, London 1987).
34. Taped telephone conversation with Janet Morris, March 1, 1993.
35. In 1989 a U.S. Department of Defense consultant and contractor explained to the author how he was asked to examine the possibility of devising operational methods of transmitting subliminal messages through the TV screen.
36. "Will the Real Scott Jones please stand up?" - unpublished paper by George Hansen and Robert Durant, February 20, 1990, pp.4 and 5.
37. "The Birds" Armen Victorian, in U.K. UFO Magazine, Vol.11 No.3, July/August 1992, pp 4-7.
38. OUT THERE, Howard Blum (Simon and Schuster, London 1990) pp.44, 46-51, 55-57.
39. DIA’s letters to author dated July 12, 1991, July 8, 1992 and December 18, 1992.
40. Dr Chistopher "Kit" Green, BLUEJAY, has admitted that the CIA has compiled over 30,000 files on UFOs, 200 of which are extremely interesting. Green was a key CIA member in examining the UFO problem for several years.
41. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Institutional Plan Fiscal Year 1992 - Fiscal Year 1997, p.14.
A gory truth about climate change mind control: Human Rights info 101 - National Human Rights | Examiner.com
A gory truth about climate change mind control: Human Rights info 101 - National Human Rights | Examiner.com
You are hereNational / News / Top News
.A gory truth about climate change mind control: Human Rights info 101
December 6, 2009 6:14 pm ET .
Deborah Dupre Human Rights Examiner.FollowSubscribe ...View all of Deborah's articlesPrintEmailShare on FacebookShare on Twitter3 comments.
Al Gore - Credit WikipediaThe climate change movement is driven by good intentioned environmentalists led by figures that have repeatedly demonstrated not working for best interest of humanity but excelling in the performing arts and mass mind control.
Mind control, the ultimate human rights violation, refers to a broad range of psychological tactics, most often fear-based, that subvert an individual's control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, and/or decision making.
Al Gore, known to be involved in mind control research, refuses to debate climate change and to give up his private jets, limousines and the rest of his carbon-intensive lifestyle. (Paul Driessen, Al Gore: Junk Science Huckster, Canada Free Press, November 16, 2009)
Christine Hall recently reported, “To our knowledge, Mr. Gore hasn’t been in a debate since he ran for president,” said Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel. “But given that he and his allies are seeking the biggest tax increase in history in the form of new energy taxes and rationing, he ought to at least have to courage to engage in a face-to-face defense of his position,” Kazman stated. (Christine Hall, Will Al Gore Change His No-Debate Policy After CEI's Offer of Big Bucks? New Video Challenge to Gore Offers $500,
Plus Proceeds Of Worldwide Pledge-a-Dollar Campaign, Competitive Enterprise Institute, November 16, 2009)
Birds of a feather
Under provisions of the National Security Act of 1947, the CIA was established. A main area that the CIA investigated was mind control for ultimate human behavior control, shockingly revealed by the 1977 Church Committee congressional investigation that did not halt the criminal programs.
Al Gore is a friend of Col. John B. Alexander, their relationship dating back to 1983 when Gore was in Alexander’s Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) techniques program to modify behavior, a form of mind control. (Armen Victorian, Non-lethality: John B. Alexander, the Pentagon's Penguin, Mind Control Forums, republished in Nexus (October/November, 1993) as Psychic Warfare and Non-Lethal Weapons under Henry Azadehdel's 'hobby name,' Armen Victorian.)
Alexander is the main personality behind what Dr. Nich Begich refers to as pandora's box of so-called "Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW)" including mind control NLW.
Born in New York in 1937, Alexander spent part of his career as a Commander of Green Berets Special Forces in Vietnam, led Cambodian mercenaries behind enemy lines, and participated in various clandestine programs, including the notorius Phoenix program in Vietnam responsible for the kidnapping, detention, torture and exceution of thousands of innocent civilians, a new version of which the U.S. operates globally today according to hundreds of reports by self-identified targeted individuals. (Also see: Tom Hayden, Reviving Vietnam War Tactics, The Nation, March 13, 2008)
Gore sponsored Alexander's work according to leading weapons researcher, David Guyatt of Deep Black Lies who writes in his article about mind control, Towards a Psycho-Civilized Society:
Alexander is a former Commander of Green Berets special forces was a member of the U.S. "Phoenix" assassination program in Vietnam. Until recently he was Director of non-lethal programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory, but has since resigned following, it is believed, an undue amount of negative press. He remains NATO's adviser on NLD. Alexander wrote ... an article (and later co-authored a book entitled The Warrior's Edge) published in Military Review in which he outlined a number of hitherto "fringe" subjects -- including telepathy -- that should be brought in to the battery of future weapons. Alexander is dedicated to the development of a super-human soldier with enhanced abilities leading to an "invincible warrior." In his book he likens such a soldier to be a JEDI KNIGHT, from the film Star Wars (Project Jedi). He has powerful sponsors, including Vice President Al Gore. Alexander is cited as being the grand daddy of NLP. He is known to be heavily engaged in mind control and psychotronic projects. See Armen Victorian, "Psychic Warfare and Non lethal Weapons."
Media backed science fraud to control mind and behavior against best interest of public
Mainstream media is a primary tool used in modern mind control. An example is recent use of the 7-point media 'marketing' program to control human response to a non-dengerous H1N1 'swine" flu by accepting the dangerous experimental H1N1 vaccine. (Dupre, MIT grad shows CDC mind-behavior control duping doctors and public, October 9, 2009)
In its recent report, Climate Change Brainwashing about the video, John Stossel Rips Apart Global Warming (below) that exposes the science fraud and mind control involved in the climate change movement, a Brasscheck TV reporter wrote:
The media spin masters aren't worried about mercury in the water...but we know exactly what to do to solve the problem.
The media spin masters have no problem with toxic gasoline [as] fuel...even though we've had a superior alternative for over 100 years.
Why then do they have infinite time, money and energy to sell the word on "cilmate change" (formerly known as "global warming.")?
I think the answer is obvious to anyone over the mental age of five years old who hasn't been thoroughly lied to.
Note how children are being terrorized by the global warming scam artists. It's criminal.
In following video, John Stossel Rips Apart Global Warming, Stossel documents the sophisticated global warming mind control program that has covertly terrorized the human population, particularly its most vulnerable, children.
John Stossel Rips Apart Global Warming
November 29, 2009
Learn more by taking responsible action and continuing to ask, "Why?" and "Why not?" Videos linked from BrasscheckTV.com represent solely the opinions of their producers and are made available as a resource for research and evaluation, not as an endorsement.
"BrasscheckTV is not in the business of persuading you or anyone else to believe anything that that is linked to from this site, but it does encourage you to use all available resources to form your own judgement about important things that affect your life," according to its website where free subscribing can be made to receive by email a video each time it posts one. It is simple to unsubscribe.
Your subscribing to Deborah Dupré's reports and posting the link to this site (rather than entire article) is requested and appreciated unless republishing permission is granted. Dupré is author of Operation H1N1: Vaccine Liberty or Death ebook available at DeborahDupre.com.
Recent articles by this Examiner
ICE deporting immigrant military vets a 'national disgrace': Group asks Obama to keep promise
Saturday, December 5th, 2009
Photo: Banished Veterans - They are promised citizenship, serve, are injured, then deported Thousands of U.S. veterans that are deported and... Keep Reading »
Celebrity Sherry Jackson slow-kill target pleads for help
Saturday, December 5th, 2009 · 1 comment
Photo: Sherry Jackson (SherryPeelJackson.com) As President Obama joins many Americans in support of releasing Burma's political prisoner, Aung San Suu Kyi, ... Keep Reading »
MIT grad shows CDC mind-behavior control duping doctors and public to buy vaccine - National Human Rights | Examiner.com
You are hereNational / News / Top News
.A gory truth about climate change mind control: Human Rights info 101
December 6, 2009 6:14 pm ET .
Deborah Dupre Human Rights Examiner.FollowSubscribe ...View all of Deborah's articlesPrintEmailShare on FacebookShare on Twitter3 comments.
Al Gore - Credit WikipediaThe climate change movement is driven by good intentioned environmentalists led by figures that have repeatedly demonstrated not working for best interest of humanity but excelling in the performing arts and mass mind control.
Mind control, the ultimate human rights violation, refers to a broad range of psychological tactics, most often fear-based, that subvert an individual's control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, and/or decision making.
Al Gore, known to be involved in mind control research, refuses to debate climate change and to give up his private jets, limousines and the rest of his carbon-intensive lifestyle. (Paul Driessen, Al Gore: Junk Science Huckster, Canada Free Press, November 16, 2009)
Christine Hall recently reported, “To our knowledge, Mr. Gore hasn’t been in a debate since he ran for president,” said Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel. “But given that he and his allies are seeking the biggest tax increase in history in the form of new energy taxes and rationing, he ought to at least have to courage to engage in a face-to-face defense of his position,” Kazman stated. (Christine Hall, Will Al Gore Change His No-Debate Policy After CEI's Offer of Big Bucks? New Video Challenge to Gore Offers $500,
Plus Proceeds Of Worldwide Pledge-a-Dollar Campaign, Competitive Enterprise Institute, November 16, 2009)
Birds of a feather
Under provisions of the National Security Act of 1947, the CIA was established. A main area that the CIA investigated was mind control for ultimate human behavior control, shockingly revealed by the 1977 Church Committee congressional investigation that did not halt the criminal programs.
Al Gore is a friend of Col. John B. Alexander, their relationship dating back to 1983 when Gore was in Alexander’s Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) techniques program to modify behavior, a form of mind control. (Armen Victorian, Non-lethality: John B. Alexander, the Pentagon's Penguin, Mind Control Forums, republished in Nexus (October/November, 1993) as Psychic Warfare and Non-Lethal Weapons under Henry Azadehdel's 'hobby name,' Armen Victorian.)
Alexander is the main personality behind what Dr. Nich Begich refers to as pandora's box of so-called "Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW)" including mind control NLW.
Born in New York in 1937, Alexander spent part of his career as a Commander of Green Berets Special Forces in Vietnam, led Cambodian mercenaries behind enemy lines, and participated in various clandestine programs, including the notorius Phoenix program in Vietnam responsible for the kidnapping, detention, torture and exceution of thousands of innocent civilians, a new version of which the U.S. operates globally today according to hundreds of reports by self-identified targeted individuals. (Also see: Tom Hayden, Reviving Vietnam War Tactics, The Nation, March 13, 2008)
Gore sponsored Alexander's work according to leading weapons researcher, David Guyatt of Deep Black Lies who writes in his article about mind control, Towards a Psycho-Civilized Society:
Alexander is a former Commander of Green Berets special forces was a member of the U.S. "Phoenix" assassination program in Vietnam. Until recently he was Director of non-lethal programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory, but has since resigned following, it is believed, an undue amount of negative press. He remains NATO's adviser on NLD. Alexander wrote ... an article (and later co-authored a book entitled The Warrior's Edge) published in Military Review in which he outlined a number of hitherto "fringe" subjects -- including telepathy -- that should be brought in to the battery of future weapons. Alexander is dedicated to the development of a super-human soldier with enhanced abilities leading to an "invincible warrior." In his book he likens such a soldier to be a JEDI KNIGHT, from the film Star Wars (Project Jedi). He has powerful sponsors, including Vice President Al Gore. Alexander is cited as being the grand daddy of NLP. He is known to be heavily engaged in mind control and psychotronic projects. See Armen Victorian, "Psychic Warfare and Non lethal Weapons."
Media backed science fraud to control mind and behavior against best interest of public
Mainstream media is a primary tool used in modern mind control. An example is recent use of the 7-point media 'marketing' program to control human response to a non-dengerous H1N1 'swine" flu by accepting the dangerous experimental H1N1 vaccine. (Dupre, MIT grad shows CDC mind-behavior control duping doctors and public, October 9, 2009)
In its recent report, Climate Change Brainwashing about the video, John Stossel Rips Apart Global Warming (below) that exposes the science fraud and mind control involved in the climate change movement, a Brasscheck TV reporter wrote:
The media spin masters aren't worried about mercury in the water...but we know exactly what to do to solve the problem.
The media spin masters have no problem with toxic gasoline [as] fuel...even though we've had a superior alternative for over 100 years.
Why then do they have infinite time, money and energy to sell the word on "cilmate change" (formerly known as "global warming.")?
I think the answer is obvious to anyone over the mental age of five years old who hasn't been thoroughly lied to.
Note how children are being terrorized by the global warming scam artists. It's criminal.
In following video, John Stossel Rips Apart Global Warming, Stossel documents the sophisticated global warming mind control program that has covertly terrorized the human population, particularly its most vulnerable, children.
John Stossel Rips Apart Global Warming
November 29, 2009
Learn more by taking responsible action and continuing to ask, "Why?" and "Why not?" Videos linked from BrasscheckTV.com represent solely the opinions of their producers and are made available as a resource for research and evaluation, not as an endorsement.
"BrasscheckTV is not in the business of persuading you or anyone else to believe anything that that is linked to from this site, but it does encourage you to use all available resources to form your own judgement about important things that affect your life," according to its website where free subscribing can be made to receive by email a video each time it posts one. It is simple to unsubscribe.
Your subscribing to Deborah Dupré's reports and posting the link to this site (rather than entire article) is requested and appreciated unless republishing permission is granted. Dupré is author of Operation H1N1: Vaccine Liberty or Death ebook available at DeborahDupre.com.
Recent articles by this Examiner
ICE deporting immigrant military vets a 'national disgrace': Group asks Obama to keep promise
Saturday, December 5th, 2009
Photo: Banished Veterans - They are promised citizenship, serve, are injured, then deported Thousands of U.S. veterans that are deported and... Keep Reading »
Celebrity Sherry Jackson slow-kill target pleads for help
Saturday, December 5th, 2009 · 1 comment
Photo: Sherry Jackson (SherryPeelJackson.com) As President Obama joins many Americans in support of releasing Burma's political prisoner, Aung San Suu Kyi, ... Keep Reading »
MIT grad shows CDC mind-behavior control duping doctors and public to buy vaccine - National Human Rights | Examiner.com
Environmental Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes
Environmental Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes
Global Research, December 5, 2009
American Institute of Physics - 2008-08-01
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
0diggsdigg 37
Share
If human activities could change climate, why not change it on purpose, to suit us better? From 1945 into the 1970s, much effort went into studies of weather modification. American entrepreneurs tried cloud-seeding to enhance local rainfall, Russian scientists offered fabulous schemes of planetary engineering, and military agencies secretly explored "climatological warfare."
The hopes and fears promoted basic research on climate change by raising large sums of government money and a few provocative ideas. In the mid 1970s the visionary projects were abandoned. Research turned instead to controversial "geoengineering" schemes for interventions that might restrain global warming if it started to become unbearable.
"Intervention in atmospheric and climatic matters . . . will unfold on a scale difficult to imagine at present. . . . this will merge each nation’s affairs with those of every other, more thoroughly than the threat of a nuclear or any other war would have done." — J. von Neumann(1)
At the close of the Second World War, a few American scientists brought up a troublesome idea. If it were true, as some claimed, that humans were inadvertently changing their local weather by cutting down forests and emitting pollution, why not try to modify the weather on purpose? For generations there had been proposals for rainmaking, based on folklore like the story that cannonades from big battles brought rain.
Now top experts began to take the question seriously. Perhaps they were inspired by the almost unimaginable technical powers demonstrated in the war's gigantic bomber fleets and the advent of nuclear weapons. Whatever the impulse, at the end of 1945 a brilliant mathematician, John von Neumann, called other leading scientists to a meeting in Princeton, where they agreed that modifying weather deliberately might be possible. They expected that could make a great difference in the next war. Soviet harvests, for example, might be ruined by creating a drought. Some scientists suspected that alongside the race with the Soviet Union for ever more terrible nuclear weapons, they were entering an equally fateful race to control the weather. - LINKS - As the Cold War got underway, U.S. military agencies devoted significant funds to research on what came to be called "climatological warfare."(2)
Much of this lay behind a curtain of secrecy, although enough hints were published for attentive members of the public to see that human manipulation of climate could become a serious issue. For scientists like von Neumann, the main research thrust was plain: the nation needed computer modeling of weather systems. For the chief difficulty in figuring out how to change climate lay in predicting just how the atmosphere might respond to a given type of intervention. The only hope for answering that (aside from trying it out) was with computer models.
Meanwhile, far more visibly, the famous scientist Irving Langmuir and his associates at the General Electric company were exploring a new proposal for rainmaking. Their idea was to "seed" clouds with a smoke of particles, such as silver iodide crystals, that could act as nuclei for the formation of raindrops. Langmuir quickly won support from military agencies, and claimed success in field experiments. A small but energetic industry of commercial "cloud seeders" sprang up with even more optimistic claims. Controversy followed, polarizing scientists, exciting the public and catching the attention of politicians.
As soon as some community attempted to bring rain on themselves, people downwind would hire lawyers to argue that they had been robbed of their own precipitation.
Concern climbed to high levels of government, and in 1953 a President's Advisory Committee on Weather Control was established to pursue the idea. In 1958, the U.S. Congress acted directly to fund expanded rainmaking research. Large-scale experimentation was also underway, less openly, in the Soviet Union.(3)
Military agencies in the U.S. (and presumably in the Soviet Union) supported research not only on cloud seeding but on other ways that injecting materials into the atmosphere might alter weather. Although much of this was buried in secrecy, the public learned that climatological warfare might become possible. In a 1955 Fortune magazine article, von Neumann himself explained that "Microscopic layers of colored matter spread on an icy surface, or in the atmosphere above one, could inhibit the reflection-radiation process, melt the ice, and change the local climate." The effects could be far-reaching, even world-wide. "What power over our environment, over all nature, is implied!" he exclaimed. Von Neumann foresaw "forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined," perhaps more dangerous than nuclear war itself. He hoped it would force humanity to take a new, global approach to its political problems.(4)
Through the 1960s, plans for cloud seeding and other interventions remained active and controversial. A review by the National Academy of Sciences tentatively supported some claims of success. Government agencies launched competing programs and conducted several large-scale field trials. The costly research programs were perpetually on the brink of proving something, but never got truly convincing results. Many academic meteorologists came to disdain the whole subject, infested as it was with unfulfilled promises and commercial hucksters.(5) Despite these misgivings, the U.S. government spent more than twenty million dollars a year on weather modification research in the early 1970s.
The Soviet Union was determined not to be left behind in any grandiose technology. Little is known of what studies the Soviets undertook on climatological warfare, but some novel ideas did become public. One starting-point was a Russian legacy of hydraulic engineering fantasies, notably an old scheme to divert Siberian rivers. Why not take the water flowing uselessly into the Arctic Ocean, and send it south to turn the parched soils of central Asia into farmlands? The plans were reported in the early 1950s, catching the attention of the public and scientists in the West, although a decade would pass before Soviet scientists examined the details in open publications. These scientists pointed out that the diversion of fresh water would make the surface layers of the Arctic Ocean more salty. Therefore much of the icepack might not form in winter. Wouldn't that mean increased warmth, a boon to Siberians? A few Russian meteorologists questioned the scheme, even though Communist authorities frowned upon anyone who cast doubt over potential engineering triumphs. O.A. Drozdov, in particular, used weather records to empirically check what could happen around the Arctic in years of less ice, and reported there had been serious changes in precipitation.
An even more gargantuan proposal aimed directly at climate. Around 1956, Soviet engineers began to speculate that they might be able to throw a dam across the Bering Strait and pump water from the Arctic Ocean into the Pacific. This would draw warm water up from the Atlantic. Their aim was to eliminate the ice pack, make the Arctic Ocean navigable, and warm up Siberia. The idea attracted some notice in the United States — presidential candidate John F. Kennedy remarked that the idea was worth exploring as a joint project with the Soviets, and the discussion continued into the 1970s. Such "geoengineering" projects were in line with traditional American technological optimism, and still more with the Communist dogma that "man can really be the master of this planet." As the title of an enthusiastic Russian publication put it, the issue was "Man versus Climate." However, it was hard to tell whether giant projects such as a Bering Dam made sense. Mikhail I. Budyko, the most prominent Russian climate expert, pointed out that the effects of such interventions would be unpredictable, and he advised against them.(6) A more feasible scheme would be to spread particles in the atmosphere, or perhaps directly on the ground. Beginning around 1961, Budyko and other scientists speculated about how humanity might alter the global climate by strewing dark dust or soot across the Arctic snow and ice. The soot would lower the albedo (reflection of sunlight), and the air would get warmer.(7) Spreading so much dust year after year would be prohibitively expensive. But according to a well-known theory, warmer air should melt some snow and sea-ice and thus expose the dark underlying soil and ocean water, which would absorb sunlight and bring on more warming. So once dust destroyed the reflective cover, it might not re-form.
Russian scientists were not sure whether this would be wise, and scientists elsewhere were still more dubious. In 1971 a group of American experts said that "deliberate measures to induce arctic sea ice melting might prove successful and might prove difficult to reverse should they have undesirable side effects."(8*) As the respected British climate expert Hubert Lamb suggested, before taking any action it seemed like "an essential precaution to wait until a scientific system for forecasting the behavior of the natural climate... has been devised and operated successfully for, perhaps, a hundred years."(9) By this time, the early 1970s, feelings about human relations with the natural environment had undergone a historic shift. Many technologies now seemed less a triumph of civilized progress than wicked transgressions. If it were true, as some scientists claimed, that human emissions were inadvertently changing the entire global climate, the chief result seemed to be droughts and other calamities. As for deliberate rain-making attempts, if they were successful (which remained far from proven) they might only be "stealing" the rain from farmers downwind who would have gotten it instead. Such projects might even harm the very people who got the rain. For example, a 1972 U.S. government rain-making operation in South Dakota was followed by a disastrous flood, and came under attack in a class-action lawsuit. One cloud-seeding airplane was even shot at. An increasing number of people objected in principle to any such meddling with natural processes. The idea of changing the weather had shifted from a benign dream of progress to a nightmare of apocalyptic risk. Between 1972 and 1975 the U.S. government dramatically cut its budget for weather modification.(10) <=Public opinion Meanwhile the government had secretly been spending many millions of dollars on a grand experiment in actual climatological warfare. The U.S. Department of Defense directed extensive cloud-seeding over the Ho Chi Minh Trail, hoping to increase rainfall and bog down the North Vietnamese Army's supply line in mud. The public did not learn of this until 1974, two years after the program wound down in failure. Many people were dismayed when they learned of the experiment. There followed a series of resolutions, in bodies from the U.S. Senate to the General Assembly of the United Nations, outlawing climatological warfare. The movement culminated in a 1976 international convention that foreswore hostile use of "environmental modification techniques."(11) Of course we were already modifying the world's atmosphere with quantities of polluting aerosols and greenhouse gases vastly beyond anything the most aggressive warrior had imagined. If that raised a risk of damage to climate, some thought we were obliged to prepare a remedy. Now when scientists discussed steps to melt arctic snows or the like, it was not to craft utopian weather, but with the aims implied in the title that Lamb gave a 1971 review article: "Climate-engineering schemes to meet a climatic emergency."(12) Already back in 1965, a Presidential advisory panel had suggested that if greenhouse effect warming by carbon dioxide gas ever became a problem, the government might take countervailing steps. The panel did not consider curbing the use of fossil fuels. They had in mind geoengineering schemes — spreading something across the ocean waters to reflect more sunlight, perhaps, or sowing particles high in the atmosphere to encourage the formation of reflective clouds. Some back-of-the-envelope arithmetic suggested such steps were feasible, and indeed could cost less than many government programs.(13) In 1974, Budyko calculated that if global warming ever became a serious threat, we could counter it with just a few airplane flights a day in the stratosphere, burning sulfur to make aerosols that would reflect sunlight away. =>Government
For a few years in the early 1970s, new evidence and arguments led many scientists to suspect that the greatest climate risk was not warming, but cooling. A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight. Technological optimists suggested ways to counter this threat too. We might spread soot from cargo aircraft to darken the Arctic snows, or even shatter the Arctic ice pack with "clean" thermonuclear explosions. <=Climate cycles
Whether we used technological ingenuity against global cooling or against global warming, Budyko pointed out that any action would change climate in different ways for different nations. Attempts at modification, he insisted, "should be allowed only after the projects have been considered and approved by responsible international organizations and have received the consent of all interested countries." The bitter fighting among communities over cloud-seeding would be as nothing compared with conflicts over attempts to engineer global climate. Moreover, as Budyko and Western scientists alike warned, scientists could not predict the consequences of such engineering efforts. We might forestall global warming only to find we had triggered a new ice age.(14)
Such worries revived the U.S. military's interest in artificial climate change on a global scale. A group at the RAND corporation, a defense think tank near Los Angeles, had been working with a computer climate model that originated at the University of California, Los Angeles. This was normal scientific research, funded by the civilian National Science Foundation. Around 1970, however, with opponents of the Vietnam war attacking anything that smelled of militarism, the NSF backed out of funding work with overt military connections.
The RAND group had to scramble to find support elsewhere. They turned to the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense. ARPA was meanwhile on the lookout for computing projects that could justify the funds it had lavished on its ILLIAC supercomputer. The menace of Soviet climate engineering schemes gave a plausible rationale. ARPA awarded the project millions of dollars, a secret classification, and a code name, NILE BLUE. The money supported a variety of large-scale computer studies and even some work on ancient climates. Nothing of obvious military significance turned up, but the program's results proved useful for other climate scientists. After a few years the program was demilitarized. The NSF took over funding as work with the RAND model migrated to the University of Oregon.(15) <=Models (GCMs)
As environmental concerns grew more widespread and sophisticated, experts and the public alike demanded a cautious approach to any intervention. A 1977 Academy report looked at a variety of grand schemes we might use to reduce global warming, should it ever become dangerous (for example, massive planting of forests to soak up carbon). The experts could not muster much optimism for any of these schemes. The panel thought that a turn to renewable energy resources seemed a more practical solution.(16) People nevertheless continued to come up with projects we might pursue if greenhouse warming made us desperate enough. To cite another of the many ideas, we could collect carbon dioxide gas from the furnaces where coal was burned, compress it into a liquid, and inject it into the depths of the Earth or the oceans. That sounded like an engineer's fantasy, but studies indicated it might in fact be done at reasonable cost.(17) Another fantastic yet perhaps feasible proposal was to fertilize barren tracts of the oceans with trace minerals. In the 1990s, calculations and field trials suggested that an occasional tanker load of iron compounds could induce massive blooms of plankton. The creatures would absorb carbon and take it to the ocean bottom when they died. However, scientists could not be sure whether in the end that really would lower the total of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.(18)
Dozens of other schemes for mitigating the greenhouse effect were published, ranging from modest practical improvements in energy systems (for example, energy-efficient light bulbs) to futuristic visions (a sunshield in space!?). When a National Academy of Sciences panel convened in 1991 to catalog the options, the members got into a long and serious debate over whether to include the grand "geoengineering" ideas. Might hopes of a future fix just encourage people to avoid the work of restricting greenhouse gas emissions? The panel reluctantly voted to include every idea, so that preparations could start in case the climate deteriorated so badly that radical steps would be the lesser evil. Their fundamental problem was the one that had bedeviled climate science from the start — if you pushed on this intricate system, nobody could say for sure what the final consequences might be.(19)
As the levels of global temperature and greenhouse gases continued to climb in tandem, the debate dragged on, largely below the level of public awareness. In 1997 the famous nuclear-bomb expert Edward Teller caught some attention with an essay in the Wall Street Journal, claiming that it would cost only a billion dollars a year to put a sunscreen in the stratosphere. He argued that "if the politics of global warming require that 'something must be done'," America should devote its technical prowess to preparing such a response. Most people who followed the debate distrusted that kind of high-technology vision (which Teller represented only too well, as chief proponent of a multi-billion-dollar "Star Wars" project that had ignominiously failed to invent lasers that could shoot down ballistic missiles).(20) Others continued to insist that the world should prepare to take emergency action, just in case. But few were willing to plunge into studies, and still fewer wanted to fund them.
"Weather modification," a participant had written ruefully back in 1974, "is based on sound physical principles that cannot be applied precisely in the open atmosphere because several processes are interacting together in a manner difficult to predict." Moreover, attempts to change the weather "are superimposed upon natural processes acting, perhaps indistinguishably, to the same or opposite effect.... Therefore it should not be surprising that the history of weather modification is one of painfully slow progress."(21) Much the same could be said of research on climate modification.
As the world began to visibly suffer from global warming, a few scientists revisited the issue. In 2006 Paul Crutzen, widely respected for his Nobel Prize-winning work on ozone, sent the leading journal Climatic Change an article that called for more research on climate engineering. "Given the grossly disappointing international political response" to calls to restrict greenhouse emissions, Crutzen argued that such research should no longer be "tabooed."
His submission roused passionate opposition from some senior colleagues, who insisted it would be irresponsible to publish the article. Eventually they accepted a compromise that gave them space for counter-arguments. Suppose the climate turned so bad that some nation, or even a private group, insisted on launching a geoengineering project? Crutzen and his supporters argued that it would be best to have research on hand in advance to point out the true possibilities and pitfalls. Yet Crutzen himself admitted there was a risk that hopes for a cheap technical fix would be used "to justify inadequate climate policies." And there remained the old problem that a climate change that helped one region could damage another. The old battles over "stealing" rain might revive.
Even the fantasies of climatological warfare could stalk back into history, strengthened by scientific advances. As a historian remarked,
"Who would have the wisdom to dispense drought, severe winters, or the effects of storms... If, as history shows, fantasies of weather and climate control have chiefly served commercial and military interests, why should we expect the future to be different?"(22*)
The technical, political and ethical problems raised by deliberately influencing the global climate remained at least as great as the problems raised by our unintended influence.
NOTES
1. von Neumann (1955), p. 41 of reprint.
2. For this and following see Fleming (2006). Kwa (2001); Kwa (1994); Keith (2000), p. 252; Fleming (2007a), pp. 54-57; A. Spilhaus, interview by R. Doel, Nov. 1989, AIP.
3. Lambright and Changnon (1989); Byers (1974); Soviet: Keith (2000), p. 250-51.
4. von Neumann (1955), pp. 108, 151.
5. National Academy of Sciences (1966); Lambright and Changnon (1989); Byers (1974).
6. Lamb (1971); Lamb (1977), pp. 660-61; for Soviet and other conquest of nature ideology see Josephson (2002). I have not seen Lamb's Russian-language references, which include: for diversion, Adabashev (1966); Drozdov (1966); for dam, Borisov (1962) ; Budyko (1962); inadvisable: Budyko (1977), pp. 237-38; for U.S. reaction, see e.g., National Academy of Sciences (1966), vol. 2, p. 61; for the whole story, Ponte (1976), pp. 220-29; Keith (2000), p. 251, quoting "master of this planet" from Rusin and Flit (1960). BACK
7. For discussion and references, see Lamb (1977), pp. 46, 660-61, 676, 797; I have not checked his Russian references, which include Budyko (1961); Budyko (1962); Rakipova (1966); 1966 Rakipova reports in English translation are cited by Sellers (1969). BACK
8. Donn and Shaw (1966) (without reference to Budyko); Fletcher (1966); Sellers (1969) however calculated a temperature rise of only 7°C if the ice pack were destroyed, probably insufficient to keep ice from re-forming; Wilson and Matthews (1971), quote p. 182.
9. Lamb (1971), quote p. 95. BACK
10. Ponte (1976), pp. 156-58; Fleming (2006); Kwa (2001). BACK
11. For the public acknowledgment, see New York Times, May 19, 1974, p. 1, also Shapley (1974). Indications were already published in 1971 in a Jack Anderson column in the Washington Post, 18 March 1971, and in the "Pentagon Papers," see Seymour Hersh, "Weather as a weapon of war," New York Times, July 9, 1972, p. IV:3; for background and response, see Ponte (1976), ch. 11. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, UN Treaty Ser. 1108:151. BACK
12. Lamb (1971).
13. President's Science Advisory Committee (1965), estimated cost $500 million per year, p. 127; see National Academy of Sciences (1966), vol. 2, pp. 60-62.
14. Budyko and Korol (1975), p. 469; Landsberg (1970), p. 1268. He cites 1968-69 RAND Corp. reports by J.O. Fletcher; for spreading smog from supersonic transports, see Wilson and Matthews (1971), p. 9; a summary with warnings is Kellogg and Schneider (1974), pp. 169-70.
15. Hecht and Tirpak (1995), p. 375; personal communication from John Perry, 2001, and Rapp (1970) .
16. National Academy of Sciences (1977); for discussion of Academy reports, see Keith (2000).
17. Notably Marchetti (1977), where the term "geoengineering" may have first appeared.
18. Coate et al. (1996); Chisholm (2000).
19. Schneider (2001), p. 418. BACK
20. Teller, “The Planet Needs a Sunscreen,” Oct. 17, 1997. Teller’s 2002 technical paper on the subject is here.
21. Byers (1974), p. 3. BACK
22. Crutzen (2006); see the entire Climatic Change special issue on geoengineering, with commentaries by Cicerone, M.G. Lawrence and others (vol. 77 nos. 3-4, Aug. 2006). On Crutzen see the essay on other greenhouse gases. Another respected senior climate scientist followed up with calculations reaffirming that it was feasible to spread sulfate particles in the stratosphere to hold back warming, Wigley (2006). Press reports include Kerr (2006) and William J. Broad, New York Times, June 27, 2006. Historian: Fleming (2007), p. 60 . For the history see also Morton (2007). BACK
Spencer R. Weart (born 1942) was the director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics from 1971 until his retirement in 2009. Originally trained as a physicist, he is now a noted historian
Global Research, December 5, 2009
American Institute of Physics - 2008-08-01
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
0diggsdigg 37
Share
If human activities could change climate, why not change it on purpose, to suit us better? From 1945 into the 1970s, much effort went into studies of weather modification. American entrepreneurs tried cloud-seeding to enhance local rainfall, Russian scientists offered fabulous schemes of planetary engineering, and military agencies secretly explored "climatological warfare."
The hopes and fears promoted basic research on climate change by raising large sums of government money and a few provocative ideas. In the mid 1970s the visionary projects were abandoned. Research turned instead to controversial "geoengineering" schemes for interventions that might restrain global warming if it started to become unbearable.
"Intervention in atmospheric and climatic matters . . . will unfold on a scale difficult to imagine at present. . . . this will merge each nation’s affairs with those of every other, more thoroughly than the threat of a nuclear or any other war would have done." — J. von Neumann(1)
At the close of the Second World War, a few American scientists brought up a troublesome idea. If it were true, as some claimed, that humans were inadvertently changing their local weather by cutting down forests and emitting pollution, why not try to modify the weather on purpose? For generations there had been proposals for rainmaking, based on folklore like the story that cannonades from big battles brought rain.
Now top experts began to take the question seriously. Perhaps they were inspired by the almost unimaginable technical powers demonstrated in the war's gigantic bomber fleets and the advent of nuclear weapons. Whatever the impulse, at the end of 1945 a brilliant mathematician, John von Neumann, called other leading scientists to a meeting in Princeton, where they agreed that modifying weather deliberately might be possible. They expected that could make a great difference in the next war. Soviet harvests, for example, might be ruined by creating a drought. Some scientists suspected that alongside the race with the Soviet Union for ever more terrible nuclear weapons, they were entering an equally fateful race to control the weather. - LINKS - As the Cold War got underway, U.S. military agencies devoted significant funds to research on what came to be called "climatological warfare."(2)
Much of this lay behind a curtain of secrecy, although enough hints were published for attentive members of the public to see that human manipulation of climate could become a serious issue. For scientists like von Neumann, the main research thrust was plain: the nation needed computer modeling of weather systems. For the chief difficulty in figuring out how to change climate lay in predicting just how the atmosphere might respond to a given type of intervention. The only hope for answering that (aside from trying it out) was with computer models.
Meanwhile, far more visibly, the famous scientist Irving Langmuir and his associates at the General Electric company were exploring a new proposal for rainmaking. Their idea was to "seed" clouds with a smoke of particles, such as silver iodide crystals, that could act as nuclei for the formation of raindrops. Langmuir quickly won support from military agencies, and claimed success in field experiments. A small but energetic industry of commercial "cloud seeders" sprang up with even more optimistic claims. Controversy followed, polarizing scientists, exciting the public and catching the attention of politicians.
As soon as some community attempted to bring rain on themselves, people downwind would hire lawyers to argue that they had been robbed of their own precipitation.
Concern climbed to high levels of government, and in 1953 a President's Advisory Committee on Weather Control was established to pursue the idea. In 1958, the U.S. Congress acted directly to fund expanded rainmaking research. Large-scale experimentation was also underway, less openly, in the Soviet Union.(3)
Military agencies in the U.S. (and presumably in the Soviet Union) supported research not only on cloud seeding but on other ways that injecting materials into the atmosphere might alter weather. Although much of this was buried in secrecy, the public learned that climatological warfare might become possible. In a 1955 Fortune magazine article, von Neumann himself explained that "Microscopic layers of colored matter spread on an icy surface, or in the atmosphere above one, could inhibit the reflection-radiation process, melt the ice, and change the local climate." The effects could be far-reaching, even world-wide. "What power over our environment, over all nature, is implied!" he exclaimed. Von Neumann foresaw "forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined," perhaps more dangerous than nuclear war itself. He hoped it would force humanity to take a new, global approach to its political problems.(4)
Through the 1960s, plans for cloud seeding and other interventions remained active and controversial. A review by the National Academy of Sciences tentatively supported some claims of success. Government agencies launched competing programs and conducted several large-scale field trials. The costly research programs were perpetually on the brink of proving something, but never got truly convincing results. Many academic meteorologists came to disdain the whole subject, infested as it was with unfulfilled promises and commercial hucksters.(5) Despite these misgivings, the U.S. government spent more than twenty million dollars a year on weather modification research in the early 1970s.
The Soviet Union was determined not to be left behind in any grandiose technology. Little is known of what studies the Soviets undertook on climatological warfare, but some novel ideas did become public. One starting-point was a Russian legacy of hydraulic engineering fantasies, notably an old scheme to divert Siberian rivers. Why not take the water flowing uselessly into the Arctic Ocean, and send it south to turn the parched soils of central Asia into farmlands? The plans were reported in the early 1950s, catching the attention of the public and scientists in the West, although a decade would pass before Soviet scientists examined the details in open publications. These scientists pointed out that the diversion of fresh water would make the surface layers of the Arctic Ocean more salty. Therefore much of the icepack might not form in winter. Wouldn't that mean increased warmth, a boon to Siberians? A few Russian meteorologists questioned the scheme, even though Communist authorities frowned upon anyone who cast doubt over potential engineering triumphs. O.A. Drozdov, in particular, used weather records to empirically check what could happen around the Arctic in years of less ice, and reported there had been serious changes in precipitation.
An even more gargantuan proposal aimed directly at climate. Around 1956, Soviet engineers began to speculate that they might be able to throw a dam across the Bering Strait and pump water from the Arctic Ocean into the Pacific. This would draw warm water up from the Atlantic. Their aim was to eliminate the ice pack, make the Arctic Ocean navigable, and warm up Siberia. The idea attracted some notice in the United States — presidential candidate John F. Kennedy remarked that the idea was worth exploring as a joint project with the Soviets, and the discussion continued into the 1970s. Such "geoengineering" projects were in line with traditional American technological optimism, and still more with the Communist dogma that "man can really be the master of this planet." As the title of an enthusiastic Russian publication put it, the issue was "Man versus Climate." However, it was hard to tell whether giant projects such as a Bering Dam made sense. Mikhail I. Budyko, the most prominent Russian climate expert, pointed out that the effects of such interventions would be unpredictable, and he advised against them.(6) A more feasible scheme would be to spread particles in the atmosphere, or perhaps directly on the ground. Beginning around 1961, Budyko and other scientists speculated about how humanity might alter the global climate by strewing dark dust or soot across the Arctic snow and ice. The soot would lower the albedo (reflection of sunlight), and the air would get warmer.(7) Spreading so much dust year after year would be prohibitively expensive. But according to a well-known theory, warmer air should melt some snow and sea-ice and thus expose the dark underlying soil and ocean water, which would absorb sunlight and bring on more warming. So once dust destroyed the reflective cover, it might not re-form.
Russian scientists were not sure whether this would be wise, and scientists elsewhere were still more dubious. In 1971 a group of American experts said that "deliberate measures to induce arctic sea ice melting might prove successful and might prove difficult to reverse should they have undesirable side effects."(8*) As the respected British climate expert Hubert Lamb suggested, before taking any action it seemed like "an essential precaution to wait until a scientific system for forecasting the behavior of the natural climate... has been devised and operated successfully for, perhaps, a hundred years."(9) By this time, the early 1970s, feelings about human relations with the natural environment had undergone a historic shift. Many technologies now seemed less a triumph of civilized progress than wicked transgressions. If it were true, as some scientists claimed, that human emissions were inadvertently changing the entire global climate, the chief result seemed to be droughts and other calamities. As for deliberate rain-making attempts, if they were successful (which remained far from proven) they might only be "stealing" the rain from farmers downwind who would have gotten it instead. Such projects might even harm the very people who got the rain. For example, a 1972 U.S. government rain-making operation in South Dakota was followed by a disastrous flood, and came under attack in a class-action lawsuit. One cloud-seeding airplane was even shot at. An increasing number of people objected in principle to any such meddling with natural processes. The idea of changing the weather had shifted from a benign dream of progress to a nightmare of apocalyptic risk. Between 1972 and 1975 the U.S. government dramatically cut its budget for weather modification.(10) <=Public opinion Meanwhile the government had secretly been spending many millions of dollars on a grand experiment in actual climatological warfare. The U.S. Department of Defense directed extensive cloud-seeding over the Ho Chi Minh Trail, hoping to increase rainfall and bog down the North Vietnamese Army's supply line in mud. The public did not learn of this until 1974, two years after the program wound down in failure. Many people were dismayed when they learned of the experiment. There followed a series of resolutions, in bodies from the U.S. Senate to the General Assembly of the United Nations, outlawing climatological warfare. The movement culminated in a 1976 international convention that foreswore hostile use of "environmental modification techniques."(11) Of course we were already modifying the world's atmosphere with quantities of polluting aerosols and greenhouse gases vastly beyond anything the most aggressive warrior had imagined. If that raised a risk of damage to climate, some thought we were obliged to prepare a remedy. Now when scientists discussed steps to melt arctic snows or the like, it was not to craft utopian weather, but with the aims implied in the title that Lamb gave a 1971 review article: "Climate-engineering schemes to meet a climatic emergency."(12) Already back in 1965, a Presidential advisory panel had suggested that if greenhouse effect warming by carbon dioxide gas ever became a problem, the government might take countervailing steps. The panel did not consider curbing the use of fossil fuels. They had in mind geoengineering schemes — spreading something across the ocean waters to reflect more sunlight, perhaps, or sowing particles high in the atmosphere to encourage the formation of reflective clouds. Some back-of-the-envelope arithmetic suggested such steps were feasible, and indeed could cost less than many government programs.(13) In 1974, Budyko calculated that if global warming ever became a serious threat, we could counter it with just a few airplane flights a day in the stratosphere, burning sulfur to make aerosols that would reflect sunlight away. =>Government
For a few years in the early 1970s, new evidence and arguments led many scientists to suspect that the greatest climate risk was not warming, but cooling. A new ice age seemed to be approaching as part of the natural glacial cycle, perhaps hastened by human pollution that blocked sunlight. Technological optimists suggested ways to counter this threat too. We might spread soot from cargo aircraft to darken the Arctic snows, or even shatter the Arctic ice pack with "clean" thermonuclear explosions. <=Climate cycles
Whether we used technological ingenuity against global cooling or against global warming, Budyko pointed out that any action would change climate in different ways for different nations. Attempts at modification, he insisted, "should be allowed only after the projects have been considered and approved by responsible international organizations and have received the consent of all interested countries." The bitter fighting among communities over cloud-seeding would be as nothing compared with conflicts over attempts to engineer global climate. Moreover, as Budyko and Western scientists alike warned, scientists could not predict the consequences of such engineering efforts. We might forestall global warming only to find we had triggered a new ice age.(14)
Such worries revived the U.S. military's interest in artificial climate change on a global scale. A group at the RAND corporation, a defense think tank near Los Angeles, had been working with a computer climate model that originated at the University of California, Los Angeles. This was normal scientific research, funded by the civilian National Science Foundation. Around 1970, however, with opponents of the Vietnam war attacking anything that smelled of militarism, the NSF backed out of funding work with overt military connections.
The RAND group had to scramble to find support elsewhere. They turned to the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense. ARPA was meanwhile on the lookout for computing projects that could justify the funds it had lavished on its ILLIAC supercomputer. The menace of Soviet climate engineering schemes gave a plausible rationale. ARPA awarded the project millions of dollars, a secret classification, and a code name, NILE BLUE. The money supported a variety of large-scale computer studies and even some work on ancient climates. Nothing of obvious military significance turned up, but the program's results proved useful for other climate scientists. After a few years the program was demilitarized. The NSF took over funding as work with the RAND model migrated to the University of Oregon.(15) <=Models (GCMs)
As environmental concerns grew more widespread and sophisticated, experts and the public alike demanded a cautious approach to any intervention. A 1977 Academy report looked at a variety of grand schemes we might use to reduce global warming, should it ever become dangerous (for example, massive planting of forests to soak up carbon). The experts could not muster much optimism for any of these schemes. The panel thought that a turn to renewable energy resources seemed a more practical solution.(16) People nevertheless continued to come up with projects we might pursue if greenhouse warming made us desperate enough. To cite another of the many ideas, we could collect carbon dioxide gas from the furnaces where coal was burned, compress it into a liquid, and inject it into the depths of the Earth or the oceans. That sounded like an engineer's fantasy, but studies indicated it might in fact be done at reasonable cost.(17) Another fantastic yet perhaps feasible proposal was to fertilize barren tracts of the oceans with trace minerals. In the 1990s, calculations and field trials suggested that an occasional tanker load of iron compounds could induce massive blooms of plankton. The creatures would absorb carbon and take it to the ocean bottom when they died. However, scientists could not be sure whether in the end that really would lower the total of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.(18)
Dozens of other schemes for mitigating the greenhouse effect were published, ranging from modest practical improvements in energy systems (for example, energy-efficient light bulbs) to futuristic visions (a sunshield in space!?). When a National Academy of Sciences panel convened in 1991 to catalog the options, the members got into a long and serious debate over whether to include the grand "geoengineering" ideas. Might hopes of a future fix just encourage people to avoid the work of restricting greenhouse gas emissions? The panel reluctantly voted to include every idea, so that preparations could start in case the climate deteriorated so badly that radical steps would be the lesser evil. Their fundamental problem was the one that had bedeviled climate science from the start — if you pushed on this intricate system, nobody could say for sure what the final consequences might be.(19)
As the levels of global temperature and greenhouse gases continued to climb in tandem, the debate dragged on, largely below the level of public awareness. In 1997 the famous nuclear-bomb expert Edward Teller caught some attention with an essay in the Wall Street Journal, claiming that it would cost only a billion dollars a year to put a sunscreen in the stratosphere. He argued that "if the politics of global warming require that 'something must be done'," America should devote its technical prowess to preparing such a response. Most people who followed the debate distrusted that kind of high-technology vision (which Teller represented only too well, as chief proponent of a multi-billion-dollar "Star Wars" project that had ignominiously failed to invent lasers that could shoot down ballistic missiles).(20) Others continued to insist that the world should prepare to take emergency action, just in case. But few were willing to plunge into studies, and still fewer wanted to fund them.
"Weather modification," a participant had written ruefully back in 1974, "is based on sound physical principles that cannot be applied precisely in the open atmosphere because several processes are interacting together in a manner difficult to predict." Moreover, attempts to change the weather "are superimposed upon natural processes acting, perhaps indistinguishably, to the same or opposite effect.... Therefore it should not be surprising that the history of weather modification is one of painfully slow progress."(21) Much the same could be said of research on climate modification.
As the world began to visibly suffer from global warming, a few scientists revisited the issue. In 2006 Paul Crutzen, widely respected for his Nobel Prize-winning work on ozone, sent the leading journal Climatic Change an article that called for more research on climate engineering. "Given the grossly disappointing international political response" to calls to restrict greenhouse emissions, Crutzen argued that such research should no longer be "tabooed."
His submission roused passionate opposition from some senior colleagues, who insisted it would be irresponsible to publish the article. Eventually they accepted a compromise that gave them space for counter-arguments. Suppose the climate turned so bad that some nation, or even a private group, insisted on launching a geoengineering project? Crutzen and his supporters argued that it would be best to have research on hand in advance to point out the true possibilities and pitfalls. Yet Crutzen himself admitted there was a risk that hopes for a cheap technical fix would be used "to justify inadequate climate policies." And there remained the old problem that a climate change that helped one region could damage another. The old battles over "stealing" rain might revive.
Even the fantasies of climatological warfare could stalk back into history, strengthened by scientific advances. As a historian remarked,
"Who would have the wisdom to dispense drought, severe winters, or the effects of storms... If, as history shows, fantasies of weather and climate control have chiefly served commercial and military interests, why should we expect the future to be different?"(22*)
The technical, political and ethical problems raised by deliberately influencing the global climate remained at least as great as the problems raised by our unintended influence.
NOTES
1. von Neumann (1955), p. 41 of reprint.
2. For this and following see Fleming (2006). Kwa (2001); Kwa (1994); Keith (2000), p. 252; Fleming (2007a), pp. 54-57; A. Spilhaus, interview by R. Doel, Nov. 1989, AIP.
3. Lambright and Changnon (1989); Byers (1974); Soviet: Keith (2000), p. 250-51.
4. von Neumann (1955), pp. 108, 151.
5. National Academy of Sciences (1966); Lambright and Changnon (1989); Byers (1974).
6. Lamb (1971); Lamb (1977), pp. 660-61; for Soviet and other conquest of nature ideology see Josephson (2002). I have not seen Lamb's Russian-language references, which include: for diversion, Adabashev (1966); Drozdov (1966); for dam, Borisov (1962) ; Budyko (1962); inadvisable: Budyko (1977), pp. 237-38; for U.S. reaction, see e.g., National Academy of Sciences (1966), vol. 2, p. 61; for the whole story, Ponte (1976), pp. 220-29; Keith (2000), p. 251, quoting "master of this planet" from Rusin and Flit (1960). BACK
7. For discussion and references, see Lamb (1977), pp. 46, 660-61, 676, 797; I have not checked his Russian references, which include Budyko (1961); Budyko (1962); Rakipova (1966); 1966 Rakipova reports in English translation are cited by Sellers (1969). BACK
8. Donn and Shaw (1966) (without reference to Budyko); Fletcher (1966); Sellers (1969) however calculated a temperature rise of only 7°C if the ice pack were destroyed, probably insufficient to keep ice from re-forming; Wilson and Matthews (1971), quote p. 182.
9. Lamb (1971), quote p. 95. BACK
10. Ponte (1976), pp. 156-58; Fleming (2006); Kwa (2001). BACK
11. For the public acknowledgment, see New York Times, May 19, 1974, p. 1, also Shapley (1974). Indications were already published in 1971 in a Jack Anderson column in the Washington Post, 18 March 1971, and in the "Pentagon Papers," see Seymour Hersh, "Weather as a weapon of war," New York Times, July 9, 1972, p. IV:3; for background and response, see Ponte (1976), ch. 11. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, UN Treaty Ser. 1108:151. BACK
12. Lamb (1971).
13. President's Science Advisory Committee (1965), estimated cost $500 million per year, p. 127; see National Academy of Sciences (1966), vol. 2, pp. 60-62.
14. Budyko and Korol (1975), p. 469; Landsberg (1970), p. 1268. He cites 1968-69 RAND Corp. reports by J.O. Fletcher; for spreading smog from supersonic transports, see Wilson and Matthews (1971), p. 9; a summary with warnings is Kellogg and Schneider (1974), pp. 169-70.
15. Hecht and Tirpak (1995), p. 375; personal communication from John Perry, 2001, and Rapp (1970) .
16. National Academy of Sciences (1977); for discussion of Academy reports, see Keith (2000).
17. Notably Marchetti (1977), where the term "geoengineering" may have first appeared.
18. Coate et al. (1996); Chisholm (2000).
19. Schneider (2001), p. 418. BACK
20. Teller, “The Planet Needs a Sunscreen,” Oct. 17, 1997. Teller’s 2002 technical paper on the subject is here.
21. Byers (1974), p. 3. BACK
22. Crutzen (2006); see the entire Climatic Change special issue on geoengineering, with commentaries by Cicerone, M.G. Lawrence and others (vol. 77 nos. 3-4, Aug. 2006). On Crutzen see the essay on other greenhouse gases. Another respected senior climate scientist followed up with calculations reaffirming that it was feasible to spread sulfate particles in the stratosphere to hold back warming, Wigley (2006). Press reports include Kerr (2006) and William J. Broad, New York Times, June 27, 2006. Historian: Fleming (2007), p. 60 . For the history see also Morton (2007). BACK
Spencer R. Weart (born 1942) was the director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics from 1971 until his retirement in 2009. Originally trained as a physicist, he is now a noted historian
YouTube - HAARP - The God Weapon (in action) ???wmv
YouTube - HAARP - The God Weapon (in action) ???wmv
Uploaded by iwasthatdolphin on Feb 11, 2010
Today I asked the question, "Which is worse...Ionising Radiation or EMF s in the atmosphere"...here is the reply I got:
Ionising is worse because it can damage DNA and make body systems collapse.
EMF is more like an injury that can heal - if not too great, where it would then be as bad as radiation.
Ionising radiation is where cast off high energy (beam) electrons or radiation particles are like bullets and hit electrons etc in other cells thus changing the atomic structure and molecular relationships of substances and body parts.
Radiating EMF is where electromagnetic charge is cast off in an alternating mode and energises electrons within materials etc, but generally does not knock them out of orbit or change status unless other high value charges are also present or the material is a good conductor (metal) where current (electron) flow can be induced though without permanently altering the number of electrons.
Clifford Carnicom at www.carnicom.com tells us that Barium Salt is easily ionised by the Sun's Radiation, particularly the UV spectrum - but even by ordinary sunlight !
Barium is being deliberately sprayed in the Chemtrails not to mention Aluminum.
A water distiller is essential now... what goes up must come down...in the RAIN and fake "SNOW".
Chelation to rid our bodies of the heavy metals...Colloidal Silver - is antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal - and we can all make our own with our distilled water. What do you think ? What do you see in my sky ?
I repeat: Ionising is worse because it can damage DNA and make body systems collapse.
Is our DNA being damaged ? Don't believe me - PLEASE do your own research.
Thanks for watching and please everyone...try everything to keep yourselves and those you love as safe as humanly possible...LOOK UP - SPEAK UP.
link to Jim Corr clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpJUrOkWYuA
love and tc, dolph.
Uploaded by iwasthatdolphin on Feb 11, 2010
Today I asked the question, "Which is worse...Ionising Radiation or EMF s in the atmosphere"...here is the reply I got:
Ionising is worse because it can damage DNA and make body systems collapse.
EMF is more like an injury that can heal - if not too great, where it would then be as bad as radiation.
Ionising radiation is where cast off high energy (beam) electrons or radiation particles are like bullets and hit electrons etc in other cells thus changing the atomic structure and molecular relationships of substances and body parts.
Radiating EMF is where electromagnetic charge is cast off in an alternating mode and energises electrons within materials etc, but generally does not knock them out of orbit or change status unless other high value charges are also present or the material is a good conductor (metal) where current (electron) flow can be induced though without permanently altering the number of electrons.
Clifford Carnicom at www.carnicom.com tells us that Barium Salt is easily ionised by the Sun's Radiation, particularly the UV spectrum - but even by ordinary sunlight !
Barium is being deliberately sprayed in the Chemtrails not to mention Aluminum.
A water distiller is essential now... what goes up must come down...in the RAIN and fake "SNOW".
Chelation to rid our bodies of the heavy metals...Colloidal Silver - is antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal - and we can all make our own with our distilled water. What do you think ? What do you see in my sky ?
I repeat: Ionising is worse because it can damage DNA and make body systems collapse.
Is our DNA being damaged ? Don't believe me - PLEASE do your own research.
Thanks for watching and please everyone...try everything to keep yourselves and those you love as safe as humanly possible...LOOK UP - SPEAK UP.
link to Jim Corr clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpJUrOkWYuA
love and tc, dolph.
Friday, June 24, 2011
The Hardest Things To See Is Right In Front of You.
The Hardest Things To See Is Right In Front of You.
The Hardest Things To See Is Right In Front of You.by Owen Lowe on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 6:06pm
"An illusion it will be, so large, so vast it will escape their perception. Those who will see it will be thought of as insane. We will create separate fronts to prevent them from seeing the connection between us. We will behave as if we are not connected to keep the illusion alive. Our goal will be accomplished one drop at a time so as to never bring suspicion upon ourselves. This will also prevent them from seeing the changes as they occur.
"We will always stand above the relative field of their experience for we know the secrets of the absolute. We will work together always and will remain bound by blood and secrecy. Death will come to he who speaks.
"We will keep their lifespan short and their minds weak while pretending to do the opposite. We will use our knowledge of science and technology in subtle ways so they will never see what is happening. We will use soft metals, aging accelerators and sedatives in food and water, also in the air. They will be blanketed by poisons everywhere they turn. The soft metals will cause them to lose their minds. We will promise to find a cure from our many fronts, yet we will feed them more poison. The poisons will be absorbed through their skin and mouths, they will destroy their minds and reproductive systems. From all this, their children will be born dead, and we will conceal this information. The poisons will be hidden in everything that surrounds them, in what they drink, eat, breathe and wear. We must be ingenious in dispensing the poisons for they can see far. We will teach them that the poisons are good, with fun images and musical tones. Those they look up to will help. We will enlist them to push our poisons.
"They will see our products being used in film and will grow accustomed to them and will never know their true effect. When they give birth we will inject poisons into the blood of their children and convince them its for their help. We will start early on, when their minds are young, we will target their children with what children love most, sweet things. When their teeth decay we will fill them with metals that will kill their mind and steal their future. When their ability to learn has been affected, we will create medicine that will make them sicker and cause other diseases for which we will create yet more medicine. We will render them docile and weak before us by our power. They will grow depressed, slow and obese, and when they come to us for help, we will give them more poison.
"We will focus their attention toward money and material goods so they many never connect with their inner self. We will distract them with fornication, external pleasures and games so they may never be one with the oneness of it all. Their minds will belong to us and they will do as we say. If they refuse we shall find ways to implement mind-altering technology into their lives. We will use fear as our weapon. We will establish their governments and establish opposites within. We will own both sides. We will always hide our objective but carry out our plan. They will perform the labor for us and we shall prosper from their toil.
"Our families will never mix with theirs. Our blood must be pure always, for it is the way. We will make them kill each other when it suits us. We will keep them separated from the oneness by dogma and religion. We will control all aspects of their lives and tell them what to think and how. We will guide them kindly and gently letting them think they are guiding themselves. We will foment animosity between them through our factions. When a light shall shine among them, we shall extinguish it by ridicule, or death, whichever suits us best. We will make them rip each other’s hearts apart and kill their own children. We will accomplish this by using hate as our ally, anger as our friend. The hate will blind them totally, and never shall they see that from their conflicts we emerge as their rulers. They will be busy killing each other. They will bathe in their own blood and kill their neighbors for as long as we see fit.
"We will benefit greatly from this, for they will not see us, for they cannot see us. We will continue to prosper from their wars and their deaths. We shall repeat this over and over until our ultimate goal is accomplished. We will continue to make them live in fear and anger though images and sounds. We will use all the tools we have to accomplish this. The tools will be provided by their labor. We will make them hate themselves and their neighbors.
"We will always hide the divine truth from them, that we are all one. This they must never know! They must never know that color is an illusion, they must always think they are not equal. Drop by drop, drop by drop we will advance our goal. We will take over their land, resources and wealth to exercise total control over them. We will deceive them into accepting laws that will steal the little freedom they will have. We will establish a money system that will imprison them forever, keeping them and their children in debt.
"When they shall ban together, we shall accuse them of crimes and present a different story to the world for we shall own all the media. We will use our media to control the flow of information and their sentiment in our favor. When they shall rise up against us we will crush them like insects, for they are less than that. They will be helpless to do anything for they will have no weapons.
"We will recruit some of their own to carry out our plans, we will promise them eternal life, but eternal life they will never have for they are not of us. The recruits will be called “initiates” and will be indoctrinated to believe false rites of passage to higher realms. Members of these groups will think they are one with us never knowing the truth. They must never learn this truth for they will turn against us. For their work they will be rewarded with earthly things and great titles, but never will they become immortal and join us, never will they receive the light and travel the stars. They will never reach the higher realms, for the killing of their own kind will prevent passage to the realm of enlightenment. This they will never know. The truth will be hidden in their face, so close they will not be able to focus on it until its too late. Oh yes, so grand the illusion of freedom will be, that they will never know they are our slaves.
"When all is in place, the reality we will have created for them will own them. This reality will be their prison. They will live in self-delusion. When our goal is accomplished a new era of domination will begin. Their minds will be bound by their beliefs, the beliefs we have established from time immemorial.
"But if they ever find out they are our equal, we shall perish then. THIS THEY MUST NEVER KNOW. If they ever find out that together they can vanquish us, they will take action. They must never, ever find out what we have done, for if they do, we shall have no place to run, for it will be easy to see who we are once the veil has fallen. Our actions will have revealed who we are and they will hunt us down and no person shall give us shelter.
"This is the secret covenant by which we shall live the rest of our present and future lives, for this reality will transcend many generations and life spans. This covenant is sealed by blood, our blood. We, the ones who from heaven to earth came. This covenant must NEVER, EVER be known to exist. It must NEVER, EVER be written or spoken of for if it is, the consciousness it will spawn will release the fury of the PRIME CREATOR upon us and we shall be cast to the depths from whence we came and remain there until the end time of infinity itself."
The Hardest Things To See Is Right In Front of You.by Owen Lowe on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 6:06pm
"An illusion it will be, so large, so vast it will escape their perception. Those who will see it will be thought of as insane. We will create separate fronts to prevent them from seeing the connection between us. We will behave as if we are not connected to keep the illusion alive. Our goal will be accomplished one drop at a time so as to never bring suspicion upon ourselves. This will also prevent them from seeing the changes as they occur.
"We will always stand above the relative field of their experience for we know the secrets of the absolute. We will work together always and will remain bound by blood and secrecy. Death will come to he who speaks.
"We will keep their lifespan short and their minds weak while pretending to do the opposite. We will use our knowledge of science and technology in subtle ways so they will never see what is happening. We will use soft metals, aging accelerators and sedatives in food and water, also in the air. They will be blanketed by poisons everywhere they turn. The soft metals will cause them to lose their minds. We will promise to find a cure from our many fronts, yet we will feed them more poison. The poisons will be absorbed through their skin and mouths, they will destroy their minds and reproductive systems. From all this, their children will be born dead, and we will conceal this information. The poisons will be hidden in everything that surrounds them, in what they drink, eat, breathe and wear. We must be ingenious in dispensing the poisons for they can see far. We will teach them that the poisons are good, with fun images and musical tones. Those they look up to will help. We will enlist them to push our poisons.
"They will see our products being used in film and will grow accustomed to them and will never know their true effect. When they give birth we will inject poisons into the blood of their children and convince them its for their help. We will start early on, when their minds are young, we will target their children with what children love most, sweet things. When their teeth decay we will fill them with metals that will kill their mind and steal their future. When their ability to learn has been affected, we will create medicine that will make them sicker and cause other diseases for which we will create yet more medicine. We will render them docile and weak before us by our power. They will grow depressed, slow and obese, and when they come to us for help, we will give them more poison.
"We will focus their attention toward money and material goods so they many never connect with their inner self. We will distract them with fornication, external pleasures and games so they may never be one with the oneness of it all. Their minds will belong to us and they will do as we say. If they refuse we shall find ways to implement mind-altering technology into their lives. We will use fear as our weapon. We will establish their governments and establish opposites within. We will own both sides. We will always hide our objective but carry out our plan. They will perform the labor for us and we shall prosper from their toil.
"Our families will never mix with theirs. Our blood must be pure always, for it is the way. We will make them kill each other when it suits us. We will keep them separated from the oneness by dogma and religion. We will control all aspects of their lives and tell them what to think and how. We will guide them kindly and gently letting them think they are guiding themselves. We will foment animosity between them through our factions. When a light shall shine among them, we shall extinguish it by ridicule, or death, whichever suits us best. We will make them rip each other’s hearts apart and kill their own children. We will accomplish this by using hate as our ally, anger as our friend. The hate will blind them totally, and never shall they see that from their conflicts we emerge as their rulers. They will be busy killing each other. They will bathe in their own blood and kill their neighbors for as long as we see fit.
"We will benefit greatly from this, for they will not see us, for they cannot see us. We will continue to prosper from their wars and their deaths. We shall repeat this over and over until our ultimate goal is accomplished. We will continue to make them live in fear and anger though images and sounds. We will use all the tools we have to accomplish this. The tools will be provided by their labor. We will make them hate themselves and their neighbors.
"We will always hide the divine truth from them, that we are all one. This they must never know! They must never know that color is an illusion, they must always think they are not equal. Drop by drop, drop by drop we will advance our goal. We will take over their land, resources and wealth to exercise total control over them. We will deceive them into accepting laws that will steal the little freedom they will have. We will establish a money system that will imprison them forever, keeping them and their children in debt.
"When they shall ban together, we shall accuse them of crimes and present a different story to the world for we shall own all the media. We will use our media to control the flow of information and their sentiment in our favor. When they shall rise up against us we will crush them like insects, for they are less than that. They will be helpless to do anything for they will have no weapons.
"We will recruit some of their own to carry out our plans, we will promise them eternal life, but eternal life they will never have for they are not of us. The recruits will be called “initiates” and will be indoctrinated to believe false rites of passage to higher realms. Members of these groups will think they are one with us never knowing the truth. They must never learn this truth for they will turn against us. For their work they will be rewarded with earthly things and great titles, but never will they become immortal and join us, never will they receive the light and travel the stars. They will never reach the higher realms, for the killing of their own kind will prevent passage to the realm of enlightenment. This they will never know. The truth will be hidden in their face, so close they will not be able to focus on it until its too late. Oh yes, so grand the illusion of freedom will be, that they will never know they are our slaves.
"When all is in place, the reality we will have created for them will own them. This reality will be their prison. They will live in self-delusion. When our goal is accomplished a new era of domination will begin. Their minds will be bound by their beliefs, the beliefs we have established from time immemorial.
"But if they ever find out they are our equal, we shall perish then. THIS THEY MUST NEVER KNOW. If they ever find out that together they can vanquish us, they will take action. They must never, ever find out what we have done, for if they do, we shall have no place to run, for it will be easy to see who we are once the veil has fallen. Our actions will have revealed who we are and they will hunt us down and no person shall give us shelter.
"This is the secret covenant by which we shall live the rest of our present and future lives, for this reality will transcend many generations and life spans. This covenant is sealed by blood, our blood. We, the ones who from heaven to earth came. This covenant must NEVER, EVER be known to exist. It must NEVER, EVER be written or spoken of for if it is, the consciousness it will spawn will release the fury of the PRIME CREATOR upon us and we shall be cast to the depths from whence we came and remain there until the end time of infinity itself."
Monday, June 13, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Government Releases Partial List Of Chemicals Found In Oil Spill Dispersants | Earthjustice
Government Releases Partial List Of Chemicals Found In Oil Spill Dispersants Earthjustice
June 8, 2011
New York, NY —
A year after the BP Gulf oil disaster and under pressure from environmental groups, the EPA finally released a list of the chemical components in oil dispersants. The federal agency also disclosed health and safety information about the chemical components that were previously withheld from the public as “confidential business information.” The potential health and environmental effects of the unprecedented use of dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico, both in volume and the underwater application, however, remain unknown.
EPA released a list of the 57 ingredients in all of the dispersants eligible for use in oil spills and identified the specific ingredients of some of them—in particular, Dispersit, Mare Clean, and COREXIT 9500 and COREXIT 9527, which were used in response to the oil disaster in the Gulf. The 57 ingredients were part of a larger list of 150 chemicals made public by EPA, which also included components found in consumer products.
The new chemical dispersant data was released as a result of a lawsuit filed in July of 2010 on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation and Gulf Restoration Network, represented by Earthjustice. However, EPA continues to withhold the identity of specific ingredients found in most of the dispersants that are eligible for use in response to oil spills.
“This disclosure was long overdue,” said Earthjustice attorney Marianne Engelman Lado. “These dispersants were used in massive quantities, nearly 2 million gallons, exposing workers, community residents, and wildlife to toxic chemicals, without adequate information about whether they were adding injury to the already tragic circumstances.”
In July of 2010, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Gulf Restoration Network and the Florida Wildlife Federation to force EPA to release health and safety information related to dispersants.
“The public has a right to know what the dispersants being used in the Gulf will do to the Gulf—and to its wildlife,” said Manley Fuller of the Florida Wildlife Federation.
“It is just bad policy to pre-approve the use of chemicals when we have very little understanding for their short-term and long-term toxicity,” said Casey DeMoss Roberts of the Gulf Restoration Network.
Earthjustice attorneys are also monitoring progress made by the EPA to strengthen regulation of dispersants. In a separate petition to the EPA, groups in the oil producing regions, represented by Earthjustice, have asked the EPA to significantly improve the way dispersants are tested and approved.
“The EPA has been sitting on this crucial information about what is in dispersants and their toxicity, and they continue to withhold information—such as the identity of specific ingredients in individual dispersant products—that would be extremely helpful to healthcare providers and response workers in future oil spills,” said Engelman Lado of Earthjustice.
The groups asked that the EPA require disclosure of dispersant ingredients when warranted to ensure protection of human health and the environment and would give EPA much-needed authority to better control dispersant use. The Chemical Dispersant Safety Act, introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg, would also require the EPA to take strong action to regulate dispersants.
More information on the related Earthjustice case..
EPA released a list of the 57 ingredients in all of the dispersants eligible for use in oil spills and identified the specific ingredients of some of them—in particular, Dispersit, Mare Clean, and COREXIT 9500 and COREXIT 9527, which were used in response to the oil disaster in the Gulf. The 57 ingredients were part of a larger list of 150 chemicals made public by EPA, which also included components found in consumer products.
The new chemical dispersant data was released as a result of a lawsuit filed in July of 2010 on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation and Gulf Restoration Network, represented by Earthjustice. However, EPA continues to withhold the identity of specific ingredients found in most of the dispersants that are eligible for use in response to oil spills.
“This disclosure was long overdue,” said Earthjustice attorney Marianne Engelman Lado. “These dispersants were used in massive quantities, nearly 2 million gallons, exposing workers, community residents, and wildlife to toxic chemicals, without adequate information about whether they were adding injury to the already tragic circumstances.”
In July of 2010, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Gulf Restoration Network and the Florida Wildlife Federation to force EPA to release health and safety information related to dispersants.
“The public has a right to know what the dispersants being used in the Gulf will do to the Gulf—and to its wildlife,” said Manley Fuller of the Florida Wildlife Federation.
“It is just bad policy to pre-approve the use of chemicals when we have very little understanding for their short-term and long-term toxicity,” said Casey DeMoss Roberts of the Gulf Restoration Network.
Earthjustice attorneys are also monitoring progress made by the EPA to strengthen regulation of dispersants. In a separate petition to the EPA, groups in the oil producing regions, represented by Earthjustice, have asked the EPA to significantly improve the way dispersants are tested and approved.
“The EPA has been sitting on this crucial information about what is in dispersants and their toxicity, and they continue to withhold information—such as the identity of specific ingredients in individual dispersant products—that would be extremely helpful to healthcare providers and response workers in future oil spills,” said Engelman Lado of Earthjustice.
The groups asked that the EPA require disclosure of dispersant ingredients when warranted to ensure protection of human health and the environment and would give EPA much-needed authority to better control dispersant use. The Chemical Dispersant Safety Act, introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg, would also require the EPA to take strong action to regulate dispersants.
More information on the related Earthjustice case..
Contact:
Marianne Engelman Lado, Earthjustice, (212) 791-1881, ext. 228 or cell (917) 608-2053
Casey DeMoss Roberts, Gulf Restoration Network, (504) 982-0468
Manley Fuller, Florida Wildlife Federation, (850) 656-7113, or cell (850) 567-7129
Marianne Engelman Lado, Earthjustice, (212) 791-1881, ext. 228 or cell (917) 608-2053
Casey DeMoss Roberts, Gulf Restoration Network, (504) 982-0468
Manley Fuller, Florida Wildlife Federation, (850) 656-7113, or cell (850) 567-7129
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Billy's Update: ANTENNA ARRAY CONFIGIGURATION FOR DDA SOFTWARE
Billy's Update: ANTENNA ARRAY CONFIGIGURATION FOR DDA SOFTWARE
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
ANTENNA ARRAY CONFIGIGURATION FOR DDA SOFTWARE
per request Dutchsense the following:
Antenna Array Configuration for DDA software
Digisonde Antenna Arrays Two different types of antenna arrays can be implemented in the Digisonde system. 7-antenna array is used for the DGS256 (DISS) system while 4-antenna array is used with the DPS system. Figure 1 shows two types of standard-per-manual antenna configurations.
 |  |
(a) | (b) |
Figure 1. a) Standard Digisonde 7-antenna array configuration. b) Standard Digisonde 4-antenna array configuration
Antenna Array Specification for DDA
The DDA software features a generic scheme for antenna array specification that allows any possible antenna configuration to be entered. A variety of "standard" antenna configurations can be defined using DEVN, MAXSEP, and ROTATA parameters, and in a case of "non-standard" antenna setup, each antenna position in the array can be specified individually.
DDA Antenna configuration is specified in the ddasetup.onl file, at the line *185 with the following format:
*185 StationName < LAT, LONG, CGPLAT, CGPLONG, COMPN, MAXSEP, DEVN, ROTATA >
For example,
*185 HAARP < 62.24, 214.91, 80.00, -80.00, 23.8, 103.92, -30.0, 13 >
Parameters LAT, LONG, CGPLAT, CGPLONG, COMPN referring to the station location are explained below.
LAT - Station Latitude
LONG - Station Longitude
CGPLAT - Corrected Geomagnetic Pole Latitude
CGPLONG - Corrected Geomagnetic Pole Longitude
COMPNTD - Compass North Deviation (a.k.a. Magnetic Declination Angle). Positive angles correspond to the compass north deviation to the East of geographic north.
Figure 2. Definition of the COMPN parameter
Parameters MAXSEP, DEVN, ROTATA specify the antenna configuration itself.
MAXSEP: This variable specifies the maximum antenna separation of the largest triangle in the seven antenna array configuration (Figure 1a). Namely, MAXSEP is the distance in meters from antenna 5 to 6, 6 to 7, or 7 to 5. MAXSEP always refers to the outer antennas of the seven-antenna system, even if they are not present (as for the 4-antenna setup of the DPS). In the case of the DPS where only four antennas are available, the MAXSEP is specified as the distance between the virtual antennas 5, 6, and 7. For example, in the standard DPS antenna layout, with 60 m long triangle side (distance between antennas 2 and 3) MAXSEP should be set to103.92 m. In this case, the DPS antennas 2, 3, and 4 are referred to as the inner antennas of the 7 antenna array.
DEVN:
Parameter DEVN ("deviation") is defined as an angle between the direction to Compass North and the line passing through the antennas #3 and #1. This angle is counted counter-clockwise from the Compass North toward the "3-1" line (see Figure 3), taking values from -180 to 180.
 |
Figure 3. Specification of the DEVN parameter.
ROTATA. This parameter (a) defines the antenna array configuration, and (b) also specifies the output coordinate system for skymap and velocity data calculated by the DDA software. Possible values for the ROTATA parameter are defined in the following table.
ROTATA | Antenna setup | ||
0 | 3 | 6 | Clockwise rotating 7 antenna setup |
1 | 4 | 7 | Clockwise rotating 4 Inner antenna setup |
2 | 5 | 8 | Clockwise rotating 4 Outer antenna setup |
9 | 12 | 15 | Counter-clockwise rotating 7 antenna setup |
10 | 13 | 16 | Counter-clockwise rotating 4 Inner ant. setup |
11 | 14 | 17 | Counter-clockwise rotating 4 Outer ant. setup |
-1 | -2 | -3 | Non-standard antenna setup |
Corrected Geomagnetic | Geomagnetic | Geographic | |
Output coordinate system | |||
Rotation Sense: This specifies the actual position of the antennas in the triangular array. In a seven‑antenna setup, antennas 6, 2, and 5 are located west of antenna 1, while antennas 4 and 7 are located east of antenna 1. This antenna field is said to be a counter-clockwise rotating field since spiraling from antenna 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to 7 the spiral is in a counter-clockwise direction. For the mirror image array where antennas 7 and 4 are located west of antenna 1 and antennas 6, 2, and 5 are located east of antenna 1, the spiraling from antenna to antenna goes in a clockwise direction.
Standard Antenna Array Configurations
Historically, three standard Digisonde antenna array configurations were considered in the UMLCAR software for ionogram processing (ADEP, Viewer, SAO Explorer):
· Standard per manual
· Mirrored (rotated 180° about the X axis)
· Rotated (rotated 180° about the Z axis
Recently, in support of our DIDBase (Digital Ionogram DataBase) development, we have introduced a new scheme for specification of the Digisonde antenna array configurations. The following antenna array nomenclature is now used:
· Seven antennas standard
· Seven antennas mirrored
· Four antennas standard
· Four antennas mirrored
DDA antenna specification examples for some of commonly used antenna layouts can be found in the tables below.
Four Standard Antenna Array Configurations
Commonly used in Digisonde 256 and DISS DEVN = 0 MAXSEP = 100.0 ROTATA = { 9, 12, 15 } |  |
Known installations:
DEVN = 0 MAXSEP = 100.0 ROTATA = { 0, 3, 6 } |  |
In the "standard" configuration, antenna 1 to antenna 7 are walked counter-clockwise.
In the "mirror" configuration, antenna 1 to antenna 7 are walked clockwise.
Commonly used in DPS. DEVN = -30 MAXSEP = 103.92 ROTATA = { 10, 13, 16 } |  |
Known installations:
DEVN = 30 MAXSEP = 103.92 ROTATA = { 1, 4, 7 } |  |
Other known cases
Here's more examples of existing Digisonde antenna arrays configurations in the new encoding scheme:
Formerly "ROTATED DGS-256". Known installations: · Karachi · Kokubunji · Beijing DEVN = 180 MAXSEP = 100.0 ROTATA = { 9, 12, 15 } |  |
DPS working on the internal loop of the array configuration "MIRRORED 7 ANTENNA DEVN=0" · Millstone Hill DEVN = 0 MAXSEP = 103.92 ROTATA = { 1, 4, 7 } |  |
DPS working on the internal loop of the array configuration "STANDARD 7 ANTENNA DEVN=0" · Sondestrom · Ramey AFB DEVN = 0 MAXSEP = 100.0 ROTATA = { 10,13, 16 } |  |
Formerly known as "DPS ROTATED" · Juliusruh? DEVN = 150 MAXSEP = 103.92 ROTATA = { 10,13, 16 } |  |
Non-standard Antenna Array Configurations
If the antenna array configuration is not one of the standard (listed above), such a non-standard setup is described by direct specification of each antenna coordinates in the lines 170-183 of the ddasetup.onl file or lines 080-082 of the Station UDD file.
The ROTATA parameter shall be set negative in this case:
ROTATA = -1 DDA output is in Corrected Geomagnetic coordinates
ROTATA = -2 DDA output is in Compass coordinates
ROTATA = -3 DDA output is in Geographic coordinates
Individual antenna specifications should made in the system of coordinates (Figure 4), where
· X points to the Compass North at the time of installation
· Z is the local vertical pointing up, and
· Y forms the right-hand system (i.e., points to the West).
 |
Figure 4. Coordinate system used in DDA for antenna orientation
Note: For non-standard antenna configurations, there is no need to specify parameters MAXSEP, COMPN, DEVN in ddasetup.onl file.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
2 comments: