Tag Archives: Soviet Union

Chem and Bio Agents,Lockheed Martin And Japan Bio Terror

Published on May 4, 2012 by Bryan Cohen

The Japan Ministry of Defense has ordered 19 AbleSentry systems from the Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin to provide early warning and detection of potential nuclear, biological or chemical attacks.

The AbleSentry is a system designed for tactical battlefields that can be simply deployed, operated and maintained. It uses a detection algorithm and a network of remote sensors to detect threats and minimize the possibility of false alarms. The networking of the sensors prevents the possibility of a system-wide alarm being caused by one sensor.

“The system’s ability to provide information on where the threat is coming from and how fast it’s moving gives battlefield commanders the advanced warning they need to make the decisions necessary to keep their troops out of harm’s way,” Daniel Heller, the vice president of new ventures for Lockheed Martin’s Mission Systems & Sensors business, said.

The AbleSentry system is the next evolutionary step after the company’s Biological Aerosol Warning System and its Enhanced Biological Aerosol Warning System platforms. The new system adds radiological and chemical detection capabilities. Lockheed Martin has delivered 24 BAWS and EBAWS systems to Japan’s Ground Self Defense Forces since 2005.

The AbleSentry also monitors temperature, wind direction and speed, humidity and location data, and collects air samples for the identification and confirmation of biological agents.

Japan will use the devices for counter-terrorism efforts.

With spores mailed inside envelopes, the 2001 anthrax attacks marked the first bioterrorist attacks in the United States. The spores killed five people, four of whom were not the intended targets. After considering Al Qaeda, draining ponds in search of evidence, and pursuing the wrong person, the FBI traced the letters to a domestic source — a scientist working in biodefense. He was one of the FBI’s own advisors on anthrax.

Besides proving deadly, the 2001 anthrax incident caused considerable disruption. Mail was stopped in several cities, and it cost more than $1 billion to clean up the spores

. And all of this was caused by just one man. The prospect of a larger attack is beyond frightening. Terrorists can hide biological weapons in pharmaceutical production lines and breweries. The biggest eyes we have for surveillance, like spy satellites, can’t inspect those very well.

So where does the U.S. stand if it’s attacked again? In 2005, the presidential commission on intelligence released a report saying that while the United States was building a reasonable defense of vaccines and other measures on the ground, it was rather clueless on which countries had what biological agents

. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security predicted that the United States would see another biological attack in the next five years

.

Chemical weapons have the same potential for killing thousands of people in a city attack — and unfortunately, a long history of doing so. Thankfully, much of the world has at least pledged to disarm itself of chemical weapons. Under the Chemical Weapons Conventions, states representing 98 percent of the world’s population and the same percentage of the chemical industry are supposed to be rid of chemical weapons by 2012

. But there are enough routes around the treaties. States like North Korea didn’t sign them. And signatories may have undeclared weapons. Before they are actually destroyed, weapons marked for disposal could also be stolen or sold. Still, as of December 2008, more than 40 percent of the world’s declared chemical stockpile, led by the stockpilers Russia and the United States, had been destroyed

[sources: Cohen, Chyba].

For all of these reasons, it’s good to know what threats exist. This article will explain how chemical and biological weapons really work, how they might be deployed and what the actual threats are.

Feared Chemical Agents

An effective chemical attack would use chemicals that are extremely toxic to people in small quantities. From least to most threatening, the most commonly feared agents are:

Sarin — Sarin is a nerve agent. Once inside your body, nerve agents affect the signaling mechanism that nerve cells use to communicate with one another. Sarin is a cholinesterase inhibitor — it gums up the cholinesterase enzyme, which your nerve cells use to clear themselves of acetylcholine. When a nerve cell needs to send a message to another nerve cell (for example, to cause a muscle to contract), it sends the message with the acetylcholine. Without cholinesterase to clear the acetylcholine, muscles start to contract uncontrollably — this eventually causes death by suffocation since the diaphragm is a muscle. It acts in five to 12 hours

. It is not particularly difficult to manufacture, and if you were trapped in a one-cubic-meter closet with 100 milligrams of sarin in the air, inhaling it would kill you in 1 minute

.
Cyclosarin — Cyclosarin is another nerve agent. It works in the same way as sarin, but it is more than twice as toxic. You’d only need to be in the cubic-meter closet with 35 milligrams of airborne cyclosarin to die in 1 minute

. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq made cyclosarin during the Gulf War

.
Soman — Soman is also like sarin, but it acts faster, in 40 seconds to 10 minutes

. It’s about as toxic as cyclosarin

. The Soviet Union stockpiled soman in the 1960s

.
VX — VX works in the same way as sarin, but it is a liquid, while sarin vaporizes. It is also ten times more toxic than sarin. Ten milligrams on the skin will kill a person

. A sticky version exists that adheres to whatever it falls on

. The United States made VX during the 1950s and 1960s

.
Novichoks — Novichoks are nerve agents. To make them, two ordinary chemicals are mixed to form a toxic product. As recently as 1990, at least three novichoks existed (novichok-5, novichok-#, and novichok-7), but whether large quantities exist today is unknown. All novichok agents are more toxic than VX. Some may be up to 10 times more toxic

. They may also work differently than the nerve agents listed here, possibly rendering existing antidotes ineffective. The Soviet Union began making novichoks in the 1980s

. In Russian, novichok means “newcomer.”

Not all feared chemical weapons attack the nerves. Blistering agents, like mustard gas, blister the skin, destroy lung tissue and can kill people. But they are less deadly than nerve agents.

One of the problems with these chemical agents is that there is no easy way to protect yourself. On the battlefield, soldiers wear gas masks and complete skin coverings when chemical or biological attack is deemed possible. If a city were to experience a large-scale VX attack, people would have to be wearing a waterproof and airtight suit and a gas mask at the time of the attack in order to be protected.

There are many ways to implement a biological attack, but these are some of the most feared agents, from least to most threatening:

Ebola virus — The virus takes about a week to kill the victim, and it spreads through direct contact. The Marburg virus is just as deadly.
Botulinum toxin — Clostridium botulinum bacteria produce the botulinum toxin, and this toxin is deadly to people in incredibly small quantities (as little as a billionth of a gram). The toxin inhibits the release of the chemicals in nerve cells that cause muscle contractions, so it causes paralysis.
Tularemia — Bacteria cause tularemia. The most deadly forms, which cause fever or respiratory illness, kill 5 to 7 percent of people, but vaccines are an effective prevention, and antibiotics can clear the infections

.
Pneumonic plague — Plague is caused by a bacterium. In pneumonic plague, bacteria infest the lungs, and a person dies in three to four days if not treated. Pneumonic plague is also contagious, spreading through coughing and sneezing. The most recent pandemic, which lasted until 1922, killed 10 million people. Eventually, public health measures drove the bacteria’s hosts, rodents and fleas, out of cities, and antibiotics became available

. But even today, antibiotics must be delivered fast to prevent death from pneumonic plague. Plague is a weapon. Japan may have released infected fleas in China during World War II, and the United States and Soviet Union found ways to aerosolize the bacteria during the Cold War

.
Anthrax — A bacterium causes anthrax. It has a spore form that is very durable. If the spores or bacteria get into your lungs, they reproduce and create a toxin that can be fatal. See “How Anthrax Works” for more information.
Smallpox — Smallpox is a virus. It was a major killer until it was controlled with vaccinations in the 20th century. It has been eradicated worldwide, but the fear is that terrorists could release new strains. The main problem with smallpox, unlike with anthrax, is that it is highly contagious. It spreads and kills very quickly. Up to 40 percent of people who catch the virus die from it in about two weeks, and there is no good treatment for the disease. Vaccinations are the main protection, but they must be given prior to infection in order to work.

It would also be possible to cause significant problems by targeting the food supply. For example, foot-and-mouth disease has been a huge problem in Europe. Spreading the disease to the United States would be relatively easy and very disruptive.

The Spread of Biological and Chemical Agents

The previous sections listed 11 of the most-feared chemical and biological agents. There are dozens of others that aren’t as well known, either because they are not as toxic or not as easy to spread.

There are three ways to spread a chemical or biological agent so that it would infect a large number of people:

Through the air
Through a municipal water supply
Through the food supply

The most-feared scenario is through the air. Here are the techniques most commonly discussed:

A bomb or a missile explodes, spreading the chemical or biological agent over a wide area.
A crop-duster or other aircraft sprays the agent over a city.
A car or truck drives through the city spraying a fine mist along city streets in crowded areas.
Small bombs or aerosol canisters are released in crowded areas like subways, sports arenas or convention centers.

 

Advertisements

Manipulation of the climate for military use:what was overlooked

The term,

“environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

(Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva: 18 May 1977)

“Environmental warfare is defined as the intentional modification or manipulation of the natural ecology, such as climate and weather, earth systems such as the ionosphere, magnetosphere, tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of seismic events (earthquakes) to cause intentional physical, economic, and psycho-social, and physical destruction to an intended target geophysical or population location, as part of strategic or tactical war.”

(Eco News)

“[Weather modification] offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary… Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.”

 

World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 with a view to reaching an agreement on Global Warming.

The debate on Climate Change focuses on the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and measures to reduce manmade CO2 emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

The underlying consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions constitute the sole cause of climate instability. Neither the governments nor the environmental action groups, have raised the issue of “weather warfare” or “environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)” for military use. Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of climatic manipulations for military use has been excluded from the UN agenda on climate change.

John von Neumann noted at the height of the Cold War (1955), with tremendous foresight that:

“Intervention in atmospheric and climatic matters… will unfold on a scale difficult to imagine at present… [T]his 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.”

(Quoted in Spencer Weart, Environmental Warfare: Climate Modification Schemes, Global Research, December 5, 20090

In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly which banned,

“military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.”

(AP, 18 May 1977).

Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention.

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, …and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare, (…)

Recognizing that military… use of such [environmental modification techniques] could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare, Desiring to prohibit effectively military… use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind… and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective, (…)

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military … use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

(Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva, May 18, 1977. Entered into force: 5 October 1978, see full text of Convention in Annex)

The Convention defined,

“‘environmental modification techniques’ as referring to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space.”

(Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27)

The substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in very general terms in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

“States have… in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (…) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.”

(UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992)

Following the 1992 Earth Summit, the issue of Climate Change for military use was never raised in subsequent climate change summits and venues under the auspices of the UNFCCC. The issue was erased, forgotten. It is not part of the debate on climate change.

In February 1998, however, the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program.

The Committee’s “Motion for Resolution” submitted to the European Parliament:

“Considers HAARP [The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program based in Alaska]… by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing… into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program.”

(European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999).

The Committee’s request to draw up a “Green Paper” on “the environmental impacts of military activities”, however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacked the required jurisdiction to delve into “the links between environment and defense”.

Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington (see European Report, 3 February 1999).

In 2007, The Daily Express reported – following the release and declassification of British government papers from the National Archives – that:

“The [declassified] documents reveal that both the US, which led the field, and the Soviet Union had secret military programs with the goal of controlling the world’s climate. “By the year 2025 the United States will own the weather,” one scientist is said to have boasted.

These claims are dismissed by skeptics as wild conspiracy theories and the stuff of James Bond movies but there is growing evidence that the boundaries between science fiction and fact are becoming increasingly blurred. The Americans now admit that they invested L12million over five years during the Vietnam war on “cloud seeding” – deliberately creating heavy rainfall to wash away enemy crops and destroy supply routes on the Ho Chi Minh trail, in an operation codenamed Project Popeye.

It is claimed that rainfall was increased by a third in targeted areas, making the weather-manipulation weapon a success. At the time, government officials said the region was prone to heavy rain.

(Weather War?, Daily Express, July 16, 2007)

The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military agenda, while formally acknowledged by official government documents and the US military, has never been considered relevant to the Climate debate. Military analysts are mute on the subject.

Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.

The HAARP Program

The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska, has been in existence since 1992. It is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating “controlled local modifications of the ionosphere” [upper layer of the atmosphere]:

HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research.

US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP’s main objective is to, “exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes.”

(See Michel Chossudovsky, The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004)

Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of “induced ionospheric modifications” as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar. (Ibid)

HAARP also has the ability of triggering blackouts and disrupting the electricity power system of entire regions:

“Rosalie Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, says HAARP operates as ‘a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet’.

Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the largest ionospheric heater ever built’. HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a research program, but military documents confirm its main objective is to ‘induce ionospheric modifications’ with a view to altering weather patterns and disrupting communications and radar.

According to a report by the Russian State Duma:

‘The US plans to carry out large-scale experiments under the HAARP program [and] create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines, and have a negative impact on the mental health of entire regions.’

Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’ without their knowledge, used to destabilize economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can also trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets.

The disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries.”

(Michel Chossudovsky, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic warfare, The Ecologist, December 2007)

An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications systems and electric power as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions of the World.

According to an official US Air force report:

“Weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary… In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications.

Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.”

 

Copenhagen CO15

The manipulation of climate for military use is potentially a greater threat to humanity than CO2 emissions.

Why has it been excluded from the debate under COP15, when the UN 1977 Convention states quite explicitly that,

“military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare”?

(Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva, 1977)

Why the camouflage?

Why are environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) not being debated by the civil society and environmentalist organizations under the auspices of the Alternative Forum KlimaForum09?

ANNEX

Adopted by Resolution 31/72 of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1976.

The Convention was opened for signature at Geneva on 18 May 1977.

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

The States Parties to this Convention, Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,

Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,

Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,

Recalling the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,

Realizing that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,

Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,

Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,

Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.

Article II

As used in article 1, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Article III

The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.

The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article IV

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to take any measures it considers necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes to prohibit and prevent any activity in violation of the provisions of the Convention anywhere under its jurisdiction or control.

Article V

The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to co-operate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and co-operation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. These international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations, as well as of a Consultative Committee of Experts as provided for in paragraph 2 of this article.

For the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the Depositary shall within one month of the receipt of a request from any State Party to this Convention, convene a Consultative Committee of Experts. Any State Party may appoint an expert to the Committee whose functions and rules of procedure are set out in the annex which constitutes an integral part of this Convention. The Committee shall transmit to the Depositary a summary of its findings of fact, incorporating all views and information presented to the Committee during its proceedings. The Depositary shall distribute the summary to all States Parties.

Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting ItS validity.

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties of the results of the investigation.

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to provide or support assistance, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to any State Party which so requests, if the Security Council decides that such Party has been harmed or is likely to be harmed as a result of violation of the Convention.

Article VI

Any State Party to this Convention may propose amendments to the Convention. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary, who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties.

An amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties to this Convention which have accepted it, upon the deposit with the Depositary of instruments of acceptance by a majority of States Parties. Thereafter it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance.

Article VII

This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.

Article VIII

Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, a conference of the States Parties to the Convention shall be convened by the Depositary at Geneva, Switzerland. The conference shall review the operation of the Convention with a view to ensuring that its purposes and provisions are being realized, and shall in particular examine the effectiveness of the provisions of paragraph 1 of article I in eliminating the dangers of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.

At intervals of not less than five years thereafter, a majority of the States Parties to this Convention may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary, the convening of a conference with the same objectives.

If no conference has been convened pursuant to paragraph 2 of this article within ten years following the conclusion of a previous conference, the Depositary shall solicit the views of all States Parties to this Convention concerning the convening of such a conference. If one third or ten of the States Parties, whichever number is less, respond affirmatively, the Depositary shall take immediate steps to convene the conference.

Article IX

This Convention shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Convention before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time.

This Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification or accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

This Convention shall enter into force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by twenty Governments in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article.

For those States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited after the entry into force of this Convention, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.

The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Convention and of any amendments thereto, as well as of the receipt of other notices.

This Convention shall be registered by the Depositary in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article X

This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send duly certified copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.

In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have signed this Convention

Done at Geneva, on the 18 day of May 1977.

Annex to the Convention

Consultative Committee of Experts

The Consultative Committee of Experts shall undertake to make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised pursuant to paragraph 1 of article V of this Convention by the State Party requesting the convening of the Committee.

The work of the Consultative Committee of Experts shall be organized in such a way as to permit it to perform the functions set forth in paragraph 1 of this annex. The Committee shall decide procedural questions relative to the organization of its work, where possible by consensus, but otherwise by a majority of those present and voting. There shall be no voting on matters of substance.

The Depositary or his representative shall serve as the Chairman of the Committee.

Each expert may be assisted at meetings by one or more advisers.

Each expert shall have the right, through the Chairman, to request from States, and from international organizations, such information and assistance as the expert considers desirable for the accomplishment of the Committee’s work.

Source


Psychotronics and Remote Brain Manipulation

 

Last year, in October, the congressman Denis J. Kucinich introduced in the American Congress a bill, obliging the American president to get engaged in the negotiations aimed at the ban of space based weapons.

In this bill the definition of a weapon system includes: any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations or the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations (12).

As in all legislative acts quoted in this article the bill counts with sound, light or electromagnetic stimulation of human brain.

Psychotronic weapons remain, at least for a layman uninformed of secret military research, in the sphere of science fiction, since so far none of the published scientific experiments was presented in the way which would allow for its replication.

That it is feasible to manipulate human behavior with the use of subliminal, either sound or visual, messages is now generally known. This is why in most of the countries the use of such technologies, without consent of the user, is banned. Devices using light for the stimulation of the brain show another way how the light flashing in certain frequencies could be used for the manipulation of human psychic life. As for the sound, a report on the device transmitting a beam of sound waves, which can hear only persons at whom the beam of sound waves is targeted, appeared last year in the world newspapers.

The beam is formed by a combination of sound and ultrasound waves which causes that a person targeted by this beam hears the sound inside of his head. Such a perception could easily convince the human being that it is mentally ill. The acts presented in this article suggest that with the development of technology and knowledge of the functioning of human brain new ways of manipulation of human mind keep emerging. One of them seems to be the electromagnetic energy.

Though in the open scientific literature only some 30 experiments were published, supporting this assumption (1),(2), already in 1974, in the USSR, after successful testing with military unit in Novosibirsk, the installation Radioson (Radiosleep) was registered with the Government Committee on the Matters of Inventions and Discoveries of the USSR, described as a method of induction of sleep by means of radio waves (3), (4), (5).

In the scientific literature technical feasibility of making a human being asleep by radio waves is confirmed in the book by English scientist carrying out research on the biological effects of electromagnetism (6).

In the report by World Health Association on non-ionizing radiation from 1991 we read,

“Many of biological effects observed in animals exposed to ELF fields appear to be associated, either directly or indirectly, with the nervous system” (2).

Among the published experiments there are experiments where pulsed microwaves caused the synchronization of isolated neurons with the frequency of pulsing of microwaves – for example a neuron firing at a frequency 0.8 Hz was forced in this way to fire the impulses at a frequency of 1 Hz.

As well pulsed microwaves changed the concentration of neurotransmitters in brain (neurotransmitters are a part of the mechanism which causes the firing of neurons in the brain) and reinforced or attenuated the effects of drugs delivered into the brain (1).

The experiment where the main brain frequencies registered by EEG were synchronized with the frequency of microwave pulsing (1,2) might explain the function of the Russian installation Radioson. Microwaves pulsed in the sleep frequency would cause the synchronization of the brain activity with the sleep frequency and in this way produce the sleep. Pulsing of microwaves in frequency predominating in the brain at awaked state could by the same procedure deny the sleep to a human being.

A report derived from the testing program of the Microwave Research Department at the Walter Read Army Institute of research states,

“Microwave pulses appear to couple to the central nervous system and produce stimulation similar to electric stimulation unrelated to heat”.

In a many times replicated experiment microwaves pulsed in an exact frequency caused the efflux of calcium ions from the nerve cells (1,2).

Calcium plays a key role in the firing of neurons and Ross Adey, member of the first scientific team which published this experiment, publicly expressed his conviction that this effect of electromagnetic radiation would interfere with concentration on complex tasks (7).

Robert Becker, who had share in the discovery of the effect of pulse-fields at the healing of broken bones, published the excerpts from the report from Walter Reed Army Institute testing program. In the first part “prompt debilitation effects” should have been tested (8).

Were not those effects based on the experiment by Ross Adey and others with calcium efflux?

British scientist John Evans, working in the same field, wrote that both Ross Adey and Robert Becker lost their positions and research grants and called them “free-thinking exiles” (6). In 1975, in the USA, a military experiment was published where pulsed microwaves produced, in the brain of a human subject, an audio perception of numbers from 1 to 10 (9). Again the possibility to convince human being that it is mentally ill is obvious.

The testing program of American Walter Read Army Institute of Research, where the experiment took place, counts with “prompt auditory stimulation by means of auditory effects” and finally aims at “behavior controlled by stimulation” (8). Let us imagine that the words delivered into the brain were transcribed into ultrasound frequencies. Would not then the subject perceive those words as his own thoughts? And could not then his behavior be controlled in this way?

The American Air Force 1982 “Final Report On Biotechnology Research Requirements For Aeronautical Systems Through the Year 2000” states:

“While initial attention should be toward degradation of human performance through thermal loading and electromagnetic field effects, subsequent work should address the possibilities of directing and interrogating mental functioning, using externally applied fields” (10).

Several scientists warned that latest advances in neurophysiology could be used for the manipulation of human brain.

In June 1995, Michael Persinger, who worked on the American Navy’s project of Non-lethal electromagnetic weapons (11), published, in a scientific magazine, an article where he states: the technical capability to influence directly the major portion of the approximately six billion brains of the human species without mediation through classical sensory modalities by generating neural information within a physical medium within which all members of the species are immersed is now marginally feasible (12).

In 1998, the French National Bioethics Committee warned that neuroscience is being increasingly recognized as posing potential threat to human rights (13).

In May 1999 the neuroscientists conference, sponsored by the UN, took place in Tokyo. In the declaration we read:

“Today we have intellectual, physical and financial resources to master the power of the brain itself, and to develop devices to touch the mind and even control or erase consciousness. We wish to profess our hope that such pursuit of knowledge serves peace and welfare” (14).

The events at the international political scene, in the last few years, confirm that the concept of remote control of human brain is a matter of negotiations. In January 1999 the European Parliament passed a resolution where it calls for an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings. (15)

Already in 1997 nine states of the Union of Independent States addressed OUN, OBSE and the states of the Antiparliamentary Union with the proposal to place at the agenda of the General Assembly of the Organization of United Nations the preparation and conclusion of an international convention On Prevention of Informational Wars and Limitation of Circulation of Informational Weapons (17), (3).

The initiative was originally proposed, in the Russian State Duma, by Vladimir Lopatin (1). V. Lopatin worked, from 1990 to 1995, in sequence, in the Committees on Security of the Russian Federation, Russian State Duma and Antiparliamentary Assembly of the Commonwealth of Independent States, specializing in informational security (3).

The concept of informational weapon or informational war is rather unknown to the world general public. In 1999, V. Lopatin, together with Russian scientist Vladimir Tsygankov, published a book Psychotronic Weapon and the Security of Russia (3).

There we find the explanation of this terminology:

“In the report on the research of the American Physical Society for the year 1993 the conclusion is presented that psychophysical weapon system scan be used for the construction of a strategic arm of a new type (informational weapon in informational war)”

Among many references to this subject we find:

Materials of the Parliament Hearings “Threats and Challenges in the Sphere of Informational Security”, Moscow, July 1996

“Informational Weapon as a Threat to the National Security of the Russian Federation” (analytical report of the Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation), Moscow, 1996

material “To Whom Will Belong the Consciousness Weapon in the 21st century”, Moscow, 1997. (18)

In 2000 V. Lopatin introduced, after two other authors, the third in order bill on the subject of “Informational and Psychological Security of the Russian Federation”.

The Russian newspaper Segodnya wrote about this draft: means of informational-psychological influence are capable not only to harm the health of a person, but, as well, cause and quotation of Lopatin’s draft follows the blocking of freedom of will of human being on subliminal level, the loss of ability of political, cultural and other self-identification of human being, the manipulation of societal consciousness “and even destruction of united informational and spiritual space of Russia” (17).

In the book “Psychotronic Weapon and the Security of Russia” the authors propose among the basic principles of the Russian concept of the defense against the remote control of human psyche the acknowledgement of its factual existence as well as the acknowledgement of realistic feasibility of informational, psychotronic war (which as a matter of fact is actually taking place without declaration of war)” (19).

They quote as well the record from the session of the Russian Federation Federal Council where V. Lopatin stated that psychotronic weapon can,

“cause the blocking of the freedom of will of a human being on a subliminal level” or “instillation into the consciousness or sub-consciousness of a human being of information which will cause faulty perception of the reality” (20).

For that matter they propose the preparation of national legislative as well as the norms of international law “aimed at the defense of human psyche against subliminal, destructive, informational effects” (21).

As well they propose the declassification of all works on this technology and warn that, as a consequence of the classification, the arms race is speeding up making the psychotronic war probable. Among the possible sources of remote influence on human psyche they list the generators of physical fields” of “known as well as unknown nature” (22).

In 1999 the STOA (Scientific and Technological Options Assessment), part of the Directorate General for Research of the European Parliament published the report on Crowd Control Technologies, ordered by them with the OMEGA foundation in British Manchester (23).

One of four major subjects of the study are the 2nd generation” or “non lethal” technologies:

“This report evaluates the second generation of ‘non-lethal’ weapons which are emerging from national military and nuclear weapons laboratories in the United States as part of the Clinton Administration’s ‘non-lethal’ warfare doctrine now adopted in turn by NATO. These devices include weapons using directed energy beam, radiofrequency, laser and acoustic mechanisms to incapacitate human targets” (24)

The report states that the most controversial non-lethal’ crowd control technology proposed by the U.S., are so called Radio Frequency or Directed Energy Weapons that can allegedly manipulate human behavior the greatest concern is with systems which can directly interact with the human nervous system” (25).

The report also states that perhaps the most powerful developments remain shrouded in secrecy” (26).

The unavailability of official documents confirming the existence of this technology may be the reason why the OMEGA report is referencing, with respect to mind control technology, the internet publication of the author of this article (27).

In an identical approach the internet publication of the directrice of the American human rights and anti mind control organization (CAHRA), Cheryl Welsh, is referenced by joint initiative of Quaker United Nations Office, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, and Programme for Strategic and International Security Studies, with respect to non-lethal weapons (28).

On September 25th, 2000 the Committee on Security of the Russian State Duma discussed the addendum to the article 6 of the Federal law On Weapons. In the resolution we read:

The achievements of contemporary science allow for creation of measured methods of secret, remote influencing on the psyches and physiology of a person or a group of people” (29).

The committee recommended that the addendum be approved.

The addendum to the article 6 of the Russian Federation law On Weapons,

“was approved on July 26, 2001. It states: within the territory of the Russian Federation is prohibited the circulation of weapons and other objects the effects of the operation of which are based on the use of electromagnetic, light, thermal, infra-sonic or ultra-sonic radiations” (30).

In this way the Russian government made a first step to stand up to its dedication to the ban of mind control technology.

In the Doctrine of Informational Security of the Russian Federation, signed by president Putin in September 2000, among the dangers threatening the informational security of Russian Federation, is listed the threat to the constitutional rights and freedoms of people and citizens in the sphere of spiritual life individual, group and societal consciousness” and “illegal use of special means affecting individual, group and societal consciousness” (31).

Among the major directions of the international cooperation toward the guaranteeing of the informational security is listed the ban of production, dissemination and use of ‘informational weapon’ ” (32). This should be interpreted as the continuing Russian dedication to the international ban of the means of remote influencing of the activity of human brain.

In the above mentioned report, published by the STOA, the originally proposed version of the resolution of the European Parliament is quoted, calling for an international convention for a global ban on all research and development which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might enable the manipulation of human beings, including a ban of any actual or possible deployment of such systems.”(33) Here the term “actual” might easily mean that such weapons are already deployed.

Among the countries with the most advanced military technologies those are the USA which did not present any international initiative demanding the ban of technologies enabling the remote control of human mind. (The original version of the bill by Denis J. Kucinich was changed.)

All the same, according to the study published by STOA, the USA are the major promoter of the use of those arms.

Non lethal technology was included into NATO military doctrine due to their effort:

“At the initiative of the USA, within the framework of NATO, a special group was formed, for the perspective use of devices of non-lethal effects” states the record from the session of the Committee on Security of the Russian State Duma (29).

The report published by STOA states:

“In October 1999 NATO announced a new policy on non-lethal weapons and their place in allied arsenals” (34). “In 1996 non-lethal tools identified by the U.S. Army included directed energy systems” and “radio frequency weapons” (35) – those weapons, as was suggested in the STOA report as well, are being associated with the effects on human nervous system.

According to the Russian government informational agency FAPSI, in the last 15 years, the U.S. expenses on the development and acquisition of the means of informational war grew four times and at present time they occupy the first place among all military programs (17),(3).

Though there are other concepts of informational war than mind control, the unwillingness of the USA to engage in the negotiations aimed at the ban of the manipulation of human brains might indicate their intent to use those means in internal as well as international affairs.

One clear consequence of the continuation of the apparent politics of secrecy surrounding technologies enabling remote control of human brains might be that the governments, who would own such technologies, could use them without having to take into consideration the opinion of the general public.

The concept of the democratic world would be, though secretly, disrupted in this way, and in the future the world populations could live in only fake democracy where their own or foreign governments might, by means of secret technologies, shape their opinions. Source

 


Russian appeal of 'weather control'

 

Standing by an open hatch on a Russian military plane high up in the sky is tricky.

All the more so when your job is to “seed” clouds, shovelling chemicals outside to cause rain.

These seeded clouds never make it to Moscow, where millions are enjoying a nice sunny holiday. Or where guests might be dancing at a wedding under the clear blue sky.

Some might think that controlling the weather sounds a bit like science fiction.

But military pilot Alexander Akimenkov doesn’t think so.

I don’t think there will be good results – dry substances are not able to have any noticeable reaction with ice particles
Dr Nina Zaitseva
Russian Academy of Science

He has seeded clouds over Moscow on important state holidays for many years. He says the Russians use two different methods to try to drive the rain away.

 

“Either there’s a special machine that spits out silver iodide, dry ice or cement into the clouds, or a hatch opens and a guy with a shovel seeds the clouds manually,” he explains.

“As soon as the chemicals touch the cloud, a hole appears. It becomes bigger and bigger, and it either rains right there and then or, if the clouds aren’t very dense, they disperse without any precipitation.”

The Russian government has used rain prevention methods since Soviet times, seeding clouds for major celebrations three times a year – Victory Day, City Day and, more recently, Russia Day.

There are also private companies that for some $6,000 per hour say they can guarantee sunshine on your wedding day – or for any other private party.

HOW CLOUD SEEDING WORKS
Cloud seeding graphic
1. Silver iodide is fired into cloud using flares on planes or from the ground
2. Water droplets then attach to these particles
3. They fall as snow if surface temperatures are below or near freezing, or as raindrops at warmer temperatures
4. Heat released as the droplets freeze boosts updrafts, which pull more moist air into the cloud
Despite the use of the cloud-seeding technique, many scientists remain sceptical of its effectiveness

Many ecologists agree that these techniques, also used in many other countries for irrigation purposes, do not pose much of a threat to the environment or people’s health, as the period of active influence on the clouds is very short.

But when Moscow’s mayor Yuri Luzhkov suggested the technique could shift the winter snow outside the capital – and therefore save more than $10m in snow-clearing costs – many felt the city authorities were going a bit too far.
Alexey Yablokov (photo Y. Kotlyarenko-Shukhman)
Alexey Yablokov says winter snow is vital in Moscow (Photo: Y. Kotlyarenko-Shukhman)

Even if the idea might appeal to Moscow drivers, tired of constant traffic jams – especially bad in snowy conditions – it has stirred concerns among local ecologists.

“Millions of tonnes of snow diverted from Moscow will create chaos in the areas where it is forced to fall and might even lead to the collapse of bridges and roofs,” said Alexei Yablokov, one of Russia’s leading environmentalists, who was ecological adviser to former President Boris Yeltsin.

Besides, a lack of snow in Moscow would cause many problems in the capital itself, he said.

“Why do we need snow in Moscow? Snow on the ground helps the roots of trees to survive during severe frosts. If there’s no snow, lots of vegetation – trees, bushes – will die.

“Snow also cleans the atmosphere very effectively. If there’s nothing to clean the Moscow atmosphere, many people will die – there will be tens or even hundreds of additional deaths,” explains Mr Yablokov.

‘Groundless’ concerns

But Valery Stasenko from Roshydromet – the Federal Service of Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring – calls these concerns groundless.

“It is stupid to say that there won’t be any snow in Moscow. If there is some five centimetres of it, it’s absolutely fine, but there is a limit when all the transport just stops,” he said, adding that the aim of winter cloud-seeding would not be to get rid of snow, but to control its level, not letting it go over this maximum limit.

The planes will be out only occasionally, said Mr Stasenko, to prevent major snowfall that happens on average three or four times a month. Thus it will cost a lot less than using snowploughs that are out most days of the winter.
Moscow in winter (AFP)
Moscow’s mayor raised the possibility of seeding in the winter

“Besides, the idea didn’t come to the Moscow mayor from nowhere, it is based on facts. In the early 1980s, back in the Soviet period, there was a special service to limit snowfall over Moscow. It stopped working during perestroika [Gorbachev’s reforms], when money became scarce,” Mr Stasenko said.

“Some eight to 10 planes had to find clouds with the most precipitation and spray them with crystallising chemicals.

“Not all water vapour in the atmosphere turns to precipitation, and for the snow to fall, water vapour should concentrate on ice crystals first. So we were making snow fall before it reached Moscow and this work reduced the amount of snow in the capital by 20, 30 and sometimes 40%.”

Ecology threat

And even though this winter is over and the snow in Moscow will soon disappear naturally, scientists at the Central Aerological Observatory of Roshydromet have been working for months trying to come up with new, improved techniques of winter cloud-seeding.

They refused to explain the essence of their work. And this secrecy raises important environmental concerns, says a climate specialist from the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Department of Earth Sciences, Nina Zaitseva. She believes that even with raincloud seeding, much depends on luck and coincidence.

She is sceptical about the current research and the state’s past or present ability to effectively seed winter clouds.

“I don’t think there will be good results – dry substances are not able to have any noticeable reaction with ice particles. But if they decide to seed winter clouds with a liquid, they should first and foremost think about the ecological consequences,” said Dr Zaitseva.

Regardless of the Moscow authorities’ final decision on snow cloud seeding, Russia remains one of the few nations where weather control is more than using anti-hail cannons and battling droughts.

So if you want to visit Moscow and don’t fancy rain, go there on one of the three precipitation-free holidays.

And if you want to ensure your wedding day is dry – it might just be possible to make it happen. BBC

 


Evergreen Aviation Admits to Chemtrail Contracts with USAF

The video clip I previously had linked to this page was a promotional film released by Evergreen Aviation, displaying its Supertanker spraying all manner of substances from its massive hold. The narrator bragged about the craft’s capabilities, including restoration of plankton in oil-ravaged waters, besides oil spill containment, firefighting and a host of other applications.

Recently, that clip was taken down and all videos uploaded to YouTube referencing Evergreen now only cite the craft’s firefighting capabilities by spraying either water or fire retardant.

However, the supertanker’s other applications remain posted in the “Markets” page on Evergreen’s website, as reported below.

=====

Evergreen Aviation Admits to Chemtrail Contracts with USAF
Written by Joan Biakov

Evergreen Aviation, one of the worlds largest private aviation companies admits to weather modification service.

On their own website in the Markets section for their New Super Tanker they state Weather modification among other interesting service markets.

Content copied directly from Evergreen Aviation website:

The Evergreen Supertanker is not just limited to fighting fire. It will be a true utilitarian aircraft with the capability to configure to different applications on short notice. This multimission aircraft can support sensitive security and environmental missions. The aircraft’s exceptional drop capabilities, loiter time and size make it an ideal tool to perform challenging homeland security missions, able to neutralize chemical attacks on military installments or major population centers, and help control large, environmentally disastrous oil spills.

In addition, the upper deck of the Boeing 747 provides over 200 square feet of space that could be assigned as a command and control center. EIA possesses an FAA exemption number 1870C that permits the carriage of up to five individuals that are not crewmembers in the upper deck. This area is capable of providing space for command and control components that would assist in sophisticated mapping, incident monitoring and video/communications downlink relay that might require additional personnel over and above the required crew.

MARKETS:

• Firefighting
• Oil Spill Containment
• Weather Modification
• Biochemical Decontamination

What airports will Evergreen operate the Supertanker out of?

Evergreen will operate the aircraft from any major airport with sufficient ramp space to load the aircraft. These include civilian bases, joint use civilian/military bases and accessible military bases. Generally, the runway requirements for the Evergreen Supertanker are 8000 feet.

Can the Supertanker fight fires at night, while they are most vulnerable?

The Supertanker utilizes advanced avionics and flies at higher, safer altitudes, which will enable fire agencies the option of fighting fires at night, while they are dormant.

Are there any other markets for the Evergreen Supertanker? Can it operate globally?

Evergreen is studying other applications for the Supertanker. Oil spill containment, chemical decontamination and weather modification are all potential markets for this aircraft. Because the aircraft is pressurized, the Evergreen Supertanker has the capability of any long-range Boeing 747 passenger aircraft. This allows the aircraft to deploy to any international location.
If you want to read up for yourself on this, just go to gibiru.com, do a search on “Weather Control”, and then start clicking through the links that come up. You might find it as surprising as I did. Here is the bottom line:

Is weather control real?

Yes.

Do we have the technology to create a hurricane, or tornado, or earthquakes?

Yes.

Who has this technology?

The US and Russia. But Russia has been offering the technology for sale.

What specific technologies/techniques can be used to alter the weather and create storms?

Several.

High-energy lasers can be directed into the atmosphere which creates free oxygen (O2), this combined with hydrogen to create H2O – water. Space based lasers are even more effective, and can also create O3 (Ozone) in the process of creating water in the atmosphere. Water is the most essential element in weather. The amount of it at a given point in time at a given location can create wind shifts, rain, (obviously), snow, but a clever use of it can create a tornado, or, over water, a hurricane. Over warm ocean water, it creates a very powerful hurricane, and if created in the right position at the right time, prevailing winds will carry it where you want it to go.

But far more effective than that technology is the HAARP project in Alaska. This uses VLF (Very low frequency) energy pulses bounced off the ionosphere to create extreme weather conditions anywhere in the world they wish to direct it. The Earth has a fundamental resonant frequency of 7.83 hz. Anything that operates at that frequency risks disturbing all aspects of the earth. Weather, earthquakes, etc. It depends upon the amount of power produced. HAARP produces 1.7 gigawatts.
Here are a couple of interesting quotes about it I found on one of the websites I visited:

~~~

“The $30 million [Pentagon] project, euphemistically named HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), is made to beam more than 1.7 gigawatts (billion watts) of radiated power into the ionosphere — the electrically charged layer above Earth’s atmosphere. Put simply, the apparatus is a reversal of a radio telescope — just transmitting instead of receiving. It will ‘boil the upper atmosphere’. After [heating] and disturbing the ionosphere, the radiations will bounce back onto the earth in for form of long waves which penetrate our bodies, the ground and the oceans.” [“Angels Don’t Play This HAARP”, page 8]

Let us allow Dr. Begich explain this concept. “… this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth’s atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level, particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art ….” [Page 28]
“… the goal is to learn how to manipulate the ionosphere on a more grand scale than the the Soviet Union could do with its similar facilities. HAARP would be the largest ionospheric heater in the world, located in a latitude most conducive to putting Eastlund’s invention into practice.” [Page 29] Furthermore, from this northern latitude, the energy could be aimed into the ionosphere so that it would bounce back down to the earth so it would come down wherever the scientists wanted it to come down. The secret was to learn how and where to aim it to hit the earth where they wanted it to hit, creating the type of disaster or weather they desired.

In NEWS1198, “U.N. Treaty Proves Weather Control Is Real”, we report news articles that Malaysia actually contracted with a Russian Weather Modification company to create a hurricane that would be directed close enough to clear the smoke and smog from Malaysia’s cities without actually coming on to land to create devastation. This Russian company delivered, and Malaysia had clear skies.

Our information also tells us that, not only can hurricanes be created, they can be dismantled should scientists so desire. And, they certainly can be driven on the ocean much like we drive our cars on roadways. Therefore, one has to ask why American scientists have allowed unprecedented hurricanes, like Andrew, to ever come on shore. Why are American scientists allowing extensive damage and lives lost to recent unprecedented storms, since they have the capability to keep these storms away from us?

HAARP can create nuclear-sized explosions without radiation! [Page 38, 62]. This process is protected by patent 4,873,928.
The greatest concern of New Age scientist Nick Begich, in his book, “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP”, is that scientists and the military are so very arrogant in their ignorant, reckless use of focused energy into the ionosphere. Military scientists talk about “kicking this thing in high gear to see what would happen”! This attitude is complete arrogance. What if they set off an unintended reaction in the atmosphere that cannot be controlled or stopped?”

~~~

Well, if a country can deliver nuclear-like explosions anywhere in the world they wish, without using ICBM missiles and other nuclear delivery systems, then I suppose that makes traditional nuclear weapons arsenals obsolete for warfare purposes, and mostly only good for political posturing and negotiations. That would explain why both Russia and the US were willing to agree to disarmaments, and reductions in their nuclear proliferation. I think maybe that was the first time in human history that countries voluntarily chose to disarm themselves and reduce their ability to conduct war. Given the nature of mankind and his history, it would make much more sense if they had a better card up their sleeves.

Judging by the apparent irresponsible arrogance of the people in charge of it as suggested by Begich, I wonder who should be in charge of decision-making for this technology. Once a technology is invented, it cannot be ‘un-invented’. It is now there, and some people will try to use it. Most will try to use it to their personal advantage and to support their agendas. Always, it seems that those that want to act in the interest of all mankind lack the same level of energy and determination of those acting in self interest, and so the people that push their way to the top into positions of power and authority rarely act responsibly or altruistically, but rather they act to gain power and wealth to themselves.

Having said that, if we follow the line of reasoning logically, if we accept that current technology allows us to create a hurricane, then we have to ask ourselves who might have started a hurricane like Katrina that specifically destroyed the area where most of our oil refineries are? In whose interest does this serve? Who benefits from this?

Another interesting question: Since we apparently not only have the ability to create a hurricane, and steer it, and even stop it – why did we choose not to stop Katrina from doing the damage it did? Is the information incorrect? Can we start them, but not stop them? Or is there some other reason that Katrina served the purposes of some people? I honestly don’t know. I’m wondering myself.

Here is a chronology of the technological advances that contributed to weather control. The comments are not mine but come from that website that I found. I have to admit – as much as I would like to go back to thinking that the weather is not controllable, It’s hard to ignore this much information on the subject.

TIMELINE

1900: “Tesla applies for patent on a device to ‘Transmit Electrical Energy Through the Natural Mediums.” In 1905, the U.S. Patent Office issue Patent #787,412 for this purpose. I bet it is news to everyone that the technology to transmit electrical power without wires exists, and exists so that the generation and transmission of electricity can be both bountiful and FREE! Of course, a lot of dollars of sales and profit would immediately vanish, so Tesla’s discovery was never made public.
1924: “Confirmation that radio waves bounce off ‘ionosphere 1’ (an electrically charged layer starting at an altitude of 50 kilometers).”
1938: “Scientist proposes to light up night sky by electron gyrotron heating from a powerful transmitter.” The fact that untold numbers of powerful electron heaters are pouring tens of millions of watts of electricity at Extremely Low Frequencies to effect this Weather Warfare is the major reason we are experiencing Global Warming! This warming has nothing to do with any Industrial pollutants or emssions, and certainly not from cow flatulance, as New Age extremists have claimed. New World Order planners are able to make dire predictions and then technologically deliver them!
1940: “Tesla announces ‘death ray’ invention.” Our military evidently has the capability to create a defense shield over our continent by aiming these electron heaters correctly.
1945: “Atomic bomb tests begin — 40,000 electromagnetic pulses to follow.”
1952: “W.O. Schumman identifies 7.83 Hertz the resonant frequency of the Earth”.
1958: “Van Allen radiation belts discovered (zones of charged particles trapped in earth’s magnetic field) 2,000+ miles up. Violently disrupted in the same year.”
1958: “Project Argus, U.S. Navy explodes three nuclear bombs inside Van Allen belt.”
1958: “White House advisor on weather modification says Defense Department studying ways to manipulate charges of ‘earth and sky, and so affect the weather’.” Wow! Did you know that such a department as “Weather Modification” existed in the White House way back in 1952? The mere existence of such an office strongly implies the technology to modify and control the weather existed.
1960: “Series of weather disasters begin.”
1961: “Scientists propose artificial ion cloud experiments. In 1960’s the dumping of chemicals (barium powder, etc.) from satellites and rockets began.”
1961-62: “U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. create many electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) in the atmosphere. 300 megatons of nuclear devices deplete ozone layer by about 4%.” Hmm, ozone layer depletion was intentionally created by both Russian and American governments by nuclear detonations? They not only knew about it, they measured the extent of the depletion and the time it lasted. Therefore, do you think it just might be possible that, once again, we have the situation where a dire prediction is made, with the knowledge that their scientists can actually make it happen?!
1962: “Launch of Canadian satellites and start of stimulating plasma resonances by antennas within the space plasma.”
1966: “Gordon J.F. MacDonald publishes military ideas on environmental engineering.”
1960’s: In Wisconsin, U.S. Navy Project Sanguine lays extremely low frequency (ELF) antennae.” We are told that the Navy needed this ELF capability to communicate with their submarines in a way that would be secure from enemy attack, a claim with which we do not argue. However, is it also possible that this ELF antennae may serve a dual purpose, of also helping to control the weather?
1968: “Moscow scientists tell the West that they have pinpointed which pulsed magnetic field frequencies help mental and physiological functions and which frequencies do harm.” The very idea that a wicked totalitarian government serving Antichrist could know how to manipulate thought processes by the use of electromagmetic pusles is one of the most frightening thoughts imaginable! This little incident also shows the unusual cooperation between Russia and America at the height of the Cold War! Such cooperation constitutes proof of our claim that Russia has cooperated with the Western Powers since the beginning, in 1917, to stage the mock battle of Thesis battling Antithesis to produce the Synthesis system of Antichrist called the New World Order.
1972: “First reports on ‘ionospheric heater’ experiments with high frequency radio waves at Arecibo [Alaska]. A 100 megawatt heater in Norway built later in the decade can change the conductivity of the auroral ionosphere.” Now, you are getting close to being able to control the weather. When you can manipulate the conductivity of the auroal ionosphere, where weather systems operate and originate, you are close to controlling the weather. Note the date here, at which time this technology was realized: 1972.
1973: “Documentation that the launch of Skylab ‘halved the total electron content of the ionosphere for three hours’ (by rocket exhaust gases).”
1974: “United Nations General Assembly bans environmental warfare.” We reported on this terrible treaty in NEWS1196, “U.N. Treaty Proves Weather Control Is Real”. You do not need a treaty banning Weather Warfare unless such technology already exists and has been proven effective. This means that this Weather Warfare technology has been fine tuned for 24 years.
1974: “High frequency experiments at Plattsville, Colorado Arecibo, Puerto Rico, and in Armidale, New South Wales. These experiments heated the ‘bottom side of the ionosphere.”
1974: “Experiments — airglow brightened by hitting oxygen atoms in ionosphere with accelerated electrons.”
1975: “Stanford professor Robert Helliwell reports that very low frequency (VLF) from power lines is altering the ionosphere.” I remember this report well, as I scoffed at the idea that power lines could have that kind of effect on this huge earth. I never thought of the fact that the reason they could have this kind of effect is that they are just the right kind of frequency to affect the earth.
1975: “U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson forces the Navy to release research showing that extremely low frequency (ELF) transmissions can altar human blood chemistry.” Once again, this technology begins to hit very close to home, does it not? When an enemy can altar my blood chemistry by aiming ELF transmissions at me, I can be destroyed with no knowledge of what is happening to me, or who is doing such lethal damage. Can you also sense the possibilty of control of an entire population, without the people ever being aware they are being manipulated?!
1975: “U.S. Senator Pell, Senate Subcommitted, urges that weather and climate modification work should be overseen by a civilian agency answerable to the U.S. Congress. Didn’t happen.” In NEWS1196, we report that Senator Pell urged the United States to sign this United Nations treaty banning Weather Warfare. It sounds like Pell was very concerned about the use and misuse of this technology, even though he is fully aware of the New World Order Plan and has acted to support it for many years.
1975: “Soviets begin pulsing ‘Woodpecker’ extremely low frequency (ELF) waves at key brainwave rhythms. Eugene, Oregon, was one of the locations where Woodpecker was aimed, and where people were particularly affected.” Once, again, I am extremely agitated to discover that an enemy can destroy me either biologically or mentally from a distance, without me being aware of it.
1976: “Drs. Susan Bawin and W. Ross Adey show that nerve cells are affected by ELF fields.”
1979: “Launch of NASA’s third High-Energy Astrophysical Observatory causes large scale, artificially induced depletion in the ionosphere. The plasma hole was caused by ‘rapid chemical processes’ between rocket exhaust and the ozone layer. The ionosphere was significantly depleted over a horizontal distance of 300 km for some hours.”
1985: “Bernard J. Eastlund applies for patent ‘Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere and/or Magnetosphere’. (First of three Eastlund patents assigned to ARCO Power Technologies, Inc.)”
1986: “U.S. Navy Project Henhouse duplicates the Delgado (Madrid) experiment — very low level, very low frequency pulsed magnetic fields harm chick embryos.”
1980’s: “In the latter part of the decade, the U.S. begins the network of Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) towers, each to generate Very Low Frequency (VLF) waves …” IN NEWS1196, we reported that the GWEN towers created a high level electromagnetic dam in the atmosphere in the American Midwest that created the rain for 40 days and nights in 1993. GWEN towers were located right where the rain came down in such a Biblical type deluge. Furthermore, we showed a map of the United States where you could see the GWEN towers and where they were located. We found it extremely interesting that these towers were also located along the San Andreas fault in Califormai and Nevada, where all these earthquakes of the past decade have been occurring!
1987-1992: “Other ARCO Power Technologies Incorporated (APTI) scientists build on Eastlund patents for development of new weapon capabilities.”
1994: “Military contractor E-systems buys APTI, holder of Eastlund patents and contract to build the biggest ionospheric heater in the world, the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP). Even though construction of HAARP towers in Alaska began before this date, this was the time the decision was made to make it as large as it is now today, over 40 acres of ELF towers.
1994: “Congress freezes the funding on HAARP until planners increase the emphasis on earth penetrating tomography uses, for nuclear counterproliferation efforts.” Once again, we have to wonder if this technology might be used to create earthquakes, as well as monitor compliance with nuclear test ban treaties.
1995: “Congress budgets $10 million for 1996, under “nuclear counterproliferation’ efforts for HAARP project.” At least now we know that the U.S. Government is in firm control of HAARP, the same government driving us full speed into the global government of Antichrist, known as the New World Order.
1994-6: “Testing of first stage of HAARP equipment continues …”
1996: HAARP planners to test the earth penetrating tomography applications by modulating the electroject at ELF frequencies.” Let’s see, were there any severe or unusual earthquakes, or series of earthquakes, in 1996? We shall study this and get back to you.
1998: “Projected date for fully operating HAARP system.” We have had the most unusual severe weather in 1997 and 1998. It is no coincidence that the onset of this unprecedented weather coincided with the completion of the HAARP system. Now, scientists can create and control all types of weather, especially disasters.

Evergreen Aviation has a long history of government contracts, ranging from the USPS to unmanned flight operations for the USAF. Source


A girl’s best friend: De Beers Diamonds & Scandals

For decades, De Beers has been the preeminent name in diamonds.

Thanks to a stockpile of the world’s rough diamond supply, indelible marketing schemes and even negotiations with foreign governments for their diamonds, De Beers — owned by the Oppenheimer family since the 1920s — has been the most important name in one of the world’s most lucrative businesses for almost a century.

But with recent news of the Oppenheimers selling out to fellow mining company Anglo American, it’s time to look back at the billion dollar rise and fall of a monopoly that has crushed competitors and cash-strapped governments since the 1800s.

Diamonds became a symbol of love thanks to De Beers, which is fitting, since De Beers became what it is today because of a love story: the love of money.

In the beginning, the diamond trade took place mostly in India and Brazil. With the discovery of diamonds in South Africa, the trade simultaneously took off and become much less profitable
In the beginning, the diamond trade took place mostly in India and Brazil. With the discovery of diamonds in South Africa, the trade simultaneously took off and become much less profitable

Up until the mid-1800s, diamonds were a rarity and could be seen only on the hand of a monarch. But the diamond rush that began in South Africa in the second half of the 19th century flooded the market with diamonds, which, as any good businessman knows, kills demand.

It would take some ingenious plotting and advertising to keep the diamond’s reputation as intrinsically valuable and desirable, which is where De Beers comes in.
The story of De Beers starts with English-born businessman Cecil Rhodes, who broke into the diamond business in South Africa by renting water pumps to miners before buying diamond fields of his own
The story of De Beers starts with English-born businessman Cecil Rhodes, who broke into the diamond business in South Africa by renting water pumps to miners before buying diamond fields of his own

Rhodes, sensing he had ventured into an untapped market, bought up diamond fields, including one owned by two brothers named “de Beer.” In 1880, he bought the claims of fellow entrepreneur and rival Barney Barnato to create the De Beers Mining Company.

The tendency in diamond mining is to combine with smaller groups to form larger ones. Individuals needing common infrastructure form diggers committees, and small claim holders wanting more land merge into large claimholders. Thus, it only took a few years for De Beers to become the owner of virtually all South African diamond mines.
In 1888, De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd. was formed, creating a monopoly on all production and distribution of diamonds coming out of South Africa

De Beers took on many forms around the world as its influence in the diamond trade grew. To control supply and demand—and thus, prices—Rhodes created distribution arms through “The Diamond Syndicate,” including “The Diamond Trading Company” in London and “The Syndicate” in Israel.

Diamond claim holders and distributors joined up with De Beers because their interests were the same: create a scarcity of diamonds and high prices will follow. And while other commodities have seen price fluctuations over the years, diamonds prices have climbed since the Great Depression.
By the time Rhodes died in 1902, De Beers controlled 90% of the world’s rough-diamond production and distribution, but it was Ernest Oppenheimer who made the company an empire

Oppenheimer, a rival diamond producer with his own production company (Anglo American Corporation, which will reappear later in the story) essentially bought his way onto the board of directors over the years. By 1927, he was chairman of the board.

Under Oppenheimer, De Beers and its Central Selling Organization established exclusive contracts with suppliers and buyers, making it impossible to deal with diamonds outside of De Beers.

The structure of the business remained the same for much of the 20th century: A De Beers subsidiary would buy the diamonds. De Beers would determine the amount of diamonds they wanted to sell, and at what price, for the whole year. Each producer would then get a cut of the total output, and buyers would take their diamonds to be resold in places like Antwerp and New York.
A worldwide decline of diamond prices in the 1930s led the Oppenheimer family to begin their world famous marketing campaign, “A diamond is forever.”
A worldwide decline of diamond prices in the 1930s led the Oppenheimer family to begin their world famous marketing campaign, “A diamond is forever.”

Henry, son of Ernest, traveled to New York in 1938 to meet with advertising agency N. W. Ayer. The United States was seen as the next big market for diamonds, and a very effective game plan was formed to sell diamonds to Americans: convince them that diamonds equated love.

Through advertising, men were convinced that the size of the diamond in an engagement ring showed how much they loved their fiancée. Movie stars were shown wearing diamonds in the relatively new motion pictures. And the most effective piece of advertising came in 1947, with the creation of the tag line “A diamond is forever.” This later become the company’s official motto.

As a result of these campaigns, the number of brides receiving engagement rings, and diamond prices in the U.S., increased dramatically.
De Beers forged new international markets using similar advertising campaigns in places like Japan, Germany and Brazil

Having conquered the United States by the 1960s, De Beers set its sights on new territories.

Japan never had a tradition of romantic marriage, making diamonds a tough sell for brides. And even by 1959, no imported diamonds were allowed into the country by the postwar government. But by using slick advertising, playing up diamonds as a symbol of the modern West, or a way to break from traditional Japanese norm, De Beers was able to build a billion-dollar-a-year industry.

By 1981, almost 60 percent of Japanese brides wore diamonds, up from 5 percent in 1967.
When faced with a threat to their diamond monopoly, like one from the Soviet Union, De Beers simply bought up their inventory to maintain complete control

The discovery of diamonds in Siberia in the 1950s was a threat to the control De Beers kept over the diamond supply. Rather than compete with Russian diamonds, De Beers offered to buy almost everything that came out of Siberia — funneling all the world’s diamonds through a “single channel.”

Even though Russian diamonds were smaller, their use in “eternity rings” and other miniature jewelry proved very successful, and allowed for a lucrative partnership between De Beers and the USSR.
The creation of “Debswana,” a joint venture between the company and the nation of Botswana, meant a significant shareholding claim in De Beers by the African country

De Beers in Botswana

Diamonds from Botswana were considered valuable enough to give the government of the country a 15 percent share in De Beers in 1969. All rough-diamond mining and distributing is done by Debswana, making it the biggest non-government employer in the country. The deal is still in place today, and there’s even talk of increasing Botswana’s share to 25 percent.

But by the beginning of the 21st century, diamond-producing companies had enough of De Beers’ monopoly, forcing a change in structure for the company

Numerous “revolts” against the De Beers cartel had occurred in places like Zaire and Israel over the years, which were mostly quashed by De Beers releasing stockpiles of diamonds similar to that county’s product, driving down demand.

But more recently, countries with enormous stockpiles of their own, like Russia, Canada and Australia, have refused to cooperate with the single channel system.

These problems, along with issues of flat prices, forced De Beers to switch up the company’s strategy. In the last decade De Beers has moved away from rough-diamond supplying and controlling the entire industry, instead focusing on promoting its own brand of diamonds and retail stores.

De Beers reported a 74 percent increase in profits in the first half of this year alone. And the number of De Beers stores worldwide has risen from just one in 2001 to 39 in 2008, with 17 in Asia alone.

Despite its high earnings and a lucrative transformation, in November De Beers ended its 80 year stranglehold on diamonds by selling a majority ownership to Anglo American plc

Anglo American, which previously had a 45 percent stake in the company, bought the De Beers Groups’ 40 percent share for $5.1 billion in cash. Anglo American, previously started by Oppenheimer, will take over De Beers from that very same family.

As for the reason of the sale: apparently, there is no one in the Oppenheimer family that wants to continue in the diamond business.
And yet, the De Beers empire marches on, opening their third store in mainland China on December 14th

A 55-square meter De Beers Diamond Jewellers store opened at the Times Square Mall in Dalian, China just days ago. According to the company, this opening follows the success of the two other De Beers stores in the country.

Although the people who made De Beers the world’s most powerful monopoly are no longer involved, the company itself will continue to be a billion-dollar business.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-de-beers-2011-12?op=1#ixzz20Jj5vREg


The lost journals of Nikola Tesla (pdf)

The Lost Journals of Nikola Tesla Chapter Nine

HAARP – Chemtrails – Alternative 4

With the failure of Alternative 3, it became necessary to implement a newsystem to protect mankind from the upcoming disaster from global warming. TheMars Projects had eaten away at the combined American and Soviet budgets forAlternative 3, and now world politics would interfere at the expense of its citizens.

President Ronald Reagan who felt that destroying the “Evil Empire” was moreimportant than fighting global warming, earmarked the remaining money fromthe Mars Projects for building new weapons to destroy the Soviet Union. TheSoviets protested by withdrawing their cooperation for Alternative 3 and shortlythereafter collapsed as a world power. This marked the official demise of Alternative 3.


Well Balanced Blog

Take Control of Your Own Health!

Έγκλημα και Τιμωρία/Crime and Punishment/Crime et Châtiment/Delitto e castigo/Преступление и наказание

CRIME DOES NOT PAY... PLUS, THE BUTLER DID IT! AND REMEMBER: WHAT DOESN'T KILL YOU, WILL -MOST LIKELY- TRY AGAIN... AND DON'T FORGET: TODAY IS A GOOD DAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DIE.

BanTheBBC Blog

A constant reminder that life would be so much better without the BBC's TV Licence Gestapo

Healthy At Any Age

Welcome to June Rousso's Blog !

iGlinavos

Thoughts of a recovering leftist

Scottish Gaelic

Word a Day

NEO INKA - ΣΕ ΠΡΟΣΤΑΤΕΥΕΙ, ΔΥΝΑΜΩΣΕ ΤΟ!!!

ΓΙΝΕ Ο ΕΠΟΜΕΝΟΣ ΚΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΤΟ ΔΙΚΤΥΟ.

Talk of the Tail

"Tails" from pets searching for their forever home.

ultimatemindsettoday

A great WordPress.com site

Are You Finished Yet?

Alea Jacta Est

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Levi Quackenboss

Putting the boss in quack.

KXAN.com

Austin News & Weather - Austin Texas, Round Rock, TX

Unstrange Mind

Remapping My World

psychinfo.gr

ΛΙΝΑ ΨΟΥΝΗ • psouni@gmail.com • www.psychinfo.gr

Wee Ginger Dug

Biting the hand of Project Fear

QuitTrain®

Quit Smoking & Take Your Freedom Back!

%d bloggers like this: