Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports
From: kymhorsell@gmail.com
Subject: owning the weather

[uploaded 53 times; last 31/10/2024]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- We look at the effect of the HAARP project on clouds and the weather.
- It's suspected the US military has conducted experiments on
  controlling aspects of the weather in N Alaska. And we find there
  are some footprints that match the operation dates of HAARP and
  a deduced "performance profile" as the project proceeded from
  start-up to "full effectiveness" during the experiment.
- We note a similar project is believed to be in operation in
  Antarctica.  It is at least possible that such an operation might
  effect clouds seen over SE Aus given weather at certain times of
  year blows in from the Southern Ocean around W Antarctica.
- Pentagon documents indicate the USAF has a specific intention to
  control aspects of the weather to "dis-incline" competitor pilots to fly.
- HAARP seems to have had a slight but stat sig dampening effect on UFO
  sightings over Alaska in the course of its operation.


Things rattle around in my head. Sometimes for quite a while.  But
eventually it seems everything rattling around in there comes in
useful for something.

A few years back someone sent me a PDF entitled "Owning the Weather
in 2025". It was something written by an USAF group looking at the
advantages of having a handle on certain types of weather. The
preamble of the paper highlighted being able to "dis-incline"
pilots from some opposing AF from taking to the sky at critical
times. The paper was presented to the Pentagon in 1996.

Flash forward to 2023. Over the past couple years I've become used to
sitting out at night at least for an hour and watching various unusual
things going on in my part of the world.  I don't know what it is, but
maybe living on a major airline route into an international airport
has some advantages for entertainment purposes.

Oftentimes a few lights will go over early in the evening. Some of
them are probably satellites. But some definitely can not be
satellites unless you suspend basic orbital mechanics. I've also
become used to certain events being validated by local -- what I
assume are -- low-key light aircraft that trail and sometimes harass
said lights.  One sequence of events I managed to capture on my
primitive passive radar suggested some lights -- whatever the ones
that don't seem to be sats and seem to move in ways drones and balloons
should not be able to match -- see the approach of some of these small
aircraft as something to be avoided. Amusingly, some larger lights
just keep right on coming and don't seem to worry about the odd
super-close encounter.  I recall one interaction occurred maybe 500m
overhead with a big fuzzy bright yellow orb coming in from the N and a
twin-engine plane coming in from the S.  Flipping my view back and
forth as the 2 approached missed the probably amusing but no doubt
very expert 180 degree turn the plane apparently did when the 2 were
maybe 200m apart and seemingly headed for a hard landing.

But things have not so subtly changed in the past couple months.  The
peak "viewing times" I'm used to are now usually 100% overcast.  The
day can be sunny sunny sunny, but as the interesting time of day
approaches clouds seem to roll in at high speed from usually multiple
directions and the whole sky is uniform gray. The times where this has
NOT happened probably numbers less than a dozen.

The reason this has me wondering is -- not just the time of day but
the days of week seem to predict clouds rolling in. E.g. they seem to
have a familiar weekly timetable.

A nice Japanese sat monitors clouds over this part of the Pacific and
Southern Ocean. Running those images through some of the learning
programs finds the day of week seems to predict a good deal about how
thick the clouds will be at "peak viewing times" each day.  It's --
stop me if this sounds too crazy :) -- as if someone or something is
trying to interfere with someone watching the ground from the sky or
maybe someone on the ground from watching something in the sky.

So you see where that rattling reference to controlling the weather
might come in.

Roughly I'm thinking -- it could be "them" or is could be "us".  But
could it *be* us? We have that USAF paper. But is there any evidence
that "us" can modify the weather at all?

So I asked a little program to go off and see if there was any such
evidence. It spent a happy day downloading stuff from various places,
running huge sifting jobs on several cpus in the serious corner of the
lounge, and finally a couple hrs back pushed some evidence in my face
that I ran some checks on.

And, yes, there seems to be *some* evidence "us" can modify the
weather.  And quite a bit more.

The s/w came up with the infamous HAARP project. Supposedly this was
a simple project run in the 90s and early 00s to measure things going
on in the ionosphere. All very interesting science, I'm sure.  But
from photos of the equipment it seems along with a big array of
largish antennas there are some shipping containers that likely
contained some big generators and/or transmitters. Various things on the
net suggest they were involved in bouncing high power radio signals
off the ionosphere. And, of course, there are the web sites saying it
was a weather control experiment of some kind.

Most interesting for me, it also turns out there is another HAARP
project, this time somewhere in Antarctica. So whatever might have
been going on in the Arctic of N Alaska might also be going on
wherever that is. Judging by the direction of clouds in the Japanese
sat images -- somewhere off to the SW of me aka the Antarctic Peninsula
or there-abouts.

The initial things that got the AI program interested was cosmic rays
and clouds. We've seen before that clouds and ufos have some kind of
relationship. It seems various properties of clouds in a region can
predict how many ufos are reported. There is the obvious reason --
people can't see very well through thick clouds.  But there are some
subtleties to the patterns. It seems UFO's on avg travel at a
characteristic height. If the cloud tops are below that height they
can't be seen as readily. But if the clouds travel higher they can be
spotted. However, if the clouds are way too high it seems they
re-adjust their habits and fly even higher and become less numerous --
apparently -- again.

From personal observation it seems those little lights seem to like
travelling close to if not INSIDE clouds. On one occasion a big
double-bladed Chinook chopper was busy in the neighbourhood,
seemingly buzzing a cloud off to my NW. As I watched a very bright
ruby-red light popped out of the bottom of the cloud, rolled along
one flank of it, and over onto the top of the cloud. The chopper
continued for a while buzzing the cloud, apparently looking for
"something". But the object seemed to have disappeared -- I didn't see
it anytime later -- and the chopper left. It's only 1 of several such
incidents I've seen in the past few years.

So it might well be that manipulating clouds might also affect
"something else".  And that is what the first AI results suggested, too.

They set up a model for the HAARP project in N AK. It started
operating supposedly in ~1993 and finished operations in ~2007.  The
programs produced a simple notional model for the project were it
started off totally ineffective at controlling anything, but over time
got better and better at it, then ceased operation altogether in
2007.  A simple model. 0s. Then slowly ramp up over a few years. Then 1s.
Then switch off.

The question then became -- how well does that kind of pattern match
up with cloud behaviour over Alaska at that time and maybe a little
before and a little after.

Turns out -- it's a direct match. All basic cloud parameters I have
data on -- cloud height, cloud amount (percent of sky covered), and
cloud albedo (ability to reflect light) in the Alaska region went up
and down in a statistically identical pattern to the hypothesised
effectiveness of the HAARP project. In addition the program found
cosmic ray telescopes in the Arctic also reported exactly the same
pattern.  And that may be how the clouds are affected by
HAARP. Somehow, adjusting the ionosphere by radiating energy up there
seems to block a little of the cosmic rays coming down in N Alaska,
and that in turn reduces cloud formation in the same region. It's
basic atm physics that cosmic rays can act as "nucleation centres" for
water vapour to turn into micro-droplets. C.f. "cloud chambers" used
to detect some kinds of radiation.

It seemed from the initial results that HAARP had the largest
influence on cloud height -- seemingly a critical factor in reported UFO
activity. During the course of the 93-07 project time-frame, with a
ramp-up from 0 to 1 effective over 96-00, the model explains about 18% of
the change in cloud height seen over AK during that period.  The numbers
show that HAARP at full effectiveness was apparently able to move clouds
about 160m higher than they would have otherwise been.  This may sound
like a trivial thing. But such effects are also caused by 150 years of
fossil-burning climate change as other scientists are quickly finding out.

After reviewing the initial numbers I ran another program that takes
the deduced HAARP effectiveness model -- i.e. 0 before 1993 and 0
after 2007, but ramping up from 0 to 1 over the time-frame 1996-2000 --
and seeing if anything else in the Alaska region showed this same kind
of pattern in a statistically strong way. And, sure, there were a
whole heap of them.

As you might imagine, in complex systems a small change one place can
lead to huge changes other places. You move a Jenga block a teeny little
bit and you can get a big bang.

So given cosmic rays change, and that might change how high clouds
are, how much cloud there is, and how thick it is -- what other things
seem to change?

Not surprisingly, storms were the most obvious effect.  In
statistically strong response to the model of HAARP operations it
turns out ocean storms in the Alaska region responded.  Perhaps in a
beneficial way. Wind strengths seemed to lessen and minimum pressure
in storms increased maybe 10 points.  But amazingly the effect was
seen over a wide region and it seemed to have a lag time far away from
the HAARP location of up to 2 years later. Amazingly, beaming some
energy up into the ionosphere seemed to affect regions 100s or 1000s
of km away and many months later over a ~10y period.

The profile also matches air-plane crashes in Alaska, although it does
not match reported "aircraft incidents".  The stats package reports
about 1% of airplane crashes in the state up to 6m later seem to be
affected by the (assumed) pattern of ramp-up of HAARP and the
project's start and end dates. But it seems to be a good news story.
Aircraft crashes were reduced the stronger HAARP affected clouds in
the region.

Next, and maybe a surprising link, it seems the project also affected
quakes in the region. There is a strong stats link between the
projects presumed operation profile and the number of large quakes
across the state and nearby regions.  While the short-term effect
seems to be a reduced number within months of ramp-up of operation
effectiveness, there is a similar strong link with an increase in big
quakes years after that.  We might expect from our basic mental model
of how earthquakes work -- if you prevent an earthquake tomorrow, the
energy that builds up and up after that results in a bigger quake later.
Up to ~5% of quakes in the 0-1m after HAARP levels changed seem to have
been prevented by those changes.  About 2% of quakes 1-2y later seemed to
be strengthened by HAARP operations.

There is a suspected link between cosmic rays and quakes.  While the
mechanism isn't understood, it seems here that reducing cosmic rays by
tweaking the ionosphere also reduces some quakes but in so doing
allows the relevant forces to build more than that would have
otherwise, resulting in a stronger-than-it-would-have-been quakes later.

Finally, we also find the HAARP operation profile matches changes in
UFO sightings in Alaska over the same period.  Modifying local cosmic
rays and/or cloud height, cloud amount and density seems to associate stat
sig with a reduction in between 2 and 3 UFO sighting reports per year
during the peak operation of the project.  At this point the change can not
be definitively assigned to changes in the observing conditions or to the
number of objects actually buzzing the region.  So at this point it's
mathematically wise to assign 1/2 the effect to each suspect.

This may all seem unbelievable. But, hey, we're doing UFO studies
here.  UFO STUDIES! I remember a few years back when I started to get
significant links between UFO sightings and other things I had data on.
My head was swimming at times. It felt like living inside an old B-grade
horror movie.  So file those pre-conceptions in the receptacle provided. ;)

So. The upshot of all this seems to be. If I'm seeing clouds come in at
certain times that seem to be aimed at obscure my favourite pass-time,
it *might* be the result of some countermeasures put in place by the
US military.  Of course it also might be something put in place by
"someone else".  But since I still do see perfectly clear nights and a
bevvy of little lights playing catch with light aircraft maybe it
isn't so much them.

--
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts,
foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that
is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market
is a nation that is afraid of its people.
-- JFK

Want to believe? UFO tracking company touts app for reporting sightings
The Star, 04 Jun 2023 02:41Z
Enigma uses artificial intelligence to vet UAP (unidentified anomalous
phenomena) sightings, according to Rojas, employing ...

If the Government Has UFO Crash Materials, It's Time to Reveal Them
Politico, 03 Jun 2023 11:52Z

  Newsweek, 03 Jun 2023 18:11Z
  UFO Reverse-Engineering Project Should Be Made Public: Ex-Intel Official
  He gave a number of reasons why he believed any information about these
  alleged projects should be made public. Mellon said ...

Pilot UFO Advocacy Group Forms to Offer Support to Whistle Blowers
Exemplore on MSN, 02 Jun 2023 15:42Z
Most people have seen something they can't explain in the sky, maybe not
something they want to call a UFO or aliens but just ...

  As the U.S. government expands UFO investigations, a new group forms for
  pilots who spot them
  NBC News, 01 Jun 2023 08:43Z
  Airline passengers are encouraged to report suspicious activity in the name
  of national security, but the pilots have a ...

New 'quasi-moon' discovered near Earth has been travelling alongside our
planet since 100 BC
Live Science, 01 Jun 2023 07:32Z

[No Show:]
NASA UFO Panel in First Public Meeting Says Better Data Needed
USNews.com, 31 May 2023 10:28Z
Washington (Reuters). The first public meeting of a NASA panel studying what
the government calls...