i can make clouds appear and dissapear!

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

by God if you need to see some proof of more people dead because of double-posts I'll fix that for you.
FOR YOU.

Lol...

No, no thats ok.

Double posting? Force of habit. A lot of groups they only allote a certain amount of time to edit the post.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

It quickly clutters up a thread and makes the member who did it look like a fool for not being able to click a simple edit-button, it most shows to laziness and unwillingness to actually put some effort behind the writing.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

I disagree. Often, two small, managable posts are preferable to one big monstrosity of a post (like the ones at which I excel ).

I believe it is the content of a post that shows the degree to which a poster applied him or herself.

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

And spontaneous remissions and the placebo effect are pure fantasy.

Right?

Nosus(h)
If you're gonna hang here, I might as well educate you.

What the? were you being sarcastic? You didnt educate nothing, I've already statated the placebo effect in this thread or another. I've always encouraged the power of belief... What you believe is ultimately going to control how you feel.

I have no problem with ppl engaging in fantasy(thinking they can burst clouds) but if you actually think its real and spread that information, dont you think its promoting ignorance?

If someone pays me a compliment and says i am good looking.... That could make me feel better depending on how much value i put on that person. He or She created or affirmed a belief i had programmed or was primal... That could provide me contentment and being in a positive state of mind is good for physical health. Am I really good looking? Or do i just believe that? It's all relative... maybe to some ppl me thinking i am good looking is dellusion because they dont find me attractive... and maybe to others I am one sexy mofo. In the end it only matters what i believe....or i could just be a zen buddhist and not have that superficially attachment and just be content all the time.

Obviously if I think I am good looking, smart or whatever... that's just a relative truth not an absolute. That's my fantasy. If you broke a cracker and told me you were strong, I would consider that more of a truth then you claiming u can burst clouds. Because at least breaking a cracker holds some relative truth...relative to the 90 year old granny who cant break that cracker you are strong. Heck maybe you would get that same ego hit a power lifter gets..

"A person's beliefs and hopes about a treatment, combined with their suggestibility, may have a significant biochemical effect. Sensory experience and thoughts can affect neurochemistry. The body's neurochemical system affects and is affected by other biochemical systems, including the hormonal and immune systems. Thus, it is consistent with current knowledge that a person's hopeful attitude and beliefs may be very important to their physical well-being and recovery from injury or illness.

However, it may be that much of the placebo effect is not a matter of mind over molecules, but of mind over behavior. A part of the behavior of a "sick" person is learned. So is part of the behavior of a person in pain. In short, there is a certain amount of role-playing by ill or hurt people. Role-playing is not the same as faking or malingering. The behavior of sick or injured persons is socially and culturally based to some extent. The placebo effect may be a measurement of changed behavior affected by a belief in the treatment. The changed behavior includes a change in attitude, in what one says about how one feels, and how one acts. It may also affect one's body chemistry."

Belief is part of your system, your closed circuitery...

The mind and body are connected, is the mind and the cloud connected? No

So if anyone wants to prove a "miracle" dont do it by means of recovery from sickness, which i am sure many athiests(including myself) have successfuly recovered from sickness.

Oh and let me add if this sick man saw you guys praying for him that could have a direct scientific affect as well. Seeing your desire for him to live and the love factor could have increased his desire and will to live effecting the physical process going on in his body.

Belief is science too...

[OlderWiser]

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Do you really think skeptics are just stubborn closed minded people?

Yes, actually, I do. Every person I have ever met who identified themselves as "a skeptic" was, indeed, stubborn and closed minded. Maybe that's just my subjective life experience, though. I could probably never prove it conclusively. Therefore it doesn't count, right?

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by OlderWiser

Yes, actually, I do. Every person I have ever met who identified themselves as "a skeptic" was, indeed, stubborn and closed minded. Maybe that's just my subjective life experience, though. I could probably never prove it conclusively. Therefore it doesn't count, right?

Well actually you could say we are stubborn... as for closed minded, depends how you define it. Skeptics are only focused on absolute truths not fantasy. It's not that we dont want paranormal activity to exist, it' just that we know it doesnt exist.

The ppl on this forum are just as stubborn, only their belief supercedes logic - which would make them even more stubborn.

When I first saw John Edward on TV 5 years ago I was amazed... I didn't know anything about cold reading, his pre show investigating, his heavily edit shows... So I saw his amazing results and even though i was a non-believer I could not help but to question his validity.

So, immediately after the show I did a search on google and discovered cold reading and many other techniques he uses. He has hidden mics in the que and has his staff act as regular ppl attending the show to milk information from the ppl. He also has a much lower hit rate then the show dictates. 2 Hours of footage is taken and it's edited down to 20 minutes to show his best hits.

See how I was delluded at one stage? Because I only saw his performance on TV and with the success rate shown, I connected the dots that gave him possible validity. That was my truth at one stage but was never an absolute truth. Just because at that stage I didnt know the many techniques he used doesnt mean they didnt exist.

[OlderWiser]

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

It's not that we dont want paranormal activity to exist, it' just that we know it doesnt exist.

That's an interesting view. Absolute certainty, though, can be a very limiting thing. That, by the way, is the opinion of Professor Lord Robert Winston, a man well known for both is scientific mind and his faith in a God he can't see or test in a laboratory.

Personally, I prefer to be less certain and more open. The more certain you are, less able you are to learn new things. After all, if you already KNOW, why bother to learn?

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

The ppl on this forum are just as stubborn, only their belief supercedes logic - which would make them even more stubborn.

I don't think stubbornnes can be quantified, personally, but I'm not actually that stubborn about my beliefs. I'm stubborn about my subjective experiences, because they're MY subjective experiences and I'm the one who experiened them subjectively, yes, but I try to keep an open mind on most things. I find that having an open mind makes life a lot more enjoyable, but maybe that's just my subjetive experience.

Regarding John Edward, I'm well aware of the techniques of cold reading, of accusations of cheating by him and his staff, of tricky editing on his show, etc.

It doesn't have anything to do with me or my subjective experiences, so I haven't invested a great deal of emotional or intellectual energy into him or his dealings. I don't feel the need to save anyone from believing in him, because I figure they can get on Google, too, if they want to, and they can believe what they wish. My opinion on him is pretty much immaterial.

So, this thing about trying to correct or un-delude or show people the error of their beliefs, I've seen in EVERY kind of thing you can imagine, from arguments over very minor points of doctrine within the same religion to trying to talk people out of mainstream religious beliefs through very unusual fringe type beliefs, to belief in the paranormal, to belief in lucky talismans, to belief in just about anything you can think of. I guess I just don't understand the drive to argue with people about what they do or don't believe. So long as it's not hurting them or others, I don't see a problem. If I want to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what's the issue? (I don't worship FSM, by the way; I'm more of a Discordian ).

Personally, I think the "I don't believe anything that can't be proven" attitude is just as limiting as "I believe anything that drifts over my transom". Not accusing anyone here of either of those, by the way. I'm just making an observation in general.

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by OlderWiser

That's an interesting view. Absolute certainty, though, can be a very limiting thing. That, by the way, is the opinion of Professor Lord Robert Winston, a man well known for both is scientific mind and his faith in a God he can't see or test in a laboratory.

Personally, I prefer to be less certain and more open. The more certain you are, less able you are to learn new things. After all, if you already KNOW, why bother to learn?



I don't think stubbornnes can be quantified, personally, but I'm not actually that stubborn about my beliefs. I'm stubborn about my subjective experiences, because they're MY subjective experiences and I'm the one who experiened them subjectively, yes, but I try to keep an open mind on most things. I find that having an open mind makes life a lot more enjoyable, but maybe that's just my subjetive experience.

Regarding John Edward, I'm well aware of the techniques of cold reading, of accusations of cheating by him and his staff, of tricky editing on his show, etc.

It doesn't have anything to do with me or my subjective experiences, so I haven't invested a great deal of emotional or intellectual energy into him or his dealings. I don't feel the need to save anyone from believing in him, because I figure they can get on Google, too, if they want to, and they can believe what they wish. My opinion on him is pretty much immaterial.

So, this thing about trying to correct or un-delude or show people the error of their beliefs, I've seen in EVERY kind of thing you can imagine, from arguments over very minor points of doctrine within the same religion to trying to talk people out of mainstream religious beliefs through very unusual fringe type beliefs, to belief in the paranormal, to belief in lucky talismans, to belief in just about anything you can think of. I guess I just don't understand the drive to argue with people about what they do or don't believe. So long as it's not hurting them or others, I don't see a problem. If I want to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what's the issue? (I don't worship FSM, by the way; I'm more of a Discordian ).

Personally, I think the "I don't believe anything that can't be proven" attitude is just as limiting as "I believe anything that drifts over my transom". Not accusing anyone here of either of those, by the way. I'm just making an observation in general.

Arent you interested in truth? Don't you think a lot of harm is being done in this world due to ignorance? Belief does cause a lot of contentment in this world, but it's also resposnible for a lot of disaster.

Ok, you are entitled to your beliefs and it's obvious you dont need them validated for them to be real to you. Where does it stop though? Should we take it back to the trials of Salem where everyone accuses everyone of being a witch just because they believe? Hey its their belief, lets kill the witch. It doesnt matter that science says they are a human doesnt make it true... it's your belief that counts.

[wolfgang]

I wish I could say I bursted another cloud, but I haven't tried. Now I'm scared I'm going to be subject to a witch hunt. Amazing how lost a thread can get. Lots of threads decompose into belief issues it seems. Who is witch hunting who, by the way? Skeptics throwing up science, at people wanting to believe the could disappeared when we choose it, are witch hunting right in this thread.

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I wish I could say I bursted another cloud, but I haven't tried. Now I'm scared I'm going to be subject to a which hunt. Amazing how lost a thread can get. Lots of threads decompose into belief issues it seems. Who is which hunting who, by the way? Skeptics throwing up science, at people wanting to believe the could disappeared when we choose it, are which hunting right in this thread.

OK, I'll quit replying in this thread then as it seems nobody cares about absolute truth, just their belief.

Although i'd like to see your rationale as your hit rate drops... Maybe I am draining your cloud bursting powers with my negativity? Paranormal peeps always have a good arsenal of excuses.

[wolfgang]

Yeah, you're bursting my bubble on cloud bursting by busting on me!

Thing is I don't believe I really made that could disappear - I think I just happened to pick a cloud that was going away.

But how did I do that? At least that's not a fanciful idea - the skill is being able to pick that could that is going to disappear. Maybe weather men would be best and that - knowing which cloud is on it's way out.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by OlderWiser

Personally, I think the "I don't believe anything that can't be proven" attitude is just as limiting as "I believe anything that drifts over my transom". Not accusing anyone here of either of those, by the way. I'm just making an observation in general.

Beautiful point, OlderWiser.

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Arent you interested in truth?

I'm endlessly interested in Truth.

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Don't you think a lot of harm is being done in this world due to ignorance? Belief does cause a lot of contentment in this world, but it's also resposnible for a lot of disaster.

Ignorance and belief are not the same things. Atheism is a belief. (The belief that there is no God.) Just because there are so many more people on earth who believe in some sort of Higher Power, does that mean people who do not believe there is an HP are ignorant? I don't think so. Not at all. They simply choose to see life through a different lens.

Further, sharing our beliefs and experiences (even in the Flying Spaghetti Monster - lol, OW) in no way spreads ignorance. They are just our beliefs and experiences. Ignorance is the lack of information, knowledge, or education.

Anyone who reads about my personal experiences is more than free (encouraged, even!) to go out and check other sources or try things themselves. Nobody here has been trying to convince the world of what they've experienced. For my part, I am simply interested in meeting others who might have had similar experiences so I can compare notes.

Honestly, nosussbeliefs, the only people in this thread who have tried to convince anyone of anything have been people with skeptical outlooks.

I will say this. I am refreshed and pleased to see you offering up actual arguments and ideas. Your POV is foreign (and therefore interesting) to my own, and I appreciate it. It's been a long time since I believed anything resembling atheism, and I value the contrast. It gives me food for thought, and I believe, brings me that much closer to Truth.

I look forward to hearing more of these well-thought-out ideas from you. How about we start another thread in this part of the forum to specifically discuss the ideas of belief and disbelief as they relate to one another? (In fact, here.) In the process, we can allow this thread to discuss its original topic.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I wish I could say I bursted another cloud, but I haven't tried. Now I'm scared I'm going to be subject to a which hunt. Amazing how lost a thread can get. Lots of threads decompose into belief issues it seems. Who is which hunting who, by the way? Skeptics throwing up science, at people wanting to believe the could disappeared when we choose it, are which hunting right in this thread.

Nobody's being burned at the stake here. Regardless of what anybody, anywhere does or thinks, there will always be people with a different opinion about it. That variety is part of the beauty of this existence. I hope you will choose to take it as such and live your life by your own barometer.

[wolfgang]

I bursted another cloud. I parked my car and took the cloud that was right in front of me. It was about the same size as other clouds to the sides of me.

At 3 minutes what looked like the biggest part was gone. However it wasn't the biggest part, it was an independent cloud behind a smaller one. The one that was left took another 6 minutes - and it was gone.

Strange. I did take a mental picture of the cloud scape before and it looked pretty much the same after I busted the ones I was looking at. The other clouds to either side were still there.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I bursted another cloud. I parked my car and took the cloud that was right in front of me. It was about the same size as other clouds to the sides of me.

At 3 minutes what looked like the biggest part was gone. However it wasn't the biggest part, it was an independent cloud behind a smaller one. The one that was left took another 6 minutes - and it was gone.

Strange. I did take a mental picture of the cloud scape before and it looked pretty much the same after I busted the ones I was looking at. The other clouds to either side were still there.

Is it alleviating your doubts about the whole thing, wolfgang, or do you still think it's coincidence?

I'm itching to try it again, but it's crazy windy outside today and the cloud cover is spread out like a thin blanket over the sky. Seems like experimentation is more controlled on a still day when I can't attribute what's happening to airflow breaking apart my clouds.

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

I have no problem with ppl engaging in fantasy(thinking they can burst clouds) but if you actually think its real and spread that information, dont you think its promoting ignorance?

Look at all the people busting clouds. One person it's a fantasy. If a group of people do it................?

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

The mind and body are connected, is the mind and the cloud connected? No

Mind is connected all the way to the environment.
Why?

Cause at no point are they seperate, at no point can one put down a line, and say here is mind, here is matter.

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

....which i am sure many athiests(including myself) ...

As am I. But I'd call myself a Holographic 'athiest'.

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Belief is science too...

Right you are.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by InJoy

Is it alleviating your doubts about the whole thing, wolfgang, or do you still think it's coincidence?

I'm itching to try it again, but it's crazy windy outside today and the cloud cover is spread out like a thin blanket over the sky. Seems like experimentation is more controlled on a still day when I can't attribute what's happening to airflow breaking apart my clouds.

I think I still have that coincidence reaction - that must be a conditioned response or limiting belief (argh). The doubts are just part of my ego, I suppose. Not being able to do a cloud bursting also seems like it could go the way of when IM doesn't pan out - that you aren't aligned or are attached to the outcome.

It did make me google cloudbusting, here's echo doing this cloud bursting:
Cloudbusting! - Neil Slade's AMAZING Brain Adventure

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I think I still have that coincidence reaction - that must be a conditioned response or limiting belief (argh). The doubts are just part of my ego, I suppose. Not being able to do a cloud bursting also seems like it could go the way of when IM doesn't pan out - that you aren't aligned or are attached to the outcome.

Be easy on yourself. Two successful attempts isn't really enough to dismiss the coincidence factor completely, at least not in my book. I've done it five times and I'm still not entirely convinced about what is happening here. I'm just having fun trying and seeing.

I will say this: I told two of my close relatives about this and got "uh huh" from both of them. (One was on the phone, but I heard her roll her eyes. LOL) Anyway, they have both since tried it and both got back to me pretty excited about their results.

Like I said, I'm not certain what is happening here, but something outside of my normal understanding of the world is occurring.

[Keith]

Can you actually make clouds appear as well as disappear? We're in the middle of an extended drought and that would be bloody handy...

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Please take up James Randi's 1 million dollar challenge if you truly believe you can move clouds.

Unfortunately the conditions of the challenge are changing:

As of April 1, 2007, we will require two major qualifications of all those who will be eligible. First, any applicant will be required to have a media profile. By that, we mean that there must be some media recognition – a television interview, a newspaper account, some press writeup, or a reference in a book, that provides details of the claimed abilities of the applicant. Note: something more authoritative than an offhand reference during a local TV newscast or a paragraph in a local shopper handout, will be required. The second requirement will be that the applicant must provide an endorsement of an academic nature. That means some sort of validation from an appropriately-qualified academic. This does not include the local chiropractor or Sunday-school teacher.

also

For too long now, the JREF has been on the defensive rather than on the offensive. That will be changed as of April 1, when we will begin actively pursuing the possibility of legal actions being brought against prominent figures in the field to investigate whether or not any laws are being broken by false promises to clients, incorrect attributions, accepting fees for services not met, or other deceptive procedures whereby the public has been misinformed and/or taken advantage of. This will include both civil and criminal actions.

P.S. They're currently accepting questions for the revised FAQ. I submitted the following:

As requested, I have a question for the new FAQ:

"Since Paranormal phenomenon is not generally accepted by the academic community it seems unfair to require academic validation. Isn't that kind of like requiring approval from a Catholic Priest before you can have an abortion?"

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Keith

Can you actually make clouds appear as well as disappear? We're in the middle of an extended drought and that would be bloody handy...

I've heard it can be done, but I haven't had the guts to try it yet. I have grown a teeny (almost not there) cloud to be bigger, but only once. And it only about quadrupled in size before I stopped and went and did something else. It took longer for me than disappearing clouds.

For too long now, the JREF has been on the defensive rather than on the offensive.

Jeesh. Sounds like a delightful bunch.

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by Keith

Can you actually make clouds appear as well as disappear? We're in the middle of an extended drought and that would be bloody handy...


Unfortunately the conditions of the challenge are changing:



also



P.S. They're currently accepting questions for the revised FAQ. I submitted the following:

As requested, I have a question for the new FAQ:

"Since Paranormal phenomenon is not generally accepted by the academic community it seems unfair to require academic validation. Isn't that kind of like requiring approval from a Catholic Priest before you can have an abortion?"

Can you blame him for setting some boundaries like that? I mean if he doesnt have it set up like that he would get flooded with requests. Look how many ppl on this board alone that think they can cloud burst.

Here's one application where the guy claims he will make snow fall in Kansas, not only does he fail but he does not follow application guidelines and makes legal threats.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Can you blame him for setting some boundaries like that? I mean if he doesnt have it set up like that he would get flooded with requests. Look how many ppl on this board alone that think they can cloud burst.

I don't blame him for setting boundaries but I do think the particular boundaries he has set are set arbitrarily high.

If he didn't want to be 'flooded with requests', He offered a $1m prize for demonstration of paranormal phenomenon. He has an obligation to applicants to give them a fair chance to demonstrate such.

Signoff from an academic (a profession known for its hostility to paranormal phenomenon) is an arbitrary hurdle. Most academics wouldn't be willing to risk their reputation by signing such a thing. It seems designed to prevent legitimate contenders from applying.

Personally I don't see why JREF shouldn't allow alleged cloudbusters to apply. It should be easy to design a test for it. eg. 'Bust' a cloud (ensure agreement on the particular cloud) faster than all surrounding clouds at least 18 times out of 20.

[The Universal Call]

Once again I find it more important to analyze the process of clouds before we continue talking about cloudbusting as if it would be true, in fact if it isn't even slightly, then continuing this thread and tricking eachother to a false belief would be very evil. Before any clouds are busted I think this should be done.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Once again I find it more important to analyze the process of clouds before we continue talking about cloudbusting as if it would be true, in fact if it isn't even slightly, then continuing this thread and tricking each other to a false belief would be very evil. Before any clouds are busted I think this should be done.

That seems backwards to me. It makes more sense to see if it works through experimentation and observation before focussing on the theory of how it works.

The danger is that the theory will say it doesn't work while reality will say something different. But if you believe the theory and don't try, you'll never find that out!

History is fully of scientific breakthroughs resulting from trying something that everyone else had written off as theoretically impossible.

Saying "let's try it and see if it works" is not the same thing as "tricking".

[The Universal Call]

Keith:
What the heck are you talking about? Numerous people in this thread have tested this, myself included, and have gotten quite a few reports that the cloud did vanish. Should we continue for yet another week, get the same results, post it in this thread, and then find out that cloud naturally dissolve? Isn't it better to find that out BEFORE?

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by Keith

That seems backwards to me. It makes more sense to see if it works through experimentation and observation before focussing on the theory of how it works.

The danger is that the theory will say it doesn't work while reality will say something different. But if you believe the theory and don't try, you'll never find that out!

History is fully of scientific breakthroughs resulting from trying something that everyone else had written off as theoretically impossible.

Saying "let's try it and see if it works" is not the same thing as "tricking".

Well understanding the process of how a cloud breaks up is most likely at a factual stage. Doesnt seem like a complicated process...

I dont think you are reinventing the wheel here...

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Once again I find it more important to analyze the process of clouds before we continue talking about cloudbusting as if it would be true, in fact if it isn't even slightly, then continuing this thread and tricking eachother to a false belief would be very evil. Before any clouds are busted I think this should be done.

Good point, Universal.

Consider that you and everyone else live in unboudless holograms, so to say. ("Matter" is basically empty space. If you blow up an atom to our size, the space between the electron and the atom is mostly empty space.)
Of course, not the holograms that we see at disneyland, but infinitely more complex.

These holograms completely surround you, by that I mean, your physical body is also part of these unboudless holograms.

Every interval, all day long, the thoughts you chose, determine the paths you take through these holograms. (There's lots of them, a helluva lot.)

Consider the accidental discovery of John C. Lilly, M.D.
(The pioneer in electronics, biophysics, neurophysiology, computer theory and neuroanatomy, the researcher who served as the basis of the films Day of the Dolphin and Altered States.)

"Suddenly the energy came out from above and went straight down my spine and on all sides of me were these divisions like a pie. And I could look down this one and see a certain future and then right over here another future and on and on. So this was alternity that I was sitting in. Now actually, unconsciously, we sit in alternity all the time, we have to or you wouldn't know how to get anywhere, right? But you don't know it."

From Here to Alternity and Beyond

Whenever I lock the above model of reality of Lilly's into my awareness, I routinely clear the entire skies of haze, and blue skies appear.
--
--

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Keith:
What the heck are you talking about? Numerous people in this thread have tested this, myself included, and have gotten quite a few reports that the cloud did vanish. Should we continue for yet another week, get the same results, post it in this thread, and then find out that cloud naturally dissolve? Isn't it better to find that out BEFORE?

What are you proposing, exactly? Clouds do naturally dissolve. They also naturally billow. I accept that as a given. What has been unusual has been the consistency with which we could predict which cloud would do what, and when.

(It actually occurred to me at one point that I was not busting clouds at all, but somehow predicting their demise. That was, until I asked someone else pick the cloud for me and it still worked.)

Originally Posted by nosussbeliefs

Well understanding the process of how a cloud breaks up is most likely at a factual stage. Doesnt seem like a complicated process...

I dont think you are reinventing the wheel here...

Are you suggesting that we learn the physics behind the existence, nature, and behavior of clouds? If not, I don't understand what you mean by this. And if so, can you tell me how that knowledge will help us to understand or explain how we seem to be able to affect those physics from afar?

[Keith]

Originally Posted by The Universal Call

Keith:
What the heck are you talking about? Numerous people in this thread have tested this, myself included, and have gotten quite a few reports that the cloud did vanish. Should we continue for yet another week, get the same results, post it in this thread, and then find out that cloud naturally dissolve? Isn't it better to find that out BEFORE?

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I was influenced by your posts in another thread and assuming you were looking for a way to explain the phenomenon in scientific terms (which I think it's too early for). If you were just saying "we should understand cloud science to establish a baseline that we can measure this phenomenon against", then I entirely agree. It makes sense to know the expectations so you can tell when they're being violated.

Unfortunately Meteorology is a very difficult field for predictability. There's a lot of unmeasurable minor variables involved (precise currents in the air, localised temperature variations, etc.). Still, exceeding expected baselines by a large amount would be a good indicator.

Originally Posted by InJoy

What are you proposing, exactly? Clouds do naturally dissolve. They also naturally billow. I accept that as a given. What has been unusual has been the consistency with which we could predict which cloud would do what, and when.

TUC's idea is a good one. In addition I would do something like the following:

1. Film a cloudbusting under the following conditions:
- multiple people agree that you're talking about the same cloud.
- film at least 10 minutes before and after the cloudbusting too.
2. Repeat many times.
3. Review the footage. Compare the rate of cloud dissolution to that of other clouds around it.

[Crowghost]

I wonder if enough people at once did it if they could get rid of tornadic clouds and supercells?

[The Universal Call]

Crow:
As I understood, busting clouds that have "negative" energy, or just bad energy in them, is not recommended. Tornadic clouds will probably contain a heck of a lot more energy than puffy clouds as well, so a major major headache is expected.

Keith:
I usually go about and talk for a long time in my posts but this time I can only finish up with that you are totally WRONG, no, wait, correct. Yes. Those 3 steps would show a LOT, unless we want to find some books or people that know a lot about the subject, those would also be educating.

[nosussbeliefs]

Originally Posted by InJoy

What are you proposing, exactly? Clouds do naturally dissolve. They also naturally billow. I accept that as a given. What has been unusual has been the consistency with which we could predict which cloud would do what, and when.

(It actually occurred to me at one point that I was not busting clouds at all, but somehow predicting their demise. That was, until I asked someone else pick the cloud for me and it still worked.)



Are you suggesting that we learn the physics behind the existence, nature, and behavior of clouds? If not, I don't understand what you mean by this. And if so, can you tell me how that knowledge will help us to understand or explain how we seem to be able to affect those physics from afar?

Well that was pretty much what i was suggesting. Why wouldnt you want to understand the physics behind clouds dispersing before applying a belief system to it? Even if your belief is applied to another facet of it.

Anyways Injoy, you're in the hot seat I'm putting up the $100 challenge you can take. All you have to do is on a certain cloudy day, one with numerous broken patterns of clouding. In a cluster of no less then 3 clouds burst the specific one you intened. Repeat process 10 times, if you succeed in bursting 8 out of 10 desired clouds from consecutive attempts I will hook you up with a solid $100 bill.

Rules are if any other cloud bursts before the selected cloud does, that constitutes a failure and you move on to your next attempt.

Video Evidence is preferred but if you have a good quality dig cam that will suffice.

It's not 1 mil, but i've set lower boundaries then randi. You have a one in 6,561 chance at fluking it, and thats only if it at least one of any cloud dissapates within the attempt.

This challenge stands for anyone in the group.