On November 17, 2018 an Orgonomy conference was held in Glendale, California titled, "Wilhelm Reich and the Science of Life Energy – Orgonomy".

Dr. Conny Huthsteiner gave welcoming and introductory remarks. She stated:

I want to welcome everybody here. If there is any problem with the sound please let me know. My name is Conny Huthsteiner. I am psychiatrist. I want to welcome you all. I am very happy so many people are interested in coming to hear our conference here today. I want to start thanking people who are central to this organization, the main person being Dr. Simonian, who was the driving force and really made this conference happen in all ways, shapes and forms. And I want to thank our speakers. One has come from Oslo, Norway, and the other has come from the country side near Milan, Italy. I very much appreciate them both taking the time and the trouble to take a long flight to participate. I wanted to just start by saying I had hoped that in some way this conference would be sort of a celebration. Wilhelm Reich is known to most of you in some way. He was an incredibly prolific thinker, writer, inventor and unfortunately tragically died in a terrible situation in a United States prison after his books were burned multiple times. And yet, despite much public disparagement of his work and his character, and many lies about his work, it has persisted.

I was hoping today we would be able to talk about some of the ways we are actually moving his work forward. His work seems to be surviving all the various and sundry developments in multiple fields of science with a great degree of strength. In other words, this man was writing his ideas in the 1920’s, 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s, and yet they’re all holding up under scrutiny. As our own concepts in science have advanced since his death in 1957, I can’t think of one idea that he had that is not still legitimate, which I think is extraordinary. I don’t know many thinkers who are able to cut so sharply with a knife conceptually that they get so many things right even with very few tools at his disposal to work with. And so as a consequence I really hope that this conference would be more of a celebration of what he has done and where we see this potentially moving forward in the future. In many ways I feel Reich’s work and life represent the ultimate revolution. And certainly he wrote very famous book, although he effectively never receives credit for that phrase, called "The Sexual Revolution", even though that defined cultures in Europe and United States in an extraordinary way since the 1940’s 50’s and 60’s. I think that’s maybe because he addressed the core issue that all humans grapple with, and that is how to find true love, how to be capable of true deep satisfaction and find love that we all find fulfilling. Now you might obviously ask a question, well how we go from talking about love to talking about atmospheric physics? It does not appear as if there is a logical direct connection between the two, and yet there is; and that’s what’s so remarkable and revolutionary about his thinking. His thinking was able to really introduce revolutions not just in the field of human relationships but also in psychotherapy approaches. In many aspects of healthcare, he has introduced things that could be potentially truly completely altering of our healthcare landscape. He really developed a concept of energy that would allow us to use an unlimited source of energy without destroying our environment through its utilization, which, in of itself, at this time, when we are having so many problems with our energy utilization, it’s obviously of absolute importance. There is also the issue that he had ideas for how actually influence weather events so as to lead to a healing of our atmosphere, and a resetting of our atmosphere to a status that would be still conducive to living here on the planet longer. Ultimately in some ways Reich did toward the end of his life speak more even just about issues of consciousness. Scientist are often put in pigeon holes or pockets, the same with psychologists or psychiatrists, and same with philosophers. One of the things I think he was quite extra ordinary at was spanning so many fields of inquiry, successfully. So, it’s very hard to pigeon hole him in some ways. But as I said at the beginning his life ended pretty tragically, very tragically by anybody’s standards. I think that has left an impact on his legacy. I know in the years following his passing many physicians who worked with him were quite intimidated or frightened about the possibility themselves of coming under professional scrutiny or harassment. I think the question often remains for many people, why would he be so aggressively attacked? And, who would be behind it? What are the factors at play on our planet that would lead to this? I think that has held people back. But as I said, today I was hoping we could try to focus instead more on what he did create and what we could do with it. Will we be able to bring it back into the foreground successfully enough to use it going to the future? I feel it’s our responsibility to try to do that, to try to either teach more about it, influence people in some way, try to show people what he really did. But I realize also, if there is going to be a change happening in human consciousness or in our understandings of science, and the relationship between our emotions and our physical world and our happiness in general, that’s a revolution that’s going to have to happen on its own time. Unfortunately, none of us are going to be able to force it but certainly it’s worth an effort. So, we have kind of mixed program today and we are trying to address some issues of research going on right now. I wanted to show a little bit of a film: "A Man’s Right to Know". It was created by the Wilhelm Reich Museum. It gives a more general biographical history of Reich, maybe more detailed than I’m giving right now. I wanted to also introduce a little bit of our speakers just so people know who they are. Dr. Simonian is a psychiatrist here in Los Angeles. He grew up in Iran and he has translated "The Function of Orgasm" from English into Persian and in that way really came to know some of the fundamentals of Reich’s theories very well. He practices Orgone therapy here in Los Angeles and also has lectured at different conferences about Reich and psychiatry. We have Roberto Maglione is a colleague from Italy. Roberto is quite an interesting person and very sweet person and has an interesting background. He actually is a mining engineer but he got very interested in Reich’s work in the 1990’s and has since written 10 books on Reich which most of them are in Italian but there are four books in English that he has here, all of which I think are very very interesting books and they are for sale out in the lobby. He has worked extensively in the field of weather research but also has studied issues of physical tests and issues that Reich discussed toward the end of his life: the inter play of orgone energy with nuclear material, the "Oranur experiment" as we call it; and also some of Reich’s experiments on biogenesis or the evolution of life. His books are also available out there in the lobby to look at. We also have Havard Neilson from Oslo. He is an associate professor at the Norwegian University in Oslo area. He has a PHD in political science history and also is a visiting fellow at the University of Cambridge for several years. He is going to be speaking on the political history of Reich in the period in the interwar years. My name is Conny Huthsteiner I’m a psychiatrist. I can say when I first got interested in Reich I was actually working as a singer and in film. I remember I had enrolled in a theater class. In that theater seminar the leader used some Orgone therapy techniques that were very, very intense. They elicited a lot of emotion in me and I was interested in what he had done. I had known Reich’s name as a child as growing up because my father was a psychiatrist so I basically started doing research into his life. and that was back in 1980. I ended up then enrolling in medical school and became a psychiatrist. So, it’s been a long road getting here but it’s an issue that’s never let me go. In other words, the study of the knowledge that Reich brought forth is that important that I would continue on this path. I’m not sure about everybody’s background in Reich. I have often hoped that we can put together a project in which we can talk about Reich’s major theoretical developments. Although it is hard to get into it right now, he really was the father of body-integrated psychotherapy which is now manifested in many forms, many different schools of body oriented psychotherapy. It’s a psychotherapy form that works much more intensively often than normal talk therapy. Through that work he really came to understand what energy in the body is, and was able to see the connection between the energy in the body and the energy in the atmosphere at large. These are just a few of some of his basic trends of thinking. Maybe I could start the Man’s Right to Know film.

Please Donate

 

If you benefited from this article, please help to preserve and promote Wilhelm Reich’s legacy by donating any amount. Your contribution is tax deductible and will be used to help orgonomy institutes including Wilhelm Reich’s museum and infant trust.

$ Donation Amount:

• $5.00
• 10.00
• $25.00
• 50.00
• $100.00
• Custom

Donate Now

Select Payment Method

• Stripe - Credit Card

Personal Info

First Name *

Last Name

Company Name

Email Address *

Credit Card Info

This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.

Card Number *

CVC *

Cardholder Name *

Expiration *

Billing Details

Country * United StatesCanadaUnited KingdomAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarrussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos IslandsColombiaComorosCongo, Democratic People's RepublicCongo, Republic ofCook IslandsCosta RicaCote d'IvoireCroatia/HrvatskaCubaCyprus IslandCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEast TimorEcuadorEgyptEquatorial GuineaEl SalvadorEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland IslandsFaroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGreeceGhanaGibraltarGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (City Vatican State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacauMacedoniaMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesiaMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNetherlands AntillesNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestinian TerritoriesPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairn IslandPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarReunion IslandRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaSaint HelenaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovak RepublicSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth GeorgiaSouth KoreaSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan Mayen IslandsEswatiniSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzaniaTogoTokelauTongaThailandTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUruguayUS Minor Outlying IslandsUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuelaVietnamVirgin Islands (British)Virgin Islands (USA)Wallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaWestern SamoaYemenYugoslaviaZambiaZimbabwe

Address 1 *

Address 2

City *

State * AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingAmerican SamoaCanal ZoneCommonwealth of the Northern Mariana IslandsFederated States of MicronesiaGuamMarshall IslandsNorthern Mariana IslandsPalauPhilippine IslandsPuerto RicoTrust Territory of the Pacific IslandsVirgin IslandsArmed Forces - AmericasArmed Forces - Europe, Canada, Middle East, AfricaArmed Forces - Pacific

Zip / Postal Code *

Donation Total: $5.00

Article by Roberto Maglione, M.Sc. and Conny Huthsteiner, M.D.

In the last decade California has been hit hard by drought, above all in the period 2011-2014. As Wilhelm Reich described in his publications from the 1950’s, energetic barriers created by radioactive and electromagnetic pollution and common hydrocarbon emissions created a droughty, toxic atmospheric energy field, that he nicknamed “DOR”. This was an abbreviation for “deadly orgone energy”. DOR prevented the natural pulsation of the atmospheric energy field and seemed to consume moisture, which led to severe drought and desert like atmosphere.

A number of short DOR-busting operations to restore the natural energetic pulsation of the atmosphere using Reich cloudbusters was carried out in Buttonwillow, California, which lies in the southern portion of the Central Valley, close to Bakersfield. The aim of the intervention was to break the DOR layers in the region, that impeded the natural flow of moisture and low pressure systems to come inland and bring rain, as would occur under normal atmospheric conditions. Interventions to clean the atmosphere from pollutants were also carried out. During the DOR-busting interventions physical parameters such as atmospheric pressure, temperature, relative humidity, and wind velocity were measured. At the same time atmospheric pollutant indexes, weather systems, and jet stream paths developments were observed before, during and after the interventions.

In this paper we report on a 2-day operation, carried out on January 1-2, 2016. Rain fell three days after the conclusion of the operations, at the site of the draw, and in a large surrounding area, 16.8% more than that forecasted before the interventions. A decrease of the PM2.5, PM10, and CO parameters were also noticed until around one week after the conclusion of the interventions, with a drop as low as 75-86%. PM2.5 and PM10 are parameters that describe the concentration of particulate matter with diameter less that 2.5 micrometer and 10 micrometer, respectively. They replaced in 1987 the EPA TSP (total suspended particulate) measurement that at the time was the standard unit of measurement for air pollution. No variation of the jet stream paths was observed during or after the intervention.

The Reich cloudbusters were successful in breaking the DOR layers and cleaning the atmosphere from pollutants thus allowing the natural atmospheric pulsation, with cycles of rain and sun, to be re-established at least temporarily. The operational protocol developed might be effectively and safely use to restore atmospheric pulsation and reduce, at least temporarily, atmospheric pollution in the investigated area and allow a pre-existing offshore low pressure system to come and bring its potential rain inland, as per its natural path.

Introduction:

California in the last decade experienced spells of drought interrupted by years in which atmospheric conditions were less harsh, and where rainfall was average.

TDrought began to appear in 2001. The situation worsened in 2007-2009, with three years of drought that was recorded as the 12th worst drought period in the state’s history, and the first drought for which a statewide proclamation of emergency was issued.

Subsequently, the period between late 2011 and 2014 was the driest in California history since record-keeping began in 1895. This dry period was made worse by high temperatures, with 2014 setting a record.

In 2015 it was hoped that a predicted El Niño would bring rains to California, without success. Historically, sixteen winters between 1951 and 2015 have created El Ni&ntildeo. Six of those have had below-average rainfall, five had average rainfall, and five had above-average rainfall. However, California did not benefit from the 2015 El Ni&ntildeo. Drought conditions did not improve and above average ocean temperatures did not create large storms. The entire state of California continued to suffer from the lack of rain and reservoirs and ponds dried up. Authorities declared a statewide drought emergency and applied a 25 percent water restriction. Effects of the drought were felt differently around the State, and were particularly hard on the agricultural regions. Farmers posted road and highway signs, demanding that the government take measures to remedy the drought.

I don’t feel thatIndeed, most farming in California depends on irrigation, which usually accounts for about 80% of the State’s human water use. In 2014 growers lost about 6.6 million acre-feet of surface water because of the drought. A significant increase in groundwater pumping made up for 75% of that loss, and farm-to-farm water sales also helped farmers keep valuable orchards and vineyards alive. But large cuts in crop acreage were unavoidable, leading to the loss of $2.2 billion in revenues and 17,100 seasonal, part-time, and full-time jobs.

Wildlife and fish were hit hard too. Wildlife refuges that provide vital habitat for migratory birds and other species also faced shortfalls.
Parallel to this, a decrease of the humidity, and an increase in atmospheric pollution , in particular the PM2.5 index, were observed simultaneously with the periods of drought. The PM10 and ozone indexes followed a similar behavior, though less marked. An extremely high volume of jet and airplane traffic has been observed to be releasing at high altitude into the atmosphere substantial amounts of exhaust and emission products. We believe that these products act as an additional DOR barrier adding to the already existing ones.

DOR layers that Reich observed during his research on weather activity were assumed to be caused above all by excess electromagnetic and radioactive pollution in the atmosphere in the 1940’s and 1950’s. (1, 2). DOR-busting interventions, consisting mainly of operations aimed at breaking the natural DOR layers present in an area, often were combined with interventions aimed at contracting the atmosphere in such a way as to create low pressure systems that bring rain inland (3). Sometimes these procedures can affect the Polar (PJS) and Sub-Tropical (STJS) Jet Stream patterns, which can lead to unpredictable paths and consequences, even temporarily, in the areas downwind or east of the drawsite even thousands of kilometers away. The high degree of additional particulates created by airplane exhaust present in the atmosphere, such as those characterizing California in these last decades, we believe played an additional important role in the reduction of rainfall, and on the development of drought conditions. They could be creating an additional artificial DOR barriers both onshore and offshore the West Coast that adds to the known contributors to DOR barriers seen by past researchers.

The only efforts carried out in the past, reported in the literature, were those recorded by Constable that were aimed at reducing smog and the elevated temperatures in specific areas of the West Coast, and not intended to restore atmospheric pulsation and bring rain inland. The majority of his operations were done using a hybrid apparatus that maintained only some of the characteristics of a Reich’s cloudbuster (3). In operation Kooler, Constable intervened, in mid-September 1971, to reduce the elevated temperature and the severe air pollution that had hit a part of South California especially in the area of high urban concentration (4). 40 hours after the start of the operation a massive drop in temperature in central Los Angeles area of around 9 °F was observed. This drop in temperature continued the following day, where the temperature fell by 31 °F. A light rain also followed the lowering of the temperature, which was not planned for.
In the second half of the 1980’s Constable intervened to reduce the high level of smog and atmospheric pollution in highly industrialized centers in southern California (5). He carried out draws aimed at creating breezes and increasing air flow in southern California. In 1987 operation Victor took place; in 1989 operations Breakthru & Checker and in 1990 operation Clincher. In 1987 a reduction of 16.6% air pollution was observed; in 1989 it was 29.4% and in 1990 it was a 24% reduction. Urban centers such as Pasadena saw 33 days of smog in 1987, which dropped to 7 days in 1990. The same reduction was seen in central Los Angeles, where smog days were reduced from 8 to 2 days. The cost of combating smog in Southern California with traditional methods at that time was estimated to be around 20 billion dollars in 10 years, an average of 2 billion dollars a year. The total cost of operation Clincher, with the use of 14 operative bases spread throughout all of south California, was $55,000 20% of the potential cost spent daily by the administration for air pollution control with traditional interventions.

According to the above considerations we wondered whether it was possible to intervene in Southern California to break the DOR barriers and to reduce, at least temporarily, the amount of particulates in the atmosphere using a Reich cloudbuster, and thus allow the existing low pressure systems to come inland and not to be diverted from their natural pathway, as had often recently occurred.To this end, it was decided to construct a Reich cloudbusting device in December, 2013. By late April, 2014, the cloudbusting apparatus was completed.

The apparatus was transported to the operational site in the Buttonwillow area.

An initial 2-day test was performed at the end of April, 2014, with the goal of reducing the DOR layers in the atmosphere, including DOR or pollution created by excessive airplane and jet exhaust and emissions. Drawings aimed at contracting the atmosphere were strictly avoided in order not to interfere with the PJS and STJS patterns. Shortly after the first day of operation, light snow coated the surrounding hills and rain began to fall in the surrounding area of the operation site.

Atmospheric parameters, such as pressure, temperature, relative humidity, and wind velocity; as well as pollutant indexes were monitored one week before, during, and two weeks after the conclusion of the operations.

The development of cloud systems in the atmosphere, and of the behavior of the PJS and the STJS patterns were monitored by real-time satellite images.
Weather forecasts were also monitored to check whether the interventions were effective in breaking and reducing the DOR barriers, the pollutants, and in increasing the probability of rain to fall on the area of the intervention.

Subsequently, additional 2-3 day operations were planned with the same aim. They were carried out in October, 2014, April, 2015, and the last one in January, 2016.

In this paper the results of the operation carried out in January 2016 are reported, and discussed, even though similar results were obtained in all the other previously performed operations.

The results we obtained were amazingly positive, once again reflecting the utility and correctness of Reich’s inventions, theories and vision.

Materials and Methods:

Site of the cloudbusting operation was located close to Buttonwillow, California, in the southernmost part of the Central Valley around 40 km east of Bakersfield. The apparatus used was a standard Reich cloudbuster supported in some of the interventions by a smaller cloudbuster, built according to the same design of the main one. The two apparatus were grounded during the interventions in a small fresh water reservoir of capacity of around 7000 m3. The water during the operation was kept moving by a Centrifugal pump set at variable flow rates. Figure 1 below shows the location of the site of the interventions.

Figure 1 – Site of Buttonwillow cloudbusting operations

On the first day of the operation there was an offshore low pressure system moving eastward a relatively short distance from the West Coast. The aim of the intervention was to reduce or break the DOR layers around the operational site with the two Reich cloudbusters thus allowing moisture and the low pressure system to move westward and bring rain inland from the Pacific ocean, as per its natural cycle..
The operation started on Friday, January 1, 2016 at 2.00 PM and ended on Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 6.30 AM. Duration of the intervention was 16.5 hours. The operation consisted of a combination of drawings from different directions. In particular, we focused the cloudbuster toward the NE and to the SW of the operative site, with the intent to clean the atmosphere from pollutants.
Figure 2 shows the two Reich cloudbusters during a DOR-breaking intervention and atmosphere cleaning.

Figure 2 – The Reich cloudbusters during a dorbusting and atmospheric cleaning intervention in Buttonwillow

Atmospheric physical parameters such as pressure, temperature, relative humidity, wind velocity, cloud system formation and development, and jet stream paths were continuously monitored during the whole operation. Particulates in the atmosphere, such as PM2.5, PM10, NO₂, CO, and ozone were also monitored.

Weather forecasts for the area of the interventions (Buttonwillow) were also monitored to check the efficacy of the DOR-busting and atmospheric cleaning.
Figure 3 shows the weather map from 6 hours before the start of the operation (8.00 AM local time, corresponding to 5.00 PM GMT)¹ . From the weather map a two-branched oblong low pressure system, located offshore the West Coast, heading east can be observed.

The black dot shows the location of the draw site, while the red circle encloses an area with a radius of around 450 km centered on the drawing site.

Figure 3 – Weather map at 6 hours before the start of the operation

Figure 4 shows the 10-day weather forecast taken 6 hours before the intervention for Buttonwillow² .

Figure 4 – 10-day weather forecast at 6 hours before the start of the operation

At 8.00 AM (local time) on Jan 01, 2016 the 10-day forecast expected rain to fall from Tuesday, Jan 05, to Thursday, Jan 07, 2016, with maximum probability of 80%³. Total amount of rain forecasted was 15.00 mm.

Results:

Figures 5 and 6 show the weather map and the 10-day weather forecast for Buttonwillow, respectively, at 2.5 hours after the conclusion of the interventions(occurred at 6.30 AM, local time, on Saturday, Jan 02, 2016).

As it can be seen in figure 5 below, the low pressure system located offshore was still following its natural path, heading ast, but the southernmost part was bending towards the draw site, as a possible consequence of the DOR-busting and pollutant cleaning interventions. The cloudbusters were able to temporarily break the DOR barriers and to open a substantially large window that allowed the passage of the low pressure system that centered over the draw area.

Figure 5 – Weather map at 2.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

As it can be seen from the 10-day forecast in figure 6 below, at 9.00 AM (local time), on Jan 02, 2016, rain was expected to fall on Buttonwillow from Sunday, Jan 03, to Friday, Jan 08, 2016, with maximum probability of 90%. Total amount forecasted was 20.00 mm, an increase of 33.3% compared to the value forecasted 6 hours before the interventions.

Figure 6 – 10-day weather forecast at 2.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

The weather map in figure 7, taken 20.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation, shows the low pressure system located on the draw site increasing in intensity and extending with a radius of some hundreds of kilometers (the radius of the red circle is around 450 km) to the north, north-east and a little less to the south.

Figure 7 – Weather map at 20.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

At around the same time the 10-day weather forecast (figure 8) predicted rain to fall on Buttonwillow from Monday, Jan 04, to Thursday, Jan 07, 2016, with maximum probability of 90%. Total amount of rain forecasted was 28.00 mm. Rain forecasted to fall on the draw site was increased by 86.7% after the DOR-busting interventions compared to the value forecasted before the intervention.

Figure 8 – 10-day weather forecast at 20.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

The weather map in figure 9 shows the development of the low pressure system around 29.5 hours after the conclusion of the interventions. As can be seen, the system is still centered on the draw site, but is increasing in intensity and size, and heading NE.

Figure 9 – Weather map at 29.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

At around the same time, the 10-day weather forecast (figure 10) projected rain to fall on Buttonwillow from Monday, Jan 04, to Thursday, Jan 07, 2016, with a maximum probability of 85%. Total amount of rain forecasted was 22.00 mm. After the DOR-busting operation a 46.7% increase in rain was forecasted to fall on the draw site.

Figure 10 – 10-day weather forecast at 29.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

Around 55.5 hours after the conclusion of the interventions, the low pressure system (weather map in figure 11) was moving eastward, above all into Nevada and Arizona, extending also to the north, and was pulling from the draw site the remaining part of the system that was stationed offshore the West Coast.

Figure 11 – Weather map at 55.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

Around the same time rain was forecasted to fall on Buttonwillow from Monday, Jan 04, to Saturday, Jan 09, 2016, with maximum probability of 95% (see figure 12). Total amount forecasted was 17.00 mm. At the draw site the amount of rain forecasted increased 13.3% compared to the value forecasted before the intervention.

Figure 12 – 10-day weather forecast at 55.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

Around 80.5 hours after the conclusion of the interventions, the low pressure system (weather map in figure 13) was moving eastwards, to Nevada and Arizona, and to the north, towards Oregon, bringing the first rain over the draw site on Tuesday, Jan 5.

Figure 13 – Weather map at 80.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

Around the same time, the 10-day weather forecast predicted rain until to Saturday, Jan 09, 2016 with maximum probability of 75% (figure 14). Total amount predicted is 7 mm, to be added to 10.2 mm already fallen on Tuesday, Jan 05, 16.

Precipitation fell until Thursday, Jan 7, with a total amount of 17.52 mm, 16.8% more than was forecasted 6 hours before starting the interventions.

Figure 14 – 10-day weather forecast at 80.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

The data related to the PM2.5, PM10, NO₂, CO, and ozone indexes from the day before the interventions (Dec 31, 2015), until to 14 days after the conclusion (Jan 17, 2016) are reported in figures 15 and 16⁴.

Figure 15 – Behaviour of PM2.5 and PM0 indexes

Figure 16 – Behaviour of NO₂, CO, and ozone indexes

Figures 17 and 18 shows the change in the above parameters when daily values are compared with the values predicted the day before the intervention (Dec 31, 2015) is done.

Figure 17 – Percentage difference of PM2.5 and PM10 indexes when compared to the value of the day before the start of the operation

Figure 18 – Percentage difference of NO₂, CO, and ozone indexes when compared to the value of the day before the start of the operation

From the above figures 15 and 16, it can be seen that the value of the PM2.5, PM10, and CO decrease in the days after the conclusion of the interventions, a decrease that is further marked in the days of rain (Jan 5-7, 2016). After this period the PM2.5 and PM10 parameters started to increase, but however, reached values lower than those before the interventions; while the CO parameter in this latter period did not show appreciable changes and remained practically constant (figure 16).

Parameters such as ozone and NO₂ seem not to be affected much from the interventions showing a practically constant trend, even though fluctuating slightly during and after the interventions.

Figures 17 and 18 show the same behavior of the indexes but this time in percentage is calculated as the difference between the daily value with that of the day before the interventions. PM2.5, and PM10 (figure 17) show a decreasing trend in the period from the conclusion of the interventions until the last day of rain (Jan 7, 2106), with a maximum percentage decrease of around 85%, and of 75%, respectively. Then, the trend of the two parameters increases and stabilizes at around -20÷40%. A similar trend can be also observed for CO in figure 18, with a maximum percentage decrease of around 86%, occurring on Jan 6, 2016, and then stabilizing with a percentage decrease of around -70% in the days following.

Ozone and NO₂ seem not to be affected much by the intervention, nor by the following 3-day rain, with a slightly fluctuating trend which does not have a strong association with specific phenomena or weather conditions, apart from a slow decrease of both after the rain fell.

The following figures 19 through 22 show the path of the PJS at 3 hours before the start of the interventions (6 PM GMT, or 11 AM local time); and at 4.5, 22.5, and 52.5 hours after the conclusion of the interventions, respectively⁵ .

Figure 19 – Polar Jet Stream path at 4 hours before the start of the operation

Figure 20 – Polar Jet Stream path at 3.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

Figure 21- Polar Jet Stream path at 21.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

Figure 22 – Polar Jet Stream path at 51.5 hours after the conclusion of the operation

From the above maps it can be observed that no substantial change of the path of the PJS occurred after the conclusion of the interventions neither in the area around the operative site, nor in areas downwind.

Discussion:

Table 1 summarizes the 10-day forecasted rain data for Buttonwillow. Percentage change of the amount of forecasted rain at different times after the conclusion of the interventions calculated in relationship to the value forecasted 6 hours before the start of the interventions is also reported.

time[hour]	Max rain chance[%]	forecasted rain[mm]	difference[%]
– 6	80	15.00	–
+ 2.5	90	20.00	+ 33.3
+ 20.5	90	28.00	+ 86.7
+ 29.5	85	22.00	+ 46.7
+ 55.5	95	17.00	+ 13.3
+ 80.5	75	7.00 + 10.20*	–
+ 240	–	17.52**	+ 16.8

* rain already fallen
** total rain fallen

Figure 23 shows the trend of the percentage variation of the forecasted rain, in the period from 6 hours before the start of the interventions (set at 0 in the x-axis) until to 55.5 hours after the conclusion (and before the first precipitation that fell at around 8.00 AM on Tuesday, Jan 05, 2016, to wit 73.5 hours after the conclusion of the interventions). Rain lasted until to 8.00 AM, on Thursday, Jan 07, 2016, or 121.5 hours after the conclusion. The two red vertical lines in the figure shows the period in which the DOR-busting interventions were carried out.

Figure 23 – Percentage variation of the forecasted rain for Buttonwillow from 6 hours before the operation to 55.5 hours after the operation

From the above figure can be seen an increasing trend of the probability of rain forecasted during the time of intervention After the operation the trend is decreasing until low values reoccur by the time rain falls. The above increase and decrease would suggest strongly that the intervention was effective in reducing the DOR layers and cleaning the atmosphere from pollutants, with a substantial increase of the forecasted rain. However, when the DOR-busting interventions were concluded the rain predictions fell again, until a final increase of only +16.8% above what was originally forecasted was reached. However, if one considers that the original projection was only 75% for rain, which normally is considered not predictive, nor likely to actually result in rain in the midst of the present drought, the increase we saw and resulting rainfall would be even more significant, and could be considered a very successful outcome. In which case, the 15 mm precipitation total forecasted would be generous, and the calculated percentage of rain that actually fell above that much higher than what would have likely occurred.

The reduction in the rain forecasted after the operations ceased would likely reflect the tendency of the DOR/polluted conditions of the atmosphere to go back to their original state after the conclusion of the operation. This might highlight the need of further interventions to further keep the DOR barriers open and the atmosphere clean.

Notwithstanding this, rain that fell on drawing site (Buttonwillow) was 16.8% higher than forecasted.

During our first operation in Buttonwillow we saw an excessive amount of exhaust and emissions at high altitudes above the draw site, so much that the sky was covered with white streaks that spread in all directions. We observed that this seemed to create an additional barrier to remove when initiating DOR busting. We feel this created an extra layer of DOR to battle with, beyond what Reich and Constable had identified when they worked in the atmosphere of the 1950’s and 1980’s. We feel this leads to greater high pressure areas, an expanded state, that creates a greater barrier to the natural flow of atmospheric orgone energy. This is important at this time in which larger areas of high pressure are known to persist over long periods of time, exacerbating the heat and oppressive drought situation we are experiencing in Southern California and elsewhere.

The following precipitation maps⁶ reported in figures 24 through 27 show that the interventions were also able to produce precipitation that was not forecasted over a large area during the period of the intervention (16.5 hours), even though Buttonwillow did not record any rain during the same period.

From the maps it can be seen that during the night of the intervention, from midnight to 6.00 AM, on Jan 02, 2016, rain fell all over the drawing area extending also east to cover Southern California, Phoenix, Arizona, and North Mexico.

Figure 24 – Rain map at 8 hours after the start of the operation

Figure 25 – Rain map at 11 hours after the start of the operation

Figure 26 – Rain map at 14 hours after the start of the operation

Figure 27 – Rain map at half a hour after the conclusion of the operation

Conclusion:

From the above results and discussion the following conclusions can be drawn.

• Interventions aimed at breaking DOR layers and reducing pollutants in the atmosphere in a large area of Southern California were carried out from 2.00 PM, on Jan 01, 2016, to 6.30 AM, Jan 02, 2016 with no operational problems.
• The interventions were able to reduce the DOR barriers over a large part of Southern California. Atmospheric conditions improved after the interventions, with a substantial decrease of PM2.5, PM10, and CO parameters, while ozone and NO2 were little affected by the interventions. These combined effects allowed a pre-existing low pressure system situated offshore to move inland over a large area centered on the drawing site (Buttonwillow).
• An increase of 16.8% of the cumulative precipitation was observed in Buttonwillow when compared to the forecasted data 6 hours before the start of the interventions. The above percentage increase figure could be even higher, as the estimate of the amount of rain forecasted before the interventions included a low probability of rain (less than 75-80%) which is thought to have low predictive reliability.
• Weather forecasts expected a much higher precipitation to fall on Buttonwillow soon after the conclusion of the interventions (20.5 hours), with a maximum value of 86.7%. This value however decreased in the following days. This suggests that the DOR barriers and atmospheric pollutions were only temporarily reduced by the interventions. Pulsation recovery lasted only for a short time (around 1 day after the conclusion of the operation), with a subsequent return of the DOR barriers and atmospheric health to its original blocked condition. More brief interventions would have been required to keep the atmosphere moving and clean for all the complete period of the atmospheric discharge.
• The developed operational procedure could be considered and used as an effective and safe protocol in this region to break, and remove, at least temporarily, the DOR barriers. We were able to reduce the atmospheric pollutants in an appreciably large area around the operational site, thus allowing a pre-existing offshore low pressure system to move and bring its rain inland.

Footnotes:

1. Weather maps were taken from www.wunderground.com
2. The 10-day weather forecast for Buttonwillow was taken from www.wunderground.com.
3. It must be mentioned that projections of probability of rain less than 75-80% are not accurate enough to guarantee that rain might really fall at the predicted time and expected amounts. Nevertheless, they were integrated into our analysis, since variations in projections can be indicative of a change in the atmosphere that is a consequence of the action of the drawings.
4. Data were taken from the US EPA Air Data for Bakersfield, California, at the following address www.epa.gov/airdata. Acronym DB in the figures stands for DOR-busting.
5. Images were taken from the San Francisco State University database at the following address http://virga.sfsu.edu/archive/jetstream.
6. Precipitation maps were taken from http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil.

References:

1. Reich, W.: DOR Removal and Cloud-Busting, OEB (Orgone Energy Bulletin), IV(4):171-182, 1952; OROP Desert. Part 1: Spaceships, DOR and Drought, CORE (Cosmic Orgone Engineering), VI(1-4):1-140, 1954.
2. Huthsteiner, C.: Weather Engineering in Contact with Space: Global Warming and the Planetary Emergency, Annals of the Institute for Orgonomic Science, Vol. 10, No 1, December 2005.
3. Maglione, R.: Wilhelm Reich and the Healing of Atmosphere, Ashland, OR, USA: Natural Energy Works, 2007.
4. Constable, TJ.: Operation “Kooler”. Conquest of a Southern California Heat Wave, Journal of Orgonomy. VI(1):84-97, 1972.
5. Constable, TJ.: Loom of the Future. The Weather Engineering Work of Trevor James Constable. An Interview Conducted by Thomas J Brown, Garberville, CA, USA: Borderland Sciences Research Foundation, 1994.