“Owning the Weather doesn’t prove anything — it’s only theoretical.”
Already addressed — military strategy papers are rarely “proof of current deployment.”
They’re evidence of intent, investment, and timeline forecasting.
“We’re not doing it yet but we want to by 2025”
isn’t a denial — it’s a goalpost, and in the context of publicly observable phenomena, it's a data point.
No one said it confirmed current ops. It confirms the strategic roadmap — which has since been walked.
“SCoPEx was a failure.”
Yes.
A failed test is still a test.
They built the delivery system, got public pushback, and suspended deployment — after confirming the feasibility in atmospheric labs.
That proves:
The intent is real
The funding is real
The mechanism matches the conspiracy claim
The only “failure” was political and PR-based — not scientific impossibility
Failure to launch ≠ denial of the system.
“Welsbach Patent hasn’t been implemented.”
Sure.
And the Internet was once just a DARPA paper too.
The patent proves:
The tech is feasible
It was imagined by engineers in the context of climate modification
It matches chemtrail claims 1:1: metallic particulate release to reflect sunlight
His response boils down to:
“Unless they say they used it, it doesn’t count.”
That’s not how analysis works.
That’s consumer-level trust-farming.