Geoengineering: terrifying confirmation & revelations during recent CHD interview and some observations from a cybersecurity perspective

Another situation where a celebrated new policy does not deliver, at best

Many of us have long had convincing evidence for various clandestine weather modification events. Not too long ago, I wrote a post on it. The comments to this post from individuals with obvious expertise and knowledge in this matter are chilling. Their revelations proved things much worse than I had envisioned.

Many others have been trying to warn about the reality of these insane experiments. They are not being picked up by MSM - another indicator something is just not right.

A few days ago, CHD aired an interview detailing extensive revelations about suspicious things going on in the sky, corroborated by public reports. When the brave truth-speaker tried to inform officials, he was ignored and maligned. 

The counter-arguments provided by the officials he turned to do not make sense at all. Below, I will further analyze their excuses and, more generally, scrutinize the public reports and their paradoxical disappearance from a cybersecurity perspective.  

The increasing digitization and automation of virtually all aspects of our lives, including precarious research experiments, has led to an outcry from the cybersecurity community to strengthen and update existing rules.

Now, when I was a student in Biomedical Sciences, and even during the pre-pandemic years, I was assured dangerous lab experiments are outlawed and that researchers act in a highly ethical and responsible manner. I still believe this applies to the majority – but not all. Just as I was ignorant of ongoing dangerous research involving microbes with pandemic potential, security professionals and policymakers likely have no clue about existing geoengineering research and technologies.

There are many frightening parallels between dangerous gain-of-function work and geoengineering.

Shocking Revelations from the Interview

The revelations brought forth in the July 5th interview by CHD regarding ONGOING clandestine radiation and weather manipulation events are beyond chilling.

Supported by numerous screenshots, photographic documentation, etc., the guest Keith Meyers reports

• Appalling data from various official air data monitoring reports in the U.S. that show extraordinarily high entries,

• The insanely high entries of toxic parameters and unknown particulates that occurred often at night, were clearly documented by Meyers. The dates 100% overlap with observed abnormalities in the sky.

• Certain data entries appeared to be magnitudes of order higher than normal.

• After having reported these findings to various officials, the anomalistic entries disappeared.

• After numerous discussions with different officials, it was all blamed on errors involving sensors and equipment.

• However, these cannot explain the exact timing and nature of the incidents, that they have been frequently happening exactly during the times when locals documented a bizarre and unnatural sky.

An example of some of the insanely high ambient air monitoring data entries provided by Keith Meyers. Source: CHD.TV

The data he presented suggest that, as a result, Pennsylvania residents are exposed to

• HIGH LEVELS OF UNKNOWN PARTICULATES

• HIGH LEVELS OF HARMFUL SURFACE OZONE

• HIGH LEVELS OF SOME KIND OF OPEN-AIR ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION

• CORRUPTION/MANIPULATION OF DATA BY THE DEP

• UNLEGISLATED AND NONCONSENSUAL "RESEARCH"

Keith Meyers raises the question of health consequences. He indicates all of this may be part of a momentous business enterprise!

(Some of us have been concerned about the business aspect of gain-of-function work involving pathogens and the new associated countermeasures. This drastically pales in comparison with the scale of toxicity that likely results from space weather manipulations and similar insane events!)

Who is in charge of all this?!!!

Some of the pictures of the sky he showed are very similar to those I have seen here in Austria, especially recently.

If only part of this is true (it may be all of it), these are enormous crimes against humanity.

Example of some highly abnormal ski anomalies provided by Keith Meyers. Source: CHD.TV

Some observations from a cybersecurity perspective

The information mentioned above does not merely concern some abstract data sitting in some databases that deal with certain theoretical matters. Rather, they link the physical (air quality, toxicity levels, etc.) with the cyber world (online databases). From a cyber perspective, cyber-physical systems (CPS) are the most complex and also potentially dangerous ones. Problems with or attacks on such CPSs may have substantial real-world ramifications.

Cybersecurity experts have placed enormous emphasis on cyber-physical security, aiming to ensure the often high-consequence dependency between the physical systems and the computers and devices that control and monitor them. In this light, the above excuse of faulty sensors makes even less sense.

Cyber-physical security

Aware that breaches to CPS could have potentially large-scale destructive consequences, the international information technology and cyber security community has placed significant emphasis on cyber-physical security. From this perspective:

• If the astronomically high air quality data revealed by Keith Meyers were the result of some sensor issues, this could be revealed. The cyber security community, if informed about this issue in an unbiased manner, would place the highest priority on fixing the issue. If it is a technical glitch, it would be long resolved, or the susceptible equipment would be taken offline.

• What we see instead are consistent patterns about timing and alignment with real-world observations and the disappearance of data when pointed out by Meyers (see an example below).

• Some cyber attacks can be revealed by recovering deleted data. As such, the proof of an intrusion would reside at the cyber/data level. Demonstrating an attack on a CPS is inherently more complex as in some cases it is possible to sever the link between the physical and the cyber world. For example, the actual physical entity in question could be linked to a different digital identifier and/or description thereof. In such a case, showing the involvement of some bad actors is more complex as it is much harder to know which physical and cyber entities are genuinely associated and which are faked or manipulated. One of the strongest forms of evidence of an incident on a CPS, such as data manipulation or deletion, is when you can find additional evidence. This is particularly powerful when you have different ways and mediums to assess what happened to the involved processes. Here, this is possible via two independent pieces of information - online air monitoring data and pictures of real-world phenomena. This is a VERY strong cyber-physical connection. Assuming that the evidence provided by Kevin Myers is legit, there is no reasonable explanation of how faulty equipment could be responsible for the abnormalities of both of these information sources.

Example of data manipulation (deletion) of official air quality data provided by Keith Meyers. Source: CHD.TV

Shockingly, in reality, what we can see with our own eyes is often ridiculed by various officials and even downgraded as a conspiracy theory. We have seen it throughout the pandemic. The same seems to apply to the photos that demonstrate an unnaturalness in the sky.

The fallacy of the sensor excuse from a broader perspective

Assume, for the sake of the argument, that the highly elevated numbers that Kevin Myers had observed involution various air quality data are, as he is being told, indeed caused by faulty sensors and equipment. Even from a broader perspective, this does not make sense either because:

• These data include those from solar radiation monitoring as well as data on air pollution.

• If, for example, the insanely high ozone levels can be blamed on technical errors, then it would be in the interest of the jurisdictions involved to fix those.

• Otherwise, it would appear the involved regions or States, such as PA, were not doing enough to counteract climate change.

• Thereby, rather than working towards minimizing toxins and agents believed to drive global warming, these areas and municipalities would be regarded as major climate offenders.

It is a cyber-physical crime, but apparently the real actors are pointing fingers somewhere else

From a merely logical perspective, the astronomical data of toxic matter that was visible for some time but then disappeared could be the result of, for example:

1. Some accidental technical errors anywhere along the cyber-physical interface that involved faulty sensors or otherwise led to erroneous entries; apparently, it was possible to observe the incorrect entries even though the underlying problem remained unpatched; in return, someone manually deleted the data in the public database,

2. A cyber attack that messed with the digital entries at exactly the same times as when they apparently occurred in real life.

3. A cyber-physical attack where a bad actor had gained access to the special purpose computers involved for air monitoring. The high numbers, which would indicate violations of international climate protocols, could be used, for example, in the form of a ransomware attack.

4. (cont.) or in the form of a real attack on the cyber-physical geoengineering equipment to cause their malfunctioning and result in an act of terrorism.

The above depicts some possible occurrences along the cyber-physical risk/threat landscape. While the first suggests accidental errors, deliberate data manipulation is an illicit act and falls in the same category as the rest: cyber-physical crime.

I find it particularly interesting that recently, globalists have highly emphasized the need for cybersecurity protection, much more so than before. For example, in an earlier post, I discussed the FBI warnings of a CCP cyber attack that could destroy America’s critical infrastructure and globalists’ prediction of a cyber pandemic.

Why such a heightened emphasis on needing to secure against cyber-based attacks? And against whom? Or rather, who are the true bad actors?

Somehow or another, this all reminds me very much of the “police masquerading as a police officer” paradigm that we used to employ in cybersecurity all the time but which seems to have been forgotten now.

If the real criminals pose as lawmakers and other high-ranked officials, true security goes out the window. The main difference between cyber-physical applications and early computers and the internet?

Such forms of crime can and do have horrific consequences for real life and the entire planet, for that matter.  

Despite EU’s new cyber laws, the situation would not be any better in Europe

It is of interest to consider how any of these, or related, scenarios, would be handled in the E.U. Given the involvement of digital components, wireless technology, and specialized computers, one may think that they fall under the forthcoming Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) that aims to

“safeguard consumers and businesses buying or using products or software with a digital component. The Act would see inadequate security features become a thing of the past with the introduction of mandatory cybersecurity requirements for manufacturers and retailers of such products, with this protection extending throughout the product lifecycle.”

In this context, it is important to consider some of the key mandates of the Act. The CRA purports to guarantee:

• “harmonised rules when bringing to market products or software with a digital component;

• “a framework of cybersecurity requirements governing the planning, design, development and maintenance of such products, with obligations to be met at every stage of the value chain;

• “an obligation to provide duty of care for the entire lifecycle of such products.”

Specifically relevant are the mandates that

• “Wired and wireless products that are connected to the internet, and software placed on the EU market are more secure;

• “Manufacturers remain responsible for the cybersecurity of a product throughout its lifecycle;

• “Consumers are properly informed about the cybersecurity of the products they buy and use.”

Now, considering that the impact of geoengineering cannot be limited to certain geographic areas, there is the risk that solar radiation and other events conducted in the U.S. could have unforeseen impacts in Europe. The first point above only focuses on products connected to the internet and not their physical ramifications. In this regard, it does not seem to capture toxins or unknown particulates disseminated in the atmosphere, even if these were caused by products with digital components abroad.

Geoengineering heavily relies on computerized technology. One may think that manufacturers of such products/services must comply with the requirements outlined in the directive as soon as they are to be performed in the E.U.

However, as I was reading through the CRA, I am not convinced that it would safeguard the type of incidents described by Kevin Myers.

My concern with the CRA in this situation is the following: the CRA assumes that the products and services containing the digital services constitute an EU market component. For example,

• It helps businesses and consumers choose secure products. 

Comment: The public does not choose products for geoengineering.

• Specifically, it mandates that “products with digital elements will only be made available on the market if they meet specific essential cybersecurity requirements.”

Comment: with geoengineering, there is no open market, and there are no public consumers. The procedures are conducted in secret by unaccountable entities.

• Further, “the Cyber Resilience Act requires manufacturers to be transparent on cybersecurity aspects,” specifically to the “end user.”

Comment: the end users of the products that are utilized for geoengineering are the public – and all forms of life on Earth. But they are kept in the dark.

Thus, from the outset, it may appear that the CRA will mandate manufacturers with stringent obligations (see the figure for a summary). Likely, these will not apply to situations involving risky services, especially those engaged by the global cabal. 

Source: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/cyber-resilience-act-factsheet (highlight added)

Amidst a lack of related rules and regulations, CRA aims to “become an international point of reference beyond the EU's internal market.” However, it only covers products that are sold openly in the EU market and does not address those involving secret research agendas or experiments with high-risk potential.

Conclusion

Dangerous research involving lab manipulations of pathogens and open-air manipulations of global weather and climate have frustrating parallels.

• Despite stringent security rules, e.g. related to the digitized services underlying dangerous experiments, we have no guarantees that they are safe and effective or that the products used for such research are adequately manufactured.

• The most risky experiments often fall outside of regulation and oversight.

• They are concealed from the public and denied.

• Security experts, not trained in physics, chemistry, biology, and other applied fields, are likely unaware of the reality of the precarious technologies and experiments underway.

• When something happens, the catastrophic consequences, with deadly potential on all of life, are blamed on something else.

• The more precarious the experiments and the more destructive their effects, the more insane the excuses. 

• The focus on potential CCP-based cyber attacks on critical infrastructure or those outlined by the UN (major events in outer space, black swan events, ....) is strong evidence of an orchestrated cover-up of existing disasters stemming from covert geoengineering experiments.