Skip to content →


1. How does your WM method work?
Until effective safeguards are in place to protect Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS), all information pertinent to the method used will remain private and confidential. As for background information on the subject, there are many public sources available on the Internet.

2. What is your experience with WM?
Continuous local area and long distance trials have been conducted since 1987. Weather systems (as energy fields | information fields) are altered in direction and intensity. The programme is on-going and concerned with technical refinements. Average success rate to date is at least 80% for transforming selected weather systems (excluding augmentation or mitigation).

The majority of modified weather events lasting 1 – 3 days in duration now total more than 200 (as at mid-1999) in number. There have been fewer trials of longer duration (weeks | months) performed to date – about five so far (mid-1999) – but sufficient to consider long term WM viable and deserving more attention.
Overseas experience has shown that the technology is essentially unaffected by geographic or climatic variation. Long distance (remote) WM trials, mainly concerned with severe weather modification involving target areas at distances of 1,000 kms or more, have been successful. With appropriate ancillary resources (a) the distance or area may be significantly increased (b) an altered weather pattern may be sustained for several months, or longer, if required.

Another innovative application that is gradually being refined is that of “multi-tasking”. This means that a number of WM projects can be initiated and managed at the same time. The first public demonstration of this was in December, 2002 while TWM was involved with both the Louis Vuitton series in Auckland, New Zealand and the bushfires in New South Wales, Australia (see below). Trialing was held over several years and mainly confined to various parts of New Zealand.

Relative to other WM (cloud seeding) services, TWM is capable of generating a wide range of modified weather events with greater accuracy. This is possible because it operates at a fundamental level of physical manifestation.

Some recent projects:

Millennium 2000 celebration: the most significant public occasion involving WM. Auckland was widely promoted as the first major city in the world to begin the new millennium. A proposal was presented to the Auckland City Council to provide WM if their activities were threatened by bad weather. The proposal was ignored and, appropriately, the festivities were a disaster.

Louis Vuitton and America’s Cup Challenge 2000: another equally important event held in Auckland at the same time, with Team NZ as the defender. Check out TWM’s contribution to making the regatta the most challenging in the history of the ACC series. (Correction: 2003 will be the most challenging.)

Marlborough Dist. Council | Ministry of Energy 2001: drought deliberately prolonged as a result of institutional prejudice. That will continue to be TWM policy until attitudes change.

Louis Vuitton and America’s Cup Challenge 2002-03: during the entire Louis Vuitton Cup series, 22 out of 67 days were lost. A significant “improvement” on results for the ACC 2000 series.

NOTE: For background information to the above activities, refer to – Waitangi Tribunal Claim for the Atmosphere.

Bushfires – New South Wales, Australia 2002: a unique demonstration of remote WM and the versatility of the TWM method. Another example of Indigenous WM being used for more constructive purposes but again, it all depends on prevailing attitudes | institutional mindsets.

3. If the TWM method involves consciousness and energy fields, does it have other uses?
Yes. The method evolved from early experience with “non-local or distant healing”. There has been some experimentation with other applications, but the emphasis is on fully developing the potential of WM.

Consciousness as an active agent in the establishment of physical reality is receiving considerable attention from some of the world’s prestigious scientific institutions. It has been claimed, despite the impressive advances made by materialist | mechanistic science, that the most important scientific endeavour in future will be the “science of the subjective” or “science of consciousness”. Such awareness has been part of Indigenous knowledge systems for a very long time. Ancient traditions such as in India and China (the world’s two largest Indigenous groups) have indicated that the “ultimate” technology is not external, local, or physical but ubiquitous, non-local and non-physical.

One very important implication is obvious. All external technology is secondary; consciousness is primary and more fundamental. Therefore, it follows that a highly advanced and autonomous primal field of consciousness [a.k.a. God, Prime Creator, Io, Yahweh, Elohim, Allah, Brahma, Paramatma, etc.] is infinitely more powerful than any external artificial technology upon which all developed economies are heavily dependent. Naturally, this includes EM and nuclear technologies which are derived from this field of potential.
Furthermore, an individualised aspect (the human mind | consciousness) fully aware of this field as its source, is capable of displaying (see holographic paradigm) similar creative abilities. Whether these abilities are actualized is another matter.

4. Any connection between your method and a weather change is just coincidence.
Fortunately, not everyone thinks this way. Albert Einstein defined “Coincidence” as ‘God’s way of remaining anonymous’. That is something to think about. In addition, scientific PK research has demonstrated that the above claim, as a general statement, is inappropriate. It might have been pertinent if the TWM method had been based upon one or two incidents, but that has not been the case (see 2. above for details).

The same claim could also be directed at weather forecasting as a predictive method. Because of its esoteric | occult | indigenous origins, forecasting has been reinvented as a western scientific method and is now regarded as a respectable vocation and indispensable to the efficient management of modern society. Whether Indigenous weather modification achieves similar recognition remains to be seen.
Note that the operational style is generally the same for TWM and forecasting. Both deal with present and future weather developments, both function on the basis of information received about weather phenomena, and significantly, in both cases, there is no apparent direct connection between action and outcome. This becomes very obvious to the layman when weather forecasts do not correspond with reality. Yet such lapses are tolerated and the profession is not ostracized (though it may be criticized) regardless of the fact that it will never consistently achieve 100% accuracy.

In brief, if TWM’s achievements are due to coincidence then, logically, the same applies to forecasting. As far as TWM activities are concerned, synchronicity, rather than coincidence, is a more credible interpretation of the process.

Note also that the TWM method is a version of Indigenous WM traditions (see 6. below) with a long history of success. To suggest coincidence as the basis of a methodology | technology that has been used repeatedly for thousands of years by various Indigenous practitioners, is both superficial and misguided.

Water dowsing | divining is another methodology derived from ancient traditions that sceptics have described as “unscientific”, lacking credibility, and its achievements dismissed as coincidence. A recent government sponsored program to test dowsing completely demolishes these arguments with impressive field studies and impeccable research. It has established that dowsing does work but is unable to explain how or why. If a similar study of Indigenous WM methods was conducted, one could reasonably expect results and conclusions which parallel those of dowsing.

5. Why should anyone believe you?
Which is more incredible? Weather prediction or modification? The first assumes that it is possible for the human mind | consciousness to foretell future events; the other (Indigenous version) that it can manipulate or change physical phenomena. Both originated in cultures where the artificial boundaries between “normal” and “paranormal” did not exist. For early human societies, life was holistic, unlimited and inclusive. The problem of credibility regarding the scope of human potential arose with the emergence of Western science and its narrow, exclusive, and distorted worldview.

Therefore, any belief based on ignorance, including belief in outmoded paradigms, is of little value compared with knowledge derived from experience. For example, the materialist reductionist scientific paradigm was undermined by Einstein nearly 100 years ago and yet the majority of people, notably in the West, continue to live as though nothing has changed. This suggests a regression into a Dark Age mindset based on superstition and habit rather than an enlightened decision to embrace a more subtle and complex worldview resulting from the discoveries of quantum physics and the new sciences.

Indigenous weather modification is no more incredible than the implications of scientific research in psychokinetic phenomena or scalar electromagnetics and many other fields. It would be advisable therefore, to review Clarke’s Laws. Public scepticism regarding Indigenous weather modification is due to the fact that, for centuries, developed (European) nations have deliberately ignored or denigrated Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). This policy and practice continues today.

Ironically, these same nations now encourage academic and corporate interests to pirate IKS and TEK before international recognition of Indigenous ownership of that knowledge is formalized. [11] Clearly, in such cases, credibility of Indigenous knowledge is not a major issue compared with the economic benefits to be gained through ownership of patent rights. Having initially exploited the physical resources of Indigenous peoples, they are now colonizing their intellectual and cultural resources. An example of the assimilation of ideas of indigenous origin by mainstream Western thought is the “New Science | Physics” paradigm which proposes an extraordinary, complex, non-mechanistic and “mystical” reality. [3 -10] This is a radical departure from the narrow mechanistic scientific model that has prevailed for centuries.

Perhaps, as a result of changing attitudes to the value of Indigenous knowledge, underscored by increasing weather disaster costs, serious consideration of TWM’s expertise in weather modification will develop. This inspiring story about Dr Graeme Mather, a WM pioneer (cloud seeding), may serve as an example of what one persistent and courageous individual can achieve despite the scepticism of others.

6. Can you prove that your WM technology works?
Weather is characterized as a “complex non-linear dynamic system” [1]. What this suggests is that documentation and statistical analysis of a given set of events may indicate probability but does not absolutely “prove” that something works. This applies to weather forecasting and modelling [2], yet does not appear to have inhibited its widespread application and progress in any way. Obviously, the absence of “proof” is not necessarily an obstacle to the popular success of any technology.

The only real proof, in a relative sense, is in first-hand experience of tangible events in “the field”. One example of a WM technology that was initially controversial is cloud seeding which eventually gained acceptance as a result of successful field trials in the USA and elsewhere. To date there is still some debate about cloud seeding as a “proven” method of WM.

Yet, there are those who insist on “scientific proof” or peer-reviewed documentation of TWM technology as the only valid method of assessment. This desire to assert absolute authority and control by Western institutions (a kind of scientific-colonialism-imperialism) could be interpreted as a violation of Indigenous rights.
It must be pointed out that Indigenous WM traditions existed many millennia before Western science was conceived and that they continue to be practised today.
[This 1998 report of the huge Amazon forest fire describes how it was successfully extinguished by only two Indian shamans in a few hours. Contrast this with months of frustrated effort by hundreds of fire fighters with modern support services. Note that the Brazilian authorities employed the shamans without demanding “scientific proof” of their expertise – a wise decision that produced results much more efficiently and economically than by standard means. A salutary lesson for conventional emergency and civil defence organizations perhaps?]

Why is this type of WM not widely acknowledged or publicized? Cultural bias (with the notable exception of Brazil) appears to be a common reason. For those who may be interested, the nature of cultural bias is discussed by a Nobel-prize winning physicist regarding the attitude of mainstream science to parapsychology.

7. Why decline requests for trials or research?
TWM’s primary aim is to provide a safe environmental service. Serious objections to allowing research by various interest groups include:
theft of Indigenous intellectual and cultural property, a long standing issue that has not yet been satisfactorily resolved (see 5. above).
the arbitrary use, by developed nations, of socially and ecologically destructive technologies which are threatening world stability and security.
the intention of certain governments to use WM for military purposes despite U.N. prohibition of the military or hostile use of such technologies.

Until progress towards transformation of business and political values becomes universal practice, the above policy will remain unchanged. If requested, TWM will help to avert weather disasters and demonstration trials as part of contractual obligations for drought mitigation or water supply augmentation will be the only exception to policy at this stage.

8. What WM services are provided?
The main services to be offered are drought mitigation or prevention, or rainfall and water supply augmentation. Other services are also available to any interested individual or organization. All enquiries are welcome. All applicants are secured by TWM’s-performance-related | money back guarantee.

9. What are the dangers of TWM services?
The danger is negligible relative to other military or industrial products and services currently in use. The technology is completely natural, non-polluting, non-toxic and capable of contributing much to environmental recovery and sustainable economic development.

Usually associated with this question is the concern that TWM endangers or creates negative atmospheric effects in other parts of the world. The short answer is, everything affects global weather. To single out one from an infinite number of contributing factors strains credibility. To put it in context, the global economy must avoid using fossil fuels, all air, land and sea transport cease functioning, etc., etc., before one can even begin to quantify the effects of WM. The whole system must be considered.

Admittedly the potential negative effects namely, weather warfare, are considerable. This is acknowledged by certain government | military | corporate groups who regard WM as a legitimate element of military strategy. One group refers to it as, “Owning the weather in 2025 AD”.

10. What are the benefits of TWM services?
Cloud seeding has already demonstrated some of the advantages of WM, but is restricted by cloud availability. Other emerging WM technologies are a long way from being market-ready.

TWM however, is capable of operating in any situation and has been modifying weather systems for more than a decade. This capability is available to all developing economies which are relatively more vulnerable than those in developed countries. The range of weather disasters that are generally experienced can be prevented or mitigated on a scale and in a manner that has not yet been achieved by other WM services.

The benefits to weather-dependent businesses such as agriculture, commodity markets, bulk water supply and hydro power generation are at least equal to those presently obtained through weather forecasting. The crucial difference is that TWM is able to produce weather events that were not anticipated by forecasting services and also to reverse or alter events that were already predicted. This does not diminish the valuable role of forecasting. It is intended to highlight the potential advantages and positive contribution that TWM can bring to sustainable development.

11. What are the socio-economic applications of your technique?
These have been partly covered elsewhere. As a general comment, advanced WM technology is capable of affecting the activities and lives of millions, if not billions, of people for good or ill. In economic terms, the effects worldwide can be conservatively measured in multiples of a hundred billion dollars.

Regarding the issue of legal liability. The “technique” is essentially natural and, compared with cloud seeding which injects particles into cloud systems, leaves no physical evidence of human intervention. The only distinctive signature is the timely and congruent nature of a weather event, as demonstrated during the America’s Cup projects as well as the New South Wales bushfires. The problem for observers | researchers is that of isolating the TWM component from a range of other possible causes. Acquiring tangible proof of a direct link between intent, action and outcome is basically a statistical exercise necessitating TWM input. (See 4.and 6. above)

How ironic that what may be a possible disadvantage in one context (eg. prove that the method works) may also become a distinct advantage in another (eg. prove that the method was used for weather warfare).

12. What are the military applications?
Environmental (geophysical) warfare is not a recent development. It has been the subject of serious research for at least several decades and practised for much longer. A 1957 report on the military potential of WM technology described it as becoming “a more important weapon than the atom bomb.” That prediction has interesting implications for TWM in particular.

Comprised of consciousness, energy | information fields and unlimited access to atmospheric resources, Indigenous WM is an incomparable “force multiplier”. It is seamlessly integrated into existing weather systems and unless one has prior knowledge of the intended event(s), it is difficult to distinguish modified phenomena from those derived from “random” natural processes. The current spate of global weather disasters illustrates its potential as the penultimate stealth weapon.

Another application, adapted to more precise surgical functions, is related to long distance Qi experiments in China with saline and glucose solutions, regarded as critical to the physiological functions of the human body. Demonstrations of structural changes of the test solutions, as indicated by their Raman spectra, were successful. What this means is that one can affect the well-being of any individual through the application of Qi and consciousness. As a reverse form of “non-local or distant healing” (see 3. above) it may be used to incapacitate key persons virtually anywhere in the world. An extreme example of this, from Maori esoteric lore, is the practice of makutu.

In other words, those in positions of power may be made directly and readily accountable for their actions. In terms of redefining a more equitable and healthier relationship between the powerful | wealthy and the disempowered | poor, such a strategy becomes a moral imperative if further global social and ecological degradation is to be prevented.

The above are examples of the weaponization of psi or psychic abilities generally known as “psychic warfare”. They reveal an extremely subtle and potent dimension of reality structuring that is not fully understood or utilized by any of the so-called “major powers”. A synthesis of the two applications creates a weapon with capabilities that far exceed those of most national or regional arsenals.

The attacks against the WTC and Pentagon, on 11 September 2001, have been cited as an example of “fourth generation warfare”. This concept may be further extended by the application of human consciousness interfacing with the quantum vacuum or Zero-Point field and manipulating natural forces. WM is just one facet of this revolutionary nonlinear weaponry. The probable scenario of future warfare will involve highly evolved individuals using advanced “low tech” methods with “high tech” capacities. Call it “fourth density” warfare.

Compared with conventional and nuclear armaments, investment in development and maintenance is relatively minimal but the economic and political leverage that may be obtained is enormous.

13. What limits are there to your method of long distance WM?
Theoretically, only those limits imposed by the atmosphere. In practical terms, there is a significant body of scientific evidence showing that the application of Qi (chi) by an accomplished practitioner of qigong has caused changes in the properties of water and other objects over distances of one thousand to ten thousand kilometres (see “long distance Qi experiments in China” 12. above).
Note: The changes were induced without using any artificial, external technology.

Relate this development to the TWM method and world wide WM coverage via a combination of computer | Internet | remote sensing technologies is a distinct possibility. This application has been successfully tested during the America’s Cup 2000 and 2003 series in Auckland. More recently, in December 2002, it was used to avert the imminent destruction by firestorms of the central suburbs of Sydney, NSW. (See 2. above).

Long distance (remote) WM enables changes to be made to local weather conditions within nation-states from outside their territorial borders. It is one factor that members of the World Trade Organization will need to consider regarding the negative effects of their “globalization” agenda on developing nations and indigenous peoples. Where the current planetary reality is one of rapid and unpredictable social, environmental crises and everything is inter-connected, the repercussions are guaranteed to be catastrophic.

14. What response have you had to your web site?
Overall, the response has been very encouraging. Many, who have a particular interest in scientific or Indigenous issues mentioned on the site, have requested further information and that has been a mutually productive and beneficial exercise.

It’s interesting to note that the majority of positive and supportive responses have been from overseas countries. In general, they seem to indicate a widespread acceptance of Indigenous knowledge systems as a valid source of information about the world in which we live.

15. Why do you call it “Indigenous” WM?
Primarily because the methodology is characteristic of Indigenous cultures that have managed to retain it despite the pervasive influence of Westernization. Perhaps, according to Dossey, it could be called “quantum” or “non-local” WM, in much the same way that Deepak Chopra’s “Quantum Healing” connotes traditional healing methods.

But the fact is that this form of WM is not publicly-accepted practice in Western(ized) societies, as deduced from negative experiences in communications with institutions in Aotearoa NZ, USA, Canada, and Australia. Each of these countries was a signatory to Agenda 21at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 and committed to supporting | empowering Indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, each has a history of European colonization and oppression of native inhabitants and to expect them to transcend collective prejudice was being too optimistic.

The UN and its agencies have displayed similar attitudes regarding the status of Indigenous peoples. One example is that most Indigenes with WM traditions have been excluded as signatories to the UN convention on the prohibition of military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.The historical reasons for this are explained here. Indigenous WM is therefore not subject to regulation by the UN or any of its members and may be freely used wherever and whenever it is desired or needed.

16. Any WM laws, regulations in New Zealand?
It is acknowledged that parts of Canada and the USA already have WM regulations in place. The situation in Aotearoa New Zealand is a little different and may have ramifications concerning the relationship between Indigenous peoples | First Nations and government in those countries as well.

Any law or regulation concerning WM must take into account the Treaty of Waitangi and the concept of tino rangatiratanga. Any action by central or local authorities to regulate Indigenous WM would be seen as one more attempt by non-indigenous Pakeha (European) to reinforce colonization and further limit Maori autonomy. In addition, according to at least one credible source, New Zealand Parliament | Government is “constitutionally illegal and has no further authority to govern”. That being the case, the only institutions with any legitimate claim to constitutional sovereignty are traditional indigenous (Maori) entities.

Therefore, any government claim to ownership and control of the atmosphere (as well as other natural resources) is illegitimate, lacks substance and will be contested. In comparison, TWM has an established track record and can demonstrate that it not only has a Treaty right but also the capacity to “own” and “control” atmospheric resources. It is significant that this is the only remaining major natural resource over which Maori are able to exercise tino rangatiratanga-without being compromised or marginalized, as is common practice, by Pakeha interest groups or government. In fact, as far as weather is concerned, the reverse applies.

It may be necessary, if government persists with its covert agenda of relegating Maori to the status of just one of several “ethnic minorities” instead of Treaty partner, to apply more forceful methods of “lobbying” including weather manipulation. Since government has no defence capability in this area (see also 12. above), it should consider very carefully the consequences of such a policy.

17. How does TWM compare with other types of alternative WM?
The difference between the TWM method and WM based on artificial, external technologies such as cloud seeding, Reich’s Cloudbuster, ELF, HAARP (not WM as claimed), etc., has already been mentioned earlier. In essence, it is analagous to the difference between quantum and mechanistic physics.
Regarding other Indigenous traditions. At a deeper level there is no difference, although outwardly in terms of observable customs, rituals or ceremonies, they may appear to be so.

18. Are there others who may be working on traditional WM methods?
There are numerous Indigenous cultures with traditional knowledge systems that are relatively intact and uncorrupted by scientific materialism. They already have, or are equally capable of developing WM methods like the TWM model. Included in this group are China, India, parts of Africa, the Americas and the Asia-Pacific region. All have long histories of practical research in and demonstration of psycho-spiritual abilities.

There is a danger however, that the rich potential of their highly sophisticated traditions is being subverted or colonized by Western business-military-political-scientific organizations. It is an established fact these entities have, either separately or in combination, pirated Indigenous intellectual | cultural resources and attempted to suppress potential threats to their drive for hegemony in the evolving global “knowledge economy”.

As part of its campaign to counter this devious and insidious conspiracy, TWM offers support to Indigenous peoples who may wish to revive | regenerate their WM traditions.

Published in News


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *