HAARP: The EU Parliment Website

Talk E

These folks sound like a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

From section B
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0%2F%2FEN

On 5 February 1998 Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament held a hearing the subject of which included HAARP. NATO and the US had been invited to send representatives, but chose not to do so. The Committee regrets the failure of the USA to send a representative to answer questions, or to use the opportunity to comment on the material submitted.(21)

HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is run jointly by the US Air Force and Navy, in conjunction with the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Similar experiments are also being conducted in Norway, probably in the Antarctic, as well as in the former Soviet Union.(22) HAARP is a research project using a ground based apparatus, an array of antennae each powered by its own transmitter, to heat up portions of ionosphere with powerful radio beams.(23) The energy generated heats up parts of the ionosphere; this results in holes in the ionosphere and produces artificial 'lenses'.

HAARP can be used for many purposes. Enormous quantities of energy can be controlled by manipulating the electrical characteristics of the atmosphere. If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy. HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a given area than any other conventional transmitter. The energy can also be aimed at a moving target which should constitute a potential anti-missile system.

The project would also allow better communications with submarines and manipulation of global weather patterns, but it is also possible to do the reverse, to disrupt communications. By manipulating the ionosphere one could block global communications while transmitting one's own. Another application is earth-penetrating, tomography, x-raying the earth several kilometres deep, to detect oil and gas fields, or underground military facilities. Over-the-horizon radar is another application, looking round the curvature of the earth for in-coming objects.

From the 1950s the USA conducted explosions of nuclear material in the Van Allen Belts(24) to investigate the effect of the electro-magnetic pulse generated by nuclear weapon explosions at these heights on radio communications and the operation of radar. This created new magnetic radiation belts which covered nearly the whole earth. The electrons travelled along magnetic lines of force and created an artificial Aurora Borealis above the North Pole. These military tests are liable to disrupt the Van Allen belt for a long period. The earth's magnetic field could be disrupted over large areas, which would obstruct radio communications. According to US scientists it could take hundreds of years for the Van Allen belt to return to normal. HAARP could result in changes in weather patterns. It could also influence whole ecosystems, especially in the sensitive Antarctic regions.

Another damaging consequence of HAARP is the occurrence of holes in the ionosphere caused by the powerful radio beams. The ionosphere protects us from incoming cosmic radiation. The hope is that the holes will fill again, but our experience of change in the ozone layer points in the other direction. This means substantial holes in the ionosphere that protects us.

With its far-reaching impact on the environment HAARP is a matter of global concern and we have to ask whether its advantages really outweigh the risks. The environmental impact and the ethical aspect must be closely examined before any further research and testing takes place. HAARP is a project of which the public is almost completely unaware, and this needs to be remedied.

HAARP has links with 50 years of intensive space research for military purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control the upper atmosphere and communications. This kind of research has to be regarded as a serious threat to the environment, with an incalculable impact on human life. Even now nobody knows what impact HAARP may have. We have to beat down the wall of secrecy around military research, and set up the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects, and parliamentary control.

newmug

Whats the CT? I dont see how anyone would benefit from any harm that HAARP does?

So why when HAARP is a super secret weapon and all do they refer to it here?

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

So why when HAARP is a super secret weapon and all do they refer to it here?

Sounds like youve got a theory..

Spit it out

.:rolleyes:

Talk E

newmug wrote: »

Whats the CT? I dont see how anyone would benefit from any harm that HAARP does?

A few would benefit. There are always beneficiaries of war.

newmug

Talk E wrote: »

A few would benefit. There are always beneficiaries of war.

Yea but what exactly is the conspiracy?

Talk E

newmug wrote: »

Yea but what exactly is the conspiracy?

Many people deny HARRPs capabilities and that it is a weapon. I think this somewhat proves otherwise, dont you ?

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

Sounds like youve got a theory..

Spit it out

.:rolleyes:

No, I'm asking you how your theory is consistent when they let information about their evil secret weapon be freely available.

So if this "proves HARRPs capabilities and that it is a weapon" why is it on their website?

newmug

Talk E wrote: »

Many people deny HARRPs capabilities and that it is a weapon. I think this somewhat proves otherwise, dont you ?

No It proves some people in Brussells are worried it may be affecting the climate. They're probably right too, messing with the atmosphere usually does that. How exactly could thiat be used as a weapon? How could they kill some people and not others?

Talk E

newmug wrote: »

No It proves some people in Brussells are worried it may be affecting the climate. They're probably right too, messing with the atmosphere usually does that. How exactly could thiat be used as a weapon? How could they kill some people and not others?

You obviously didn't read the article, no offense, but I not gonna waste my time explaining it when it's written there.

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

No, I'm asking you how your theory is consistent when they let information about their evil secret weapon be freely available.

So if this "proves HARRPs capabilities and that it is a weapon" why is it on their website?

That's all you got ?

Now that the secret evil weapon is not so secret and more exposed, my theory is inconsistent ?

lol

So, as long as HAARP remains a secret and evil, you will consider my theory to be consistent ?

Great

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

That's all you got ?

Now that the secret evil weapon is not so secret and more exposed, my theory is inconsistent ?

lol

So, as long as HAARP remains a secret and evil, you will consider my theory to be consistent ?

Great

No, if your theory is consistent then surely they would be suppressing any knowledge or information about it. Or at the very very least not put information (that in your words, proves HAARP is a weapon) on their publicly accessible website.
So why in your theory is this information there?

And no, it's not all I got. I would explain how all of the crap that's claimed about HAARP is nonsense and unsupported, but you've no interest in alternative explanations than yours.

clever_name

Talk E wrote: »

Many people deny HARRPs capabilities and that it is a weapon. I think this somewhat proves otherwise, dont you ?

Many people would would deny the sun is a weapon. Does this prove it is a weapon?

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

No, if your theory is consistent then surely they would be suppressing any knowledge or information about it. Or at the very very least not put information (that in your words, proves HAARP is a weapon) on their publicly accessible website.
So why in your theory is this information there?

Dont sweat the small stuff, let's just be thankful the information is getting out there.

King Mob wrote: »

And no, it's not all I got. I would explain how all of the crap that's claimed about HAARP is nonsense and unsupported, but you've no interest in alternative explanations than yours.

I have interest in hearing the truth.
Are you suggesting the folks over at the EU parliament have it wrong ?

Talk E

clever_name wrote: »

Many people would would deny the sun is a weapon. Does this prove it is a weapon?

I said "somewhat" :rolleyes:

newmug

newmug wrote: »

No It proves some people in Brussells are worried it may be affecting the climate. They're probably right too, messing with the atmosphere usually does that. How exactly could thiat be used as a weapon? How could they kill some people and not others?

Talk E wrote: »

You obviously didn't read the article, no offense, but I not gonna waste my time explaining it when it's written there.

Its you who is wasting my time. You didnt have the whole article there, you edited it to include the parts about manipulating communications etc. AFTER I posted my post. I was going to engage in a friendly, logcal debate with you, but if you're going to pull stunts like that, nobody will give credance to anything you say.

Talk E

newmug wrote: »

Its you who is wasting my time. You didnt have the whole article there, you edited it to include the parts about manipulating communications etc. AFTER I posted my post. I was going to engage in a friendly, logcal debate with you, but if you're going to pull stunts like that, nobody will give credance to anything you say.

But you made this reply 35 mins after I edited.

No It proves some people in Brussells are worried it may be affecting the climate. They're probably right too, messing with the atmosphere usually does that. How exactly could thiat be used as a weapon? How could they kill some people and not others?

Anyway, all's not lost, we can still discuss it if you like.

So, since you seen the edit, do you see how it can be used as a weapon ?

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

Dont sweat the small stuff, let's just be thankful the information is getting out there.

So you are unable to account for this gap in your theory and then ignoring it?
So much for:

Talk E wrote: »

I have interest in hearing the truth.

Talk E wrote: »

Are you suggesting the folks over at the EU parliament have it wrong ?

Yes, who ever wrote that particular paragraph was using some very shoddy reasoning and none of the claims about HAARP are supported by anything.
To illustrate this can you show any sources for any of the claims made against HAARP?

clever_name

Talk E wrote: »

I said "somewhat" :rolleyes:

Correct you did, allow me to rephrase the question.

Many people would would deny the sun is a weapon. Does this "somewhat" prove it is a weapon?

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

So you are unable to account for this gap in your theory and then ignoring it?
So much for:



Yes, who ever wrote that particular paragraph was using some very shoddy reasoning and none of the claims about HAARP are supported by anything.
To illustrate this can you show any sources for any of the claims made against HAARP?

I didn't manage to get my hands on any top secret government projects regarding the HAARP facilities or their effects on the environment if that's what you're asking.

Talk E

clever_name wrote: »

Correct you did, allow me to rephrase the question.

Many people would would deny the sun is a weapon. Does this "somewhat" prove it is a weapon?

Question doesn't make sense. You should ask this really...

Many people would would deny the sun is a weapon but now some officials in the EU parliament are concerned that it is a weapon, they have documented it and posted it on a website ?

Does it prove it ? No, does it somewhat prove it ? In my opinion, yes.

Although I already know it to be fact, This puts it in the realm of probable even for the most hardened skeptic. IMO

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

I didn't manage to get my hands on any top secret government projects regarding the HAARP facilities or their effects on the environment if that's what you're asking.

So then what is the writer of the paragraph in question basing the claims about HAARP on?
They seem to back up what they can about the upper atmosphere nuclear tests, but oddly seems to lack such references for the HAARP stuff.

And since you've ignored the point I assume you agree that you've a gap in your theory you can't adequately explain?
Funny how having a "interest in hearing the truth" includes ignoring stuff you don't like.

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

So then what is the writer of the paragraph in question basing the claims about HAARP on?
They seem to back up what they can about the upper atmosphere nuclear tests, but oddly seems to lack such references for the HAARP stuff.

And since you've ignored the point I assume you agree that you've a gap in your theory you can't adequately explain?
Funny how having a "interest in hearing the truth" includes ignoring stuff you don't like.

I can answer that because I have read other parts of the document other that the part I pasted here.

This report isnt a result of one persons opinion on HARRP as you seem to think it is.

At the request of the Conference of Committee Chairmen, the President, at the sitting of 15 November 1996, announced that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy had been authorised to submit a report on the matter.
At its meeting of 19 November 1996 the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy appointed Mrs Maj Britt Theorin rapporteur.
At the sitting of 19 June 1998 the President of Parliament announced that this report would be drawn up, pursuant to the Hughes Procedure, by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection.
The draft report was considered by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy at its meetings of 5 February, 29 June, 21 July, 3, 23 and 28 September, 13, 27 and 29 October 1998 and 4 and 5 January 1999, and by the Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament at its meetings of 5 February and 3 and 23 September 1998.
At the last meeting the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy adopted the motion for a resolution by 28 votes to none with one abstention.
The following took part in the vote: Spencer, chairman; Theorin, rapporteur; Aelvoet, AndréLéonard, Barón-Crespo, Bertens, Bianco, Burenstam Linder, Carnero González, Carrozzo (for Colajanni), Dillen, Dupuis, Gahrton, Goerens (for Cars), Graziani, Günther (for Gomolka), Lalumière, Lambrias, Pack (for Habsburg), Pettinari (for Imbeni pursuant to Rule 138(2), Piha, Rinsche, Sakellariou, Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Schroedter (for M. Cohn-Bendit), Schwaiger (for Mme Lenz), Speciale, Swoboda (for Mme Hoff), Tindemans, Titley and Truscott.
The opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection is attached.
The report was tabled on 14 January 1999.
The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant partsession.

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

I can answer that because I have read other parts of the document other that the part I pasted here.

This report isnt a result of one persons opinion on HARRP as you seem to think it is.

So then what is the committee basing their claims on? And how do you know they are accurate?

And wow that's a lot of government officals who seem all for telling everyone about their secret weapon.

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

So then what is the committee basing their claims on? And how do you know they are accurate?

Common sense. It usually is accurate. I'm guessing since they are gov officials, they probably have inside information.

King Mob wrote: »

And wow that's a lot of government officals who seem all for telling everyone about their secret weapon.

Well, it's not their weapon they are telling people about.

EDIT:

You forgot to call it "evil"

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

Common sense. It usually is accurate.

Ah well then, if it's common sense, no need for them to back up the claims.

But then what about the common sense conclusion that the Sun does everything HAARP does, just more often, more powerfully over a wider area and for longer...

Talk E wrote: »

Well, it's not their weapon they are telling people about.

EDIT:

You forgot to call it "evil"

Oh so you don't believe in a global conspiracy then?

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

Ah well then, if it's common sense, no need for them to back up the claims.

But then what about the common sense conclusion that the Sun does everything HAARP does, just more often, more powerfully over a wider area and for longer...

I edited last post.

Oh so you don't believe in a global conspiracy then?

Not relevant.

33

King Mob wrote: »

No, if your theory is consistent then surely they would be suppressing any knowledge or information about it. Or at the very very least not put information (that in your words, proves HAARP is a weapon) on their publicly accessible website.
So why in your theory is this information there?

And no, it's not all I got. I would explain how all of the crap that's claimed about HAARP is nonsense and unsupported, but you've no interest in alternative explanations than yours.

Well maybe you should do what the US and NATO failed to do if you can explain how its all crap.

"On 5 February 1998 Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament held a hearing the subject of which included HAARP. NATO and the US had been invited to send representatives, but chose not to do so. The Committee regrets the failure of the USA to send a representative to answer questions, or to use the opportunity to comment on the material submitted"

Notice it was "Security and Disarmament hearing", so you claim you can prove its all crap and nonsense, give it a try.

I predict you will fail.

33

33 wrote: »

Well maybe you should do what the US and NATO failed to do if you can explain how its all crap.

"On 5 February 1998 Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament held a hearing the subject of which included HAARP. NATO and the US had been invited to send representatives, but chose not to do so. The Committee regrets the failure of the USA to send a representative to answer questions, or to use the opportunity to comment on the material submitted"

Notice it was "Security and Disarmament hearing", so you claim you can prove its all crap and nonsense, give it a try.

I predict you will fail.

Ok, the sun heats the ionosphere more powerfully, more often, over a wider area and for longer...

Now can you show me what they are basing their claims on?
Can you explain why they're releasing evidence of their super secret weapon on their website?

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

Not relevant.

What's not relevant and why is it not relevant?

Just claiming it's common sense doesn't equal evidence or a good source for a claim.

And if you are claiming that they are releasing this evidence because they don't own HAARP you cannot also claim HAARP is a part of a global government conspiracy.

33

King Mob wrote: »

So then what is the committee basing their claims on? And how do you know they are accurate?

And wow that's a lot of government officals who seem all for telling everyone about their secret weapon.

How do you know they are not accurate?, who are the committee?, what level of knowledge above yours would or could they be privvy to?, what would raise their suspicions?

Secret weapon, it's there for all to see, so can't be hidden, but exactly what it does and does not do, can and is hidden, thus the US and NATO not sending a couple of suits to explain how harmless it is and how it's activities can in no way cause damage or harm of any sort, 2 or 3 plane tickets, a couple of hotel rooms, meals, drinks and some paper wouldnt put much of a dent in the US/NATO budget.

So why the secrecy?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/30/content_6635065.htm

Pentagon earmarks $17.5 bln for secret military research, development

2007-08-30 23:13:48

WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 (Xinhua) -- The Pentagon is expected to spend 17.5 billion U.S. dollars in secret military research and development programs in the next fiscal year starting Oct. 1, the Defense News reported on Thursday.

The expenditure will mark the Pentagon's largest outlay in such secret programs to date, according to the report.

In all, the secret programs will comprise 23 percent of the 75.1 billion dollars the Pentagon plans to spend on all research and development projects in the fiscal year 2008.

Spending on secret research and development is only part of the "black budget" the Pentagon has requested for 2008. The military also wants 14.4 billion dollars for buying classified weapons and other equipment.

So 17.5+14.4=31.9 billion or $31,900,000,000 in short scale, and all you have to do is get the link showing where and when this money was spent.


That was then, this is now.

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/174612.html

Secret hike in US military budget amid cuts

Among the casualties were the Environmental Protection Agency, which took a $1.6 billion hit. Spending on healthcare was also slashed, including over $1 billion from funds to combat HIV/AIDS, and $600 million for community health centers. Hundreds of millions were cut from a range of education programs, and hundreds of millions more from research on science and energy.

Despite the urgent need for these dramatic cuts, defense spending rose to $513 billion, up from $508 billion in fiscal year 2010, according to a summary of the measure released by the House of Representatives and confirmed by Senate Democrats.

33

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, the sun heats the ionosphere more powerfully, more often, over a wider area and for longer...

Now can you show me what they are basing their claims on?
Can you explain why they're releasing evidence of their super secret weapon on their website?

You said you could explain it was all crap, I'll quote what you said,

"And no, it's not all I got. I would explain how all of the crap that's claimed about HAARP is nonsense and unsupported, but you've no interest in alternative explanations than yours."

I'm all ears and willing to take a look at how you will explain how it is all crap.

I asked you to simply back up what you said you could, but you respond with a question.

Is the sun and haarp the same, do they give out the same properties, one is below the ionosphere and one is above, so how are they compareable.

Just please answer my first question without another question, after you answer it we can move forward with this interesting discussion, so rather than distract, we'll take it step by step and see where it leads.

33

33 wrote: »

You said you could explain it was all crap, I'll quote what you said,

"And no, it's not all I got. I would explain how all of the crap that's claimed about HAARP is nonsense and unsupported, but you've no interest in alternative explanations than yours."

I'm all ears and willing to take a look at how you will explain how it is all crap.

1. It is nonsense because of what I said about the Sun.
2. It is unsupported, as evidenced by the fact neither you, Talk E or the writer of the section have supplied any sources for any of the claims.

33 wrote: »

I asked you to simply back up what you said you could, but you respond with a question.

No, I gave you the answer, then asked follow up questions, which ironically you answered with odd, disjointed and not very coherent questions.

33 wrote: »

Is the sun and haarp the same, do they give out the same properties, one is below the ionosphere and one is above, so how are they compareable.

You're right, they aren't comparable.
One is several orders of magnitude more powerful and on all the time and effects large sections of the Earth at a time.
And yes they do have some of the same properties, the Sun emits radio waves at the same frequencies as HAARP (among a lot of other stuff) only at much higher power.

Now Haarp heats up sections of the ionosphere.
What do you imagine the Sun does while it shines on the same section?

Talk E

If HAARP did exactly what the sun does, wouldnt that be kinda dangerous. Efectively that would be like having 2 suns.
Having the power of the sun would be a powerful weapon.:D

Thanks for your help mob

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

If HAARP did exactly what the sun does, wouldnt that be kinda dangerous. Efectively that would be like having 2 suns.
Having the power of the sun would be a powerful weapon.:D

Thanks for your help mob

Ah so deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying then?
Part of this "interest in the truth" you were going on about?

But just in case you've just mis-read my post here's some of the important bits:

You're right, they aren't comparable.
One is several orders of magnitude more powerful and on all the time and effects large sections of the Earth at a time.
And yes they do have some of the same properties, the Sun emits radio waves at the same frequencies as HAARP (among a lot of other stuff) only at much higher power.

33

King Mob wrote: »

1. It is nonsense because of what I said about the Sun.
2. It is unsupported, as evidenced by the fact neither you, Talk E or the writer of the section have supplied any sources for any of the claims.


No, I gave you the answer, then asked follow up questions, which ironically you answered with odd, disjointed and not very coherent questions.


You're right, they aren't comparable.
One is several orders of magnitude more powerful and on all the time and effects large sections of the Earth at a time.
And yes they do have some of the same properties, the Sun emits radio waves at the same frequencies as HAARP (among a lot of other stuff) only at much higher power.

Now Haarp heats up sections of the ionosphere.
What do you imagine the Sun does while it shines on the same section?

But doesnt the atmosphere protect us from the harmful qualities of the sun, can the sun's radio waves be fine tuned or alterered by man?, can haarps?, the sun is widespread, harp is directional.
I can sit in the sun and enjoy its warmth and general good feeling it gives, should I take that wide range of light and with a magnifying glass direct it onto my forehead I would not enjoy the suns qualities so much as my forehead sizzles.


You said this:

""And no, it's not all I got. I would explain how all of the crap that's claimed about HAARP is nonsense and unsupported, but you've no interest in alternative explanations than yours."

I asked you to expand and explain how its all crap

And this is your answer

"Ok, the sun heats the ionosphere more powerfully, more often, over a wider area and for longer..."

Thats it?, so you cant show its crap yet keep claiming it is, I dont know so I wont say I do, but either do you and the USA/NATO aint in any hurry to fill us in with details that I thought you may have possessed going by your statement, but obviously you don't, so I'd suggest quit saying you can show something when you and I know you simply cant.

Also would you 100% disagree that haarp could at least have the capacity to create either localised high or low pressure in the atmosphere, which in turn would lead to a ripple type effect and cause unnatural weather somewhere downstream.

Nobody here knows haarps abilities, so to say you can show it is crap was a bit foolish tbh.

33

33 wrote: »

But doesnt the atmosphere protect us from the harmful qualities of the sun, can the sun's radio waves be fine tuned or alterered by man?, can haarps?, the sun is widespread, harp is directional.
I can sit in the sun and enjoy its warmth and general good feeling it gives, should I take that wide range of light and with a magnifying glass direct it onto my forehead I would not enjoy the suns qualities so much as my forehead sizzles.

Different parts of the atmosphere absorb/deflect different types of radiation at different rates and at different times.
The radio waves emitted by HAARP can only effect the charged particles in the ionosphere.
Similarly the solar wind creates the ionosphere and the radiowaves emitted by the Sun only effect those particles.
The Sun's radio waves cannot be altered by man, because science isn't magic and isn't what you've learned from movies.

33 wrote: »

You said this:

""And no, it's not all I got. I would explain how all of the crap that's claimed about HAARP is nonsense and unsupported, but you've no interest in alternative explanations than yours."

I asked you to expand and explain how its all crap

And this is your answer

"Ok, the sun heats the ionosphere more powerfully, more often, over a wider area and for longer..."

Thats it?, so you cant show its crap yet keep claiming it is, I dont know so I wont say I do, but either do you and the USA/NATO aint in any hurry to fill us in with details that I thought you may have possessed going by your statement, but obviously you don't, so I'd suggest quit saying you can show something when you and I know you simply cant.

If what the passage is saying is true and HAARP creates holes in the ionosphere that lets in radiation, then the Sun has been doing the same thing, only more so and has been doing so for millions of years.
And since the ionosphere hasn't been blown away it's safe to say that bit of the passage is false.
Furthermore any effects HAARP has on the ionosphere would be undone as soon as the Sun comes up and both alters the ionosphere and bombards it with it's own radio waves.

Now can you please point out what exactly is wrong with this statement?

33 wrote: »

Also would you 100% disagree that haarp could at least have the capacity to create either localised high or low pressure in the atmosphere, which in turn would lead to a ripple type effect and cause unnatural weather somewhere downstream.

Yes I would disagree, because the Ionosphere is far far above the part of the atmosphere that weather forms in. In fact at that altitude there's barely any air to speak of, so even if HAARP could effect air pressure, the change would be unnoticeably small and take quite a while to effect large scale weather and of course would do so totally randomly.
The government would be better off getting a soldier to flap his arms to change the weather.

33 wrote: »

Nobody here knows haarps abilities, so to say you can show it is crap was a bit foolish tbh.

No, we do know HAARP's abilities, you are just ignoring that so you can posit ridiculous things to suit your world view.

Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean others don't. And it doesn't give you license to make nonsense up to plug the gap.

33

King Mob wrote: »

Different parts of the atmosphere absorb/deflect different types of radiation at different rates and at different times.
The radio waves emitted by HAARP can only effect the charged particles in the ionosphere.
Similarly the solar wind creates the ionosphere and the radiowaves emitted by the Sun only effect those particles.
The Sun's radio waves cannot be altered by man, because science isn't magic and isn't what you've learned from movies.


If what the passage is saying is true and HAARP creates holes in the ionosphere that lets in radiation, then the Sun has been doing the same thing, only more so and has been doing so for millions of years.
And since the ionosphere hasn't been blown away it's safe to say that bit of the passage is false.
Furthermore any effects HAARP has on the ionosphere would be undone as soon as the Sun comes up and both alters the ionosphere and bombards it with it's own radio waves.

Now can you please point out what exactly is wrong with this statement?

33 wrote: »

Also would you 100% disagree that haarp could at least have the capacity to create either localised high or low pressure in the atmosphere, which in turn would lead to a ripple type effect and cause unnatural weather somewhere downstream.

33 wrote: »

Yes, because the Ionosphere is far far above the part of the atmosphere that weather forms in. In fact at that altitude there's barely any air to speak of, so even if HAARP could effect air pressure, the change would be unnoticeably small and take quite a while to effect large scale weather and of course would do so totally randomly.
The government would be better off getting a soldier to flap his arms to change the weather.

No, we do know HAARP's abilities, you are just ignoring that so you can posit ridiculous things to suit your world view.

Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean others don't. And it doesn't give you license to make nonsense up to plug the gap.

But you don't!, you say
"The government would be better off getting a soldier to flap his arms to change the weather"

Maybe have a read of this and swallow some pride, the changes would be unnoticable you claim.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/educators/earthquakes.html

There is some intriguing research about whether large earthquakes are associated with ionospheric changes caused by electromagnetic signals released by the crushing of rock crystalline structures. If so, then this might be a mechanism for major earthquake prediction. One of the primary researchers in this area is Friedemann Freund, of NASA Ames. He has written several articles introducing the concept of ionospheric and atmospheric changes as earthquake precursors:

or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_control#Future_aspirations

or this

http://www.ips.gov.au/IPSHosted/INAG/uag-104/text/zaalov.html
To show the potential of the model for ionospheric reconstruction it is instructive to look at the calculated distribution of foF2 for selected universal times. This is done in this section.


Also have a read of this and you may begin to understand that ionosphere and weather are more connected than you would like to admit.

I wont expect you to click or read anything I just posted, but if you did you may come to know that what you think is true is not true, and please don't ask any questions that are covered in any of the links provided.
You say ionosphere and weather are not connected or that a soldier flapping his arms would have a greater effect, your so wrong.
Back to the drawing board for you.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm

33

33 wrote: »

But you don't!, you say
"The government would be better off getting a soldier to flap his arms to change the weather"

Maybe have a read of this and swallow some pride, the changes would be unnoticable you claim.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/educators/earthquakes.html

There is some intriguing research about whether large earthquakes are associated with ionospheric changes caused by electromagnetic signals released by the crushing of rock crystalline structures. If so, then this might be a mechanism for major earthquake prediction. One of the primary researchers in this area is Friedemann Freund, of NASA Ames. He has written several articles introducing the concept of ionospheric and atmospheric changes as earthquake precursors:

or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_control#Future_aspirations

or this

http://www.ips.gov.au/IPSHosted/INAG/uag-104/text/zaalov.html
To show the potential of the model for ionospheric reconstruction it is instructive to look at the calculated distribution of foF2 for selected universal times. This is done in this section.


Also have a read of this and you may begin to understand that ionosphere and weather are more connected than you would like to admit.

I wont expect you to click or read anything I just posted, but if you did you may come to know that what you think is true is not true, and please don't ask any questions that are covered in any of the links provided.
You say ionosphere and weather are not connected or that a soldier flapping his arms would have a greater effect, your so wrong.
Back to the drawing board for you.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm

So a bunch of irrelevant links which do not support any of the claims in the original passage, none of which link to HAARP, none of which answer or address any of my points or questions.

Also just to point out this one: http://www.ips.gov.au/IPSHosted/INAG/uag-104/text/zaalov.html
Is referring to "weather" in the ionosphere not weather down here that we experience like rain and storms etc.
Though I like how you took a random sentence and diagram and posted them as if you understood it and it supported you position.

So if you want to to try having an actual discussion, my points are still there waiting for you to address them. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Monty Burnz

Talk E -

I don't think you'll find that the 'report' you linked to is any sort of proof of HAARP as a secret superweapon. Having a quick sconce at it, it looks like one MEP in 1995 raised a question about the existence and/or potential use of environmental weapons or things that could be used as such (like HAARP). A committee looked into it, and came up with some recommendations for resolutions. It also asked for the potential consequences of the use of HAARP to be investigated.

That's all. Nothing is proven here. And I would remind you that Dana and various other loons from various countries have been MEPs - being an MEP does not make you correct or special, or insightful.

I'm not saying that it's impossible that HAARP could be used as a weapon, but it does seem to be the explanation trotted out by some CTers for just about every natural and unnatural disaster going these days, with no explanation or understanding of a mechanism for how it might cause these episodes.

And, oddly enough, in spite of having this superweapon available for many years, we hear nothing about it actually being deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else - an oddity that may require some explaining.

Monty Burnz

33 wrote: »

Maybe have a read of this and swallow some pride, the changes would be unnoticable you claim.

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/educators/earthquakes.html

There is some intriguing research about whether large earthquakes are associated with ionospheric changes caused by electromagnetic signals released by the crushing of rock crystalline structures. If so, then this might be a mechanism for major earthquake prediction. One of the primary researchers in this area is Friedemann Freund, of NASA Ames. He has written several articles introducing the concept of ionospheric and atmospheric changes as earthquake precursors:

Um...you are confusing cause and effect here. This research seems to indicate that the the crushing of rocks in the run-up to and during earthquakes creates electromagnetic signals that interfere with the ionosphere. It's not the case that the ionosphere sends signals that crush the rocks and cause earthquakes.

It's a bit like pointing to research indicating that people put up their umbrellas when it rains and claiming that people are causing rain by putting up their umbrellas!

Monty Burnz

33 wrote: »

or this

http://www.ips.gov.au/IPSHosted/INAG/uag-104/text/zaalov.html
To show the potential of the model for ionospheric reconstruction it is instructive to look at the calculated distribution of foF2 for selected universal times. This is done in this section.

I'm not sure why you linked to this - it only relates to 'weather' in the ionosphere, not to weather in the lower atmosphere.

EMPIRICAL MODEL USAGE IN IONOSPHERIC WEATHER MONITORING

33

King Mob wrote: »

So a bunch of irrelevant links which do not support any of the claims in the original passage, none of which link to HAARP, none of which answer or address any of my points or questions.

Also just to point out this one: http://www.ips.gov.au/IPSHosted/INAG/uag-104/text/zaalov.html
Is referring to "weather" in the ionosphere not weather down here that we experience like rain and storms etc.
Though I like how you took a random sentence and diagram and posted them as if you understood it and it supported you position.

So if you want to to try having an actual discussion, my points are still there waiting for you to address them. I'm not going to hold my breath though.

Irrelevent only if you don't understand where I was leading to, let me introduce you to a sample of connections, if you still refute it, take it up with NASA. Now read and learn.

The effect of the ionosphere on weather below is relatively unknown, but it would be logical to think that any interference with it would alter the weather below.

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/01/global-warming-an-effect-of-weather-manipulation/

The ionosphere retains the globes warmth and protects the planet from the suns solar flares – variations on any point of the ionosphere can severely affect the weather.

However, more worryingly, the facilities have an active capability to superheat specific points of the ionosphere, creating holes or incisions, which then allow solar flares to enter the atmosphere – thus significantly affecting weather conditions below.

Computer models obviously focused on the ionosphere, which acts as a filter for the solar radiations to reach the earth. If one can manipulate and control the filter, it becomes a potential source of massive weather modification. That is what the computer simulation models found. Controlling the ionosphere potentially allows weather control. The algorithmic variation of ionosphere can create the magic in a massive scale.



Heres another irelevent link that you might like to ignore.

http://www.universetoday.com/611/connection-found-between-the-earth-and-space-weather/

Researchers have found a connection between weather here on Earth, and the weather in space. The connection comes from the ionosphere, a high-altitude region of the Earth’s atmosphere formed by solar X-rays and ultraviolet light. NASA satellites found that regions of the ionosphere become more dense above areas of thunderstorm activity in the lower atmosphere. This is a surprising discovery because the ionosphere and the lower atmosphere are separated by hundreds of kilometres.


So it seems your wrong, again.

33

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Um...you are confusing cause and effect here. This research seems to indicate that the the crushing of rocks in the run-up to and during earthquakes creates electromagnetic signals that interfere with the ionosphere. It's not the case that the ionosphere sends signals that crush the rocks and cause earthquakes.

It's a bit like pointing to research indicating that people put up their umbrellas when it rains and claiming that people are causing rain by putting up their umbrellas!

No I wasn't confusing anything, maybe I just didn't go too deep into it, what I was showing was that crushing rocks can affect the ionosphere, which is so far up, so why does kingmob think that HAARP cannot, my link above shows the link between space weather and our weather.

So I am saying it's possible that HAARP can affect the ionosphere, which in turn can affect our weather patterns here on earth.

33

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not sure why you linked to this - it only relates to 'weather' in the ionosphere, not to weather in the lower atmosphere.

Sorry as I said I didn't make myself clear.

http://www.universetoday.com/611/connection-found-between-the-earth-and-space-weather/
Connection Found Between the Earth and Space Weather

33

33 wrote: »

Irrelevent only if you don't understand where I was leading to, let me introduce you to a sample of connections, if you still refute it, take it up with NASA. Now read and learn.

You mean like you you misunderstood about the article about weather in the ionosphere?

And I'm not refuting anything by NASA, I'm refuting your silly misinterpretations and fictional connections.

33 wrote: »

The ionosphere retains the globes warmth and protects the planet from the suns solar flares – variations on any point of the ionosphere can severely affect the weather.

However, more worryingly, the facilities have an active capability to superheat specific points of the ionosphere, creating holes or incisions, which then allow solar flares to enter the atmosphere – thus significantly affecting weather conditions below.

The Ionosphere doesn't retain the warmth in the atmosphere and it doesn't protect against everything emitted from the Sun and doesn't entirely protect against the parts of solar flares it does effect.

HAARP does not "create holes or incisions" because that's not how it or the atmosphere works and even if it did such holes would not "allow solar flares to enter the atmosphere" because that's not how solar flares work either.
Seriously, is the entirety of your knowledge of physics based on bad sci fi?

33 wrote: »

Heres another irelevent link that you might like to ignore.

http://www.universetoday.com/611/connection-found-between-the-earth-and-space-weather/

Researchers have found a connection between weather here on Earth, and the weather in space. The connection comes from the ionosphere, a high-altitude region of the Earth’s atmosphere formed by solar X-rays and ultraviolet light. NASA satellites found that regions of the ionosphere become more dense above areas of thunderstorm activity in the lower atmosphere. This is a surprising discovery because the ionosphere and the lower atmosphere are separated by hundreds of kilometres.

So it seems your wrong, again.

So taking it just from the section you've posted it says that the Ionosphere is more dense in areas above thunderstorms.
But you're also saying that HAARP controls the weather through creating holes and incisions.
These two things aren't compatible.

And then if you actually read the article beyond what you take out of context to support your silly theory you'd find they are discussing how weather down here effects the ionosphere, not the other way round.

Researchers discovered that tides of air generated by intense thunderstorm activity over South America, Africa and Southeast Asia were altering the structure of the ionosphere.

So again you've made the same silly mistake as illustrated by Monty's umbrella example.

And remember these are all tangents you're introducing rather than addressing the central points I've made.

Talk E

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Talk E -

I don't think you'll find that the 'report' you linked to is any sort of proof of HAARP as a secret superweapon. Having a quick sconce at it, it looks like one MEP in 1995 raised a question about the existence and/or potential use of environmental weapons or things that could be used as such (like HAARP). A committee looked into it, and came up with some recommendations for resolutions. It also asked for the potential consequences of the use of HAARP to be investigated.

That's all. Nothing is proven here. And I would remind you that Dana and various other loons from various countries have been MEPs - being an MEP does not make you correct or special, or insightful.

I'm not saying that it's impossible that HAARP could be used as a weapon, but it does seem to be the explanation trotted out by some CTers for just about every natural and unnatural disaster going these days, with no explanation or understanding of a mechanism for how it might cause these episodes.

And, oddly enough, in spite of having this superweapon available for many years, we hear nothing about it actually being deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else - an oddity that may require some explaining.

I stated that it was "somewhat proof imo", no definitive proof for all.
During your quick sconce did you miss the following ?

The draft report was considered by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy at its meetings of 5 February, 29 June, 21 July, 3, 23 and 28 September, 13, 27 and 29 October 1998 and 4 and 5



At the last meeting the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy adopted the motion for a resolution by 28 votes to none with one abstention.


The opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection is attached.

So the article is the opinion of a whole committee, no some; loon. As for the committee having special insight, I am guessing they did. This report was 1999 when most didn't even know about the existance of HAARP.

So, this isn't definitive proof but it suggests this committee knew the dangers of HARRP a long 20 years ago. You must agree with that ?!?

Talk E

Talk E wrote: »

I stated that it was "somewhat proof imo", no definitive proof for all.
During your quick sconce did you miss the following ?
So the article is the opinion of a whole committee, no some; loon. As for the committee having special insight, I am guessing they did. This report was 1999 when most didn't even know about the existance of HAARP.

So, this isn't definitive proof but it suggests this committee knew the dangers of HARRP a long 20 years ago. You must agree with that ?!?

Actually the part of the article you posted was written by one person, who clearly had a poor grasp on the physics. It was brought up in a committee meeting and the committee voted that the "potential dangers" of HAARP should be investigated.
So it could also suggest that the committee, lacking a working knowledge of physics was swayed by the bad science presented in the passage, just as you were.

So saying that the article is the opinion of all the committee isn't the full truth. Also I like how you are implying that HAARP was a secret at one stage.

So again what, besides the ill informed claims of the person writing the passage, supported the "dangers" of HAARP? Or do you feel that politicians are trustworthy enough to believe without evidence?

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

Actually the part of the article you posted was written by one person, who clearly had a poor grasp on the physics. It was brought up in a committee meeting and the committee voted that the "potential dangers" of HAARP should be investigated.
So it could also suggest that the committee, lacking a working knowledge of physics was swayed by the bad science presented in the passage, just as you were.

So saying that the article is the opinion of all the committee isn't the full truth. Also I like how you are implying that HAARP was a secret at one stage.

So again what, besides the ill informed claims of the person writing the passage, supported the "dangers" of HAARP? Or do you feel that politicians are trustworthy enough to believe without evidence?

The opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection is attached.

We don't know they didn't have evidence.

I didn't say it was secret, it might have been.

I did say few people knew about HAARP, few still know.

Monty Burnz

Talk E wrote: »

During your quick sconce did you miss the following ?

Nope.

Talk E wrote: »

So, this isn't definitive proof but it suggests this committee knew the dangers of HARRP a long 20 years ago. You must agree with that ?!?

Nope.:)

Talk E

Actually the section you quoted from was from section B: the Explanatory Statement which was included in the tabled motion by Mrs Rehn Rouva so it was either written by her or complied by someone then given to her. Either way whoever wrote it still had a poor grasp of physics.
The actual opinion of the committee is

11. Regards the US military ionospheric manipulation system, HAARP, based in Alaska, which is only a part of the development and deployment of electromagnetic weaponry for both external and internal security use, as an example of the most serious emerging military threat to the global environment and human health, as it seeks to interfere with the highly sensitive and energetic section of the biosphere for military purposes, while all of its consequences are not clear, and calls on the Commission, Council and the Member States to press the US Government, Russia and any other state involved in such activities to cease them, leading to a global convention against such weaponry;

Note how they don't provide any back up for any of the claims made in the passage you posted.

Talk E wrote: »

We don't know they didn't have evidence.

So you can't provide any at all and for all you know they didn't have any.
If they did have such evidence, why didn't they mention any of it?
All the other claims made in that section are referenced with sources, but not the HAARP ones.

So what exactly leads you to believe that the claims are accurate, let alone supported?
Do you think that the politicians involved should just be taken at their word?

Talk E wrote: »

I didn't say it was secret, it might have been.

It was never a secret.

Talk E wrote: »

I did say few people knew about HAARP, few still know.

And yet all the information is available to the public.
Few people know of the cool stuff they have at Fermilab and other places around the world. Just because people haven't heard about it doesn't mean it's part of a conspiracy.