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?

King Mob

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 ?

King Mob

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

King Mob

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 ?

King Mob

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

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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"

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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?

King Mob

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.