HAARP: The EU Parliment Website

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.

King Mob

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

King Mob

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.

King Mob

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

King Mob

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

King Mob

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 ?!?

King Mob

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.:)

King Mob

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.

Talk E

Well, this is an open shut case. The committee obviously knew the dangers of HAARP 20 years ago and they collectively drew up this report to warn people about those dangers and concerns for the whole planet and the whole population.

Did they have evidence ? It's likely they obtained factual information to back their concerns.

It's not 100% proof of the dangers of HAARP, but the committees concerns were likely to be well founded.

Thanks for participating lads, you played your roles as well as could be expected, considering the strength of the article provided by the EU Parl website.:)

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

Well, this is an open shut case. The committee obviously knew the dangers of HAARP 20 years ago and they collectively drew up this report to warn people about those dangers and concerns for the whole planet and the whole population.

Did they have evidence ? It's likely they obtained factual information to back their concerns.

It's not 100% proof of the dangers of HAARP, but the committees concerns were likely to be well founded.

Thanks for participating lads, you played your roles as well as could be expected, considering the strength of the article provided by the EU Parl website.:)

So even though you can't show this evidence, or any reference to any evidence they used you're assuming that they must have had such evidence.
It's amazing the confidence you have in the government.

So what exactly makes it likely they obtained factual information to back their concerns? If they had such evidence why isn't contained in the report or referenced like other claims?

But I'd understand that in your interest in the "truth" you'd not want to ask these questions yourself, as they might interfere with your comfortable narrative you're building.

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

So even though you can't show this evidence, or any reference to any evidence they used you're assuming that they must have had such evidence.

"Must" ? I said, "likely".

King Mob wrote: »

It's amazing the confidence you have in the government.

And your distrust is equally amazing. Maybe we should switch sides.

King Mob wrote: »

So what exactly makes it likely they obtained factual information to back their concerns? If they had such evidence why isn't contained in the report or referenced like other claims?

I am not sure. Perhaps evidence isn't required in parliament.

King Mob wrote: »

But I'd understand that in your interest in the "truth" you'd not want to ask these questions yourself, as they might interfere with your comfortable narrative you're building.

I would say the narrative I'm building is less comfortable than the one you are building, by far

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

"Must" ? I said, "likely".

Then how do you know it is "likely"?

Talk E wrote: »

And your distrust is equally amazing. Maybe we should switch sides.

What's so amazing about it? They're claiming stuff that is not based in good science. I'm asking to see if there is any evidence to back up these claims before I believe them.
There is no evidence forth coming either from you or the document in question.

Talk E wrote: »

I am not sure. Perhaps evidence isn't required in parliament.

Apparently it wasn't for them to form their opinion.
And if there is no evidence at all then, what makes you think that the claims are accurate?

Talk E wrote: »

I would say the narrative I'm building is less comfortable than the one you are building, by far

Well I'm not the one afraid to answer simple questions.

Talk E

Looks like they did have evidence. From the EU parliament, bunch of silly worriers that they are :rolleyes:

We shared many of the HAARP documents which prove its weapons capability as the project continues to advance. More-over, we were able to discuss the implications of the "Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA)" being advanced through the development of electromagnetic weapon systems. This concept, the RMA, was first put forward by the United States Army War ‚College. Their thesis, simply put, is that the changes in technology taking place at this time are so profound they can be compared to the introduction of gun powder to the West. They assert that these changes in technology require a change in values and belief systems in order to bring them into general use by the military. They even put forward a plan to change the values of people as a part of their introduction of these new technologies. Is it right to have branches of government (the military in particular) in a position to shift American values? I s this right?

http://www.policestateplanning.com/european_parliament.htm

EU again

Mr BEGICH said that in his eyes the project was purely and simply "Star Wars technology". Moreover, it was a secret project, as the US Congress had refused to finance Star Wars. The USA, he claimed, had allocated 91 million dollars to the main programme, to which must be added the related programmes. Over the last 50 years, he said, certain levels of security had been developed which were protected from public scrutiny. State secrets were acceptable in themselves but if they involved such major repercussions for human beings and the environment they must be made public. In his view, the international community should be allowed to evaluate the risks of the HAARP programme.
Eurico DE MELO (EPP, P) said he regarded the revelations as terrifying and said that there was a need for a campaign to inform the public about it.
Winding up, Magda AELVOET (Green, told the hearing that there was a saying: "War is too important to be left to the generals". She feared we had forgotten this truth.

Snippet from the UK parliament.

I have another concern that is discussed only rarely. We have heard of star wars, but other weapons are being planned and may exist. A very interesting one is HAARP—the high frequency active auroral research program. The Americans view it as having innocent intentions, but it terrifies the Soviet Union and many other countries because its effect has been described as boiling the ionosphere. Terrible weapons might exist beyond the ones of which we are aware.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=haarp&ALL=haarp&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=21017-27_spnew3&URL=/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo021017/debtext/21017-27.htm#1017-27_spnew3


Some more good info from the UK parliament.

The USA plans to carry out large-scale scientific experiments under the HAARP programme, and not controlled by the global community, will create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines and have a negative impact on the mental health of people populating entire regions, the deputies said.

They demanded that an international ban be put on such large-scale geophysical experiments.

The appeal, signed by 90 deputies, has been sent to President Vladimir Putin, to the UN and other international organizations, to the parliaments and leaders of the UN member countries, to the scientific public and to mass media outlets.

Among those who signed the appeal are Tatyana Astrakhankina, Nikolay Kharitonov, Yegor Ligachev, Sergey Reshulskiy, Vitaliy Sevastyanov, Viktor Cherepkov, Valentin Zorkaltsev and Aleksey Mitrofanov.

http://www.policestateplanning.com/uk_parliament.htm

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

Looks like they did have evidence. From the EU parliament, bunch of silly worriers that they are :rolleyes:

http://www.policestateplanning.com/european_parliament.htm

EU again

Ah so when your first link has failed to provide the proof you though it had you're falling back to unreliable unverifiable crap from biased sites, which yet again provide no back up at all for the claims.

As for the rest of it it seems to be more of the same nonsense, but doesn't refer to the original link you posted.
If you're just going to move the goalposts like that, I'm not going to bother discussing it with you.
However there's plenty of questions and points on the original article and about the science of HAARP that you've been ignoring.
Maybe you should address them before adding red herrings?

Talk E

It's all here on the EU parl website.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/dg3/sdp/backg/en/1998/b980209.htm

The HAARP Project and nonb-lethal weapons





The HAARP project and non-lethal weapons.
Experts alarmed - public debate needed.

The hearing on the HAARP project and non-lethal weapons was held in connection with a European Parliament own-initiative report, to be drawn up by Maj Britt THEORIN (PES, S), on the possible use of military resources in environmental strategies.
Non-lethal (or non-deadly) weapons - a varied scenario
As Peter TRUSCOTT (PES, UK) said in his introduction, "There is an invisible line between what is acceptable and what is suspect". This is the nub of the issue.

Non-lethal weapons constitute a trend in military thinking which has developed since the end of the Cold War. The world is dealing with a different sort of crisis, which is less easily identifiable and less easy to manage with traditional methods and weapons - hence the desire to master the violence by means other than the same violence. Non- lethal weapons are compared by some authors to "straitjackets" and defined as "any action capable of modifying the behaviour of the adversary while avoiding his annihilation". This appears to be a significant element of crisis prevention but can be - and is - also used in civilian situations (e.g. crowd control).

Mr Luc MAMPAEY, a researcher at GRIP, the Brussels-based European institute for research and information into peace and security, said he believed the expression "non-lethal weapons" was semantically contentious. He argued that the term had reassuring connotations. It was the politically correct term, and one which could delude the public into thinking that nowadays a clean war was possible and hence morally acceptable. In fact, as he himself and the Red Cross representative, Mr Robin COUPLAND (Geneva), pointed out, the dividing line between deadly and non-deadly weapons was not clear. Some weapons might result in death, while others could incapacitate their victims permanently or temporarily. Mr COUPLAND was quite categorical: the term "non-deadly", he said, was ultimately a marketing slogan.

The problem of definition "by default" led all the experts to stress that there was no single type of non-lethal weapon and that a careful distinction must be made between the various types, from the simplest to the most sophisticated. These new weapons covered a broad spectrum of technologies, from optical systems with a dazzling or blinding effect, through sound and electro- magnetic waves, chemical, medicinal, adhesive, slippery, super-caustic and acidic substances, biological agents, bacteria and micro-organisms, to rubber bullets and electric-shock batons.

Dangers to health and the environment

The effects on health and the environment were also described as variable. Any weapon designed to disrupt an organism, as well as weapons capable of affecting an organism indirectly, by chemical or biological means, or optical, acoustic or neurological stimuli, could become fatal under certain conditions. Adhesive foam, it was said, could also have extremely dangerous side- effects.

Only if a precisely calculated dose were perfectly delivered could it be guaranteed that sensory (or xenobiotic) stimuli would not have irreversible, or indeed, fatal effects. In practice, this perfect control over the degree of disruption was the first thing likely to go by the board under extreme conditions, where the desire for a swift and decisive solution would rapidly override considerations of ethics or toxicology.

The risk of abuse in democratic societies

However, it was argued, health and environmental issues were not the only concerns raised by the use of non-lethal weapons. Mr COUPLAND expressed concern about an overlap of civil, police and military applications. He was also afraid that these weapons might be used not to replace conventional weapons but in addition to them.

In Mr MAMPAEY's view, as non-lethal weapons developed, links were bound to be created between military and law-and-order operations, which, he said, would enable certain current conventions to be bypassed. There was a danger of growing militarisation of domestic police forces, which would have access to more sophisticated weaponry. This could raise problems in any state which was supposed to be based on the rule of law and to be mindful of human rights and individual freedoms.

The HAARP project

Tom SPENCER (EPP, UK), chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said that the United States had been invited to state its viewpoint on this matter to the hearing. Although the US had declined an initial invitation, Mr SPENCER reiterated his offer, saying that the Americans could send a representative to address the committee in future if they wished.

Ms Rosalie BERTELL, from Toronto (Canada), is one of the best-informed experts about HAARP (the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme), a programme which has been developed by the US military.

She described the background to HAARP. The ionosphere is a high-altitude layer of the atmosphere with particles which are highly charged with energy. If radiation is projected into the ionosphere, huge amounts of energy can be generated and used to annihilate a given region.

The HAARP project involves the manipulation of the earth's ionosphere, whose natural role is to moderate energy transfer from the sun to the earth and is used as a missile trajectory and as a reflector for radio communication. The aim of HAARP is to control and manipulate the ionosphere so as to enable the manipulator to wipe out communications at will on a global scale, or to make them resilient in the event of a nuclear war.

It also enables communications to take place with submerged submarines and can, in theory, create geomagnetic pathways to guide particle beams which could then deposit large amounts of energy anywhere on the globe. In simpler terms, HAARP, with its power of intimidation, of delivery or denial of electrical energy on a global scale and its control of communications, is an element of a system which could control the global village in some frightening ways.

According to Dr Nick BEGICH, an expert from Alaska and author of one of the leading publications on the subject*, the HAARP programme would allow such concentrations of energy to be attained that an entire region of the planet could be deprived of water. Electromagnetic waves can cause earthquakes or tidal waves. Mr SPENCER pointed out that, under international conventions, any actions leading to climate change were prohibited.

Mr BEGICH said that in his eyes the project was purely and simply "Star Wars technology". Moreover, it was a secret project, as the US Congress had refused to finance Star Wars. The USA, he claimed, had allocated 91 million dollars to the main programme, to which must be added the related programmes. Over the last 50 years, he said, certain levels of security had been developed which were protected from public scrutiny. State secrets were acceptable in themselves but if they involved such major repercussions for human beings and the environment they must be made public. In his view, the international community should be allowed to evaluate the risks of the HAARP programme.

Eurico DE MELO (EPP, P) said he regarded the revelations as terrifying and said that there was a need for a campaign to inform the public about it.

Winding up, Magda AELVOET (Green, told the hearing that there was a saying: "War is too important to be left to the generals". She feared we had forgotten this truth.


Further information: Etienne BASSOT - tel. 284 47 41


* Angels Don't Play This Haarp, Advances in tesla technology, Earthpulse Press, USA, 1995

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

It's all here on the EU parl website.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/dg3/sdp/backg/en/1998/b980209.htm

The HAARP Project and nonb-lethal weapons

Ok, and which bits of that wall of text indicate the evidence used by the committee from your first post to reach their conclusion?

Talk E

I'm not as obsessed with evidence as you are. If I see a golf club, I am pretty sure it's a golf club, you on the other hand would require a belt of a gold club before being certain it is what it is.

Monty Burnz

Talk E wrote: »

I'm not as obsessed with evidence as you are. If I see a golf club, I am pretty sure it's a golf club, you on the other hand would require a belt of a gold club before being certain it is what it is.

You've got that arseways. King Mob needs to see it before he believes it's a golf club.

What you've got is something in a box. It may be a golf club, it may be a stick - it may even be an empty box. But without being able to open the box, see inside it, or even give it a shake, you are telling everybody that it is likely to be a golf club. You can't provide any evidence that it is a golf club, but you usually suspect that any mysterious object in a box is probably a golf club of some sort, even though you don't know the rules of golf, how the game is played, or even which end of the club you are meant to hold. You will quote randomly from golf rule books though, and copy and paste reports about recent golf tournaments, as though that proves that what is in the box is in fact a golf club.

And why do you believe it is a golf club? Because some other people you don't know who have never seen what is in the box either are also claiming that it must be a golf club. And because some people in the European parliament have tabled a motion asking if somebody would please check whether the thing in the box might be a golf club at all at all...