HAARP: The EU Parliment Website

Talk E

Put it this way then. A bottle of wine is wrapped up as a present. Clearly it looks like a bottle of wine due to it's shape, size and weight.
Many people in parliament are saying "it is a bottle of wine", but how do they know ? Well I assume they are using their common sense, intuition and the like. Obviously this is not proof that it is a bottle of wine, but it is very likely that it is. I dont always need to drink it to be sure it is wine. Nor do I need a bang of a golf club

Monty Burnz

I'll take the wine, you can have the golf club

Talk E

I'd better not, I'm a recovering golfaholic

My name is URL

The patent for this type of ionospheric heater, filed in 1987; mentions weather modification by means of lensing.

Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device. Also as alluded to earlier, molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc. concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4686605.html

King Mob wrote: »

The government would be better off getting a soldier to flap his arms to change the weather.

That's just completely faux-naïf

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

I'm not as obsessed with evidence as you are.

That's clear seeing as you don't require any sound verifiable evidence to jump to whatever conclusion you'd like.

So none of that wall of text shows what evidence they used in the committee to reach their conclusion?
Does it show any evidence at all?

So just to tally up:
The link does not have any sort of proof of the dangers of HAARP, contrary to your claim.
The committee neither saw nor supplied any evidence to back up any of the claims.
The claims are scientifically unsound and you've not been able to either address my points about this or show how HAARP can be used for the things claimed.

And then when all of this became apparent you tried to move the goal posts and introduced more links that had absolutely nothing to do with the original one.

So do you still think the link you posted is evidence of the dangers of HAARP?

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

The patent for this type of ionospheric heater, filed in 1987; mentions weather modification by means of lensing.



http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4686605.html

You don't have to show that your claim actually works to get a patent.
HAARP can't actually do the things it says you need to do to alter the weather.

And why would they mention the evil secret propose of HAARP in the freely available online patent?

My name is URL wrote: »

That's just completely faux-naïf

Any more so than the view from CTers that science is magic and can do anything and the government was dumb enough to keep letting slip information about their weapon?

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

You don't have to show that your claim actually works to get a patent.
HAARP can't actually do the things it says you need to do to alter the weather.

And why would they mention the evil secret propose of HAARP in the freely available online patent?

You're shifting the goalposts. Why are you mentioning evil secrets and the like? The thread is about the possible capabilities of HAARP. I provided a link to the patent for such methods of ionospheric heating, and it states that weather modification is possible.

Do you honestly believe that heating the ionosphere has no effect on weather?

"The technology of artificial ionospheric heating could be as important for weather modification research as accelerators have been for particle physics," Eastlund explained.

In September, Eastland filed a patent on a way to create artificial ionized plasma patterns with megawatts of power using inexpensive microwave power sources. This all-weather technique, he noted, can be used to heat specific regions of the atmosphere.

Eastlund’s research is tuned to artificial generation of acoustic and gravitational waves in the atmosphere. The heating of steering winds to help shove around mesocyclones and hurricanes, as well as controlling electrical conductivity of the atmosphere is also on his investigative agenda.

http://www.space.com/1725-military-weather.html

Monty Burnz

My name is URL wrote: »

You're shifting the goalposts. Why are you mentioning evil secrets and the like? The thread is about the possible capabilities of HAARP. I provided a link to the patent for such methods of ionospheric heating, and it states that weather modification is possible.

Do you honestly believe that heating the ionosphere has no effect on weather?



http://www.space.com/1725-military-weather.html

I'm confused though: even investigating a link between the ionosphere and the atmostphere (assuming we are speaking about the lower atmosphere) was clearly cutting edge research in 2005. When did the HAARP project start?

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

You're shifting the goalposts. Why are you mentioning evil secrets and the like?

No, it was an additional point I made with other points directly addressing you post.

My name is URL wrote: »

The thread is about the possible capabilities of HAARP.

Actually it's about a report on the EU website supposedly confirming the "dangers of HAARP."

My name is URL wrote: »

I provided a link to the patent for such methods of ionospheric heating, and it states that weather modification is possible.

Yea, and the method described, regardless of whether it works or not is far beyond what HAARP can do.

My name is URL wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that heating the ionosphere has no effect on weather?
http://www.space.com/1725-military-weather.html

Now first off note how his patent came in September of 2005. HAARP has been around for much longer.
Second note how he says the way to just heat the atmosphere (not even to alter the weather in a specific way) requires deliberate effort to do.
This would also require power beyond what HAARP can manage:

After about 5 years of such research, and further development of weather codes, a pilot experiment to modify the steering winds of a mesocylone might be safely attempted. Such an experiment would probably require 50 to 100 megawatts, Eastlund speculated.

HAARP only transmitts at 3 megawatts.

Now if HAARP can actually effect the weather as a weapon I doubt he'd say this:

"I estimate this new science of weather modification will take 10 to 20 years to mature to the point where it is useful for controlling the severity and impact of severe weather systems as large as hurricanes," Eastlund explained.

And if you are going to contend that it could be altering the weather inadvertently as the EU committee believe, then you'd have to explain how they are doing so when the scientist and patent you linked to show that the alteration can only happen when it is being deliberately done.

Talk E

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm confused though: even investigating a link between the ionosphere and the atmostphere (assuming we are speaking about the lower atmosphere) was clearly cutting edge research in 2005. When did the HAARP project start?

I think few people would be surprised to find that military technology could be secret and years advanced of what the public know about it.

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

I think few people would be surprised to find that military technology could be secret and years advanced of what the public know about it.

But you've also claimed that the EU committee had access to this information when they reached their conclusion.
Your theory isn't very consistent when you hold it up to scrutiny.

Talk E

Neither is yours lol, the evidence of HAARP is overwhelming. You are clinging to safety, looking for proof of top secret military stuff. Proof is your safety blanket.

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

Neither is yours lol,

Well if it is you've not been able to show it.
But good to know you recognise that yours is indeed flawed.

Talk E wrote: »

the evidence of HAARP is overwhelming.

That's great, how about show some of this evidence?

Talk E wrote: »

You are clinging to safety, looking for proof of top secret military stuff. Proof is your safety blanket.

I'm not looking for proof, I'm looking for any evidence to support the specific claims in the passage.
You've not been able to show such support, despite the evidence being "overwhelming".
The reason I'm asking for evidence is because your "common sense" isn't enough to convince me, just as mine wouldn't convince you.
I'm willing to look at anything you provide that is reliable, verifiable and stands up to scrutiny then change my mind if you can.
Can you honestly say the same thing?

Monty Burnz

Talk E wrote: »

I think few people would be surprised to find that military technology could be secret and years advanced of what the public know about it.

In some areas for sure - but in the areas of applied science. In other words, the application of theoretical work that is done by those on the cutting edge of theoretical science, typically carried out at universities. Take the holy grail of nuclear research, cold fusion. The original research in this field was carried out not by the military, but by academics. since then, the US Navy has been quietly carrying out its own research in the field, trying to see if it can work.

In this case, the guy at the cutting edge was proposing that weather modification might be a possibility in 2005. HAARP was started in what, the mid 80s?

Contrary to what some people might think, the US government does not and could not run two parallel science worlds, one for the military and one 20 years behind it for the rest of us.

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, and the method described, regardless of whether it works or not is far beyond what HAARP can do.

I'm not trying to say that it is happening. I'm just trying to bring a case forward for how this type of technology could be utilised to modify weather.

Now first off note how his patent came in September of 2005. HAARP has been around for much longer.

It's what you do with the stuff which already exists that matters. Perhaps it wasn't fully known at the time of building HAARP that it would be possible to use it for reasons other than why it was built.

Second note how he says the way to just heat the atmosphere (not even to alter the weather in a specific way) requires deliberate effort to do.
This would also require power beyond what HAARP can manage:

Technology can be upgraded, and besides HAARP isn't the only facility in the world which is capable of ionospheric heating.

HAARP only transmitts at 3 megawatts.

Where did you get that number?

Now if HAARP can actually effect the weather as a weapon I doubt he'd say this:

He's talking about controlling vast weather systems like hurricanes! And believes it'll be 10-20 years before it's possible to do so. I'm not in any way suggesting that HAARP etc are capable of anything of that scale. The fact that he believed it would be possible to do such things in the near future suggests to me that it's possible to do less massive-scale things today.

And if you are going to contend that it could be altering the weather inadvertently as the EU committee believe, then you'd have to explain how they are doing so when the scientist and patent you linked to show that the alteration can only happen when it is being deliberately done.

I don't really contend that, but lots of things have an inadvertent effect which are not widely studied or understood.. such as the effect of contrails on weather patterns.

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not trying to say that it is happening. I'm just trying to bring a case forward for how this type of technology could be utilised to modify weather.

It's what you do with the stuff which already exists that matters. Perhaps it wasn't fully known at the time of building HAARP that it would be possible to use it for reasons other than why it was built.

Technology can be upgraded, and besides HAARP isn't the only facility in the world which is capable of ionospheric heating.

But the claims made in the report specifically accuse HAARP of being able to do those things which you are now saying it can't without further development.
So given this information do you think the claims in the report are correct?

My name is URL wrote: »

Where did you get that number?

From here:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4122
Which got it from here:
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/factSheet.html
Though that site seems to be down at the moment.

My name is URL wrote: »

He's talking about controlling vast weather systems like hurricanes! And believes it'll be 10-20 years before it's possible to do so. I'm not in any way suggesting that HAARP etc are capable of anything of that scale. The fact that he believed it would be possible to do such things in the near future suggests to me that it's possible to do less massive-scale things today.

Actually he says it's at least 5 years before they can even try to effect the weather with a system more powerful than HAARP. And even then that requires every specific actions to get those effects. No ionospheric heaters can do this or have the power to do so.

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't really contend that, but lots of things have an inadvertent effect which are not widely studied or understood.. such as the effect of contrails on weather patterns.

Well then we can say that HAARP is causing people to explode.
Sure I can't show anyone actually exploding or explain a mechanism by which it can happen, but lots of things have an inadvertent effect which are not widely studied or understood, right?

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

Well if it is you've not been able to show it.
But good to know you recognise that yours is indeed flawed.


That's great, how about show some of this evidence?


I'm not looking for proof, I'm looking for any evidence to support the specific claims in the passage.
You've not been able to show such support, despite the evidence being "overwhelming".
The reason I'm asking for evidence is because your "common sense" isn't enough to convince me, just as mine wouldn't convince you.
I'm willing to look at anything you provide that is reliable, verifiable and stands up to scrutiny then change my mind if you can.
Can you honestly say the same thing?

So far your only defense is... "the sun does the same".

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

So far your only defense is... "the sun does the same".

Well if you are honestly saying that's all I've argued I'd suggest looking back over the thread.

And even then you've yet to actually address this point, so if you'd like to go back to it, then by all means.

And since you've ignored the question I'll assume you can't say that you are open to new evidence, you just don't want to admit that fact.

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

But the claims made in the report specifically accuse HAARP of being able to do those things which you are now saying it can't without further development.
So given this information do you think the claims in the report are correct?

I had a longer reply typed out but decided not to continue arguing over petty points and unimportant details.

The facts are that HAARP is an ionospheric heater. Ionospheric heating, according to experts on the subject believe that it could potentially be used to modify the weather. The guy who filed three patents (US Patents #4,686,605, #4,712,155, and #5,038,664) which led to the development of HAARP believed that the technology can potentially be used to manipulate the weather.

Well then we can say that HAARP is causing people to explode.

Go right ahead!

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

I had a longer reply typed out but decided not to continue arguing over petty points and unimportant details.

Petty little things like how the information you posted refutes the claims made in the report posted in the original post?

My name is URL wrote: »

The facts are that HAARP is an ionospheric heater. Ionospheric heating, according to experts on the subject believe that it could potentially be used to modify the weather. The guy who filed three patents (US Patents #4,686,605, #4,712,155, and #5,038,664) which led to the development of HAARP believed that the technology can potentially be used to manipulate the weather.

Actually, most of those aren't facts.
No expert you've shown believes HAARP or any current facility can be used like that or believes that it is even possible for it to effect the weather at all.
The guy who filed the patents never worked on HAARP, he left the company before they developed it. None of the patents above are anything like HAARP, using different designs and in general being orders of magnitude bigger, if they even actually work. And even then he says that the technology to even slightly adjust a small part of the whether is five years away and requires a facility upwards of 20 times the power of HAARP.
So the only fact there is that HAARP heats the ionosphere.

My name is URL wrote: »

Go right ahead!

And that silly example would be just as supported as the claim that HAARP can alter the weather.

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

Petty little things like how the information you posted refutes the claims made in the report posted in the original post?

Information doesn't refute anything. People refute stuff based on what they are aware of. I never claimed that anything mentioned in the OP was fact. I provided additional references for those interested in availing of those additional references .. whatever inference they take from what is posted is their own prerogative, and I am not interested in debunking prerogatives.

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

Information doesn't refute anything. People refute stuff based on what they are aware of. I never claimed that anything mentioned in the OP was fact. I provided additional references for those interested in availing of those additional references .. whatever inference they take from what is posted is their own prerogative, and I am not interested in debunking prerogatives.

But again the point stands that the information you've posted has clearly stated that the way an Ionospheric heater can alter the weather is with a concentrated effort, involving a complicated and specific process which requires power that HAARP cannot possibly manage.
So the claims contained in the report that HAARP can be inadvertently affecting the weather are not compatible with the information you are supplying.
So either the conclusions in the report are wrong, or the information you are supplying is wrong, or both are wrong. They both can't be right at the same time.

And this is without the points I've been making that have yet to be addressed.

Talk E

Mr mob, it's starting to look like you may be right, HAARP is like and does act like the sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI5j7pdZ-jg

chalkitdown

My name is URL wrote: »

I had a longer reply typed out but decided not to continue arguing over petty points and unimportant details.

The facts are that HAARP is an ionospheric heater. Ionospheric heating, according to experts on the subject believe that it could potentially be used to modify the weather. The guy who filed three patents (US Patents #4,686,605, #4,712,155, and #5,038,664) which led to the development of HAARP believed that the technology can potentially be used to manipulate the weather.



Go right ahead!

Tesla filed three patents?

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

Mr mob, it's starting to look like you may be right, HAARP is like and does act like the sun.

Well he doesn't mention anything about it using the ionosphere to alter the weather. Furthermore the thing he's talking about involves charged particles contained in the solar wind and flares, not the electromagnetic raditation emitted by HAARP.

As for the solar flares effecting satellites, this isn't new or exciting information. Nor is it particular relevant news as the Sun flips it's poles every 11 years or so, the last being around 2001 and the one before that being in 1990.
The world didn't end then, it won't for the next one.
Frankly this is some pretty appalling stuff from Michio Kaku, he should know better than to make these over hyped claims.

But I don't see how it addresses any of my points or backs up yours.
Or are you just grasping at straws now?

Talk E

King Mob wrote: »

Well he doesn't mention anything about it using the ionosphere to alter the weather. Furthermore the thing he's talking about involves charged particles contained in the solar wind and flares, not the electromagnetic raditation emitted by HAARP.

As for the solar flares effecting satellites, this isn't new or exciting information. Nor is it particular relevant news as the Sun flips it's poles every 11 years or so, the last being around 2001 and the one before that being in 1990.
The world didn't end then, it won't for the next one.
Frankly this is some pretty appalling stuff from Michio Kaku, he should know better than to make these over hyped claims.

But I don't see how it addresses any of my points or backs up yours.
Or are you just grasping at straws now?

LOL

King Mob Vs Michio Kaku

King Mob -0 1- Michio Kaku

King Mob

Talk E wrote: »

LOL

King Mob Vs Michio Kaku

King Mob -0 1- Michio Kaku

Some fantastic points there, totally addresses my points and refutes them.:rolleyes:

Though I do love the irony in the fact you think that a scientist is unquestionable. And on Fox too...

Now are you aware that the same thing he is talking about has happened 11 years before, and again 11 years before that and so on?

And can you please explain how exactly it supports your claims or refutes my points?

My name is URL

chalkitdown wrote: »

Tesla filed three patents?