Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

so, who's going to blame HAARP?


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#31    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,650 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 15 March 2011 - 02:17 AM

View Postcerberusxp, on 14 March 2011 - 02:56 AM, said:

Beg to differ here with two active HAARPS emitting frequencies slightly off and timed just right so that those frequencies came together at a certain point in the earth at the right time it would create a third frequency capable of vibrating the mantle enough.

I am sorry, but they are simply not capable of this. I see a few misconceptions in this, to be honest. First of all, HAARP has very limited beam steering capabilities due to the antenna arrays used (dipole antennas). Essentially, they point straight up. Secondly, you can't bounce something off the ionosphere and then expect it to hit somewhere specific. That is simply impossible. The ionosphere is a fluid mass that cannot be seen or it's behavior predicted in any manner that would allow for such. It would be the same as trying to bounce a search light you couldn't move off an ocean you couldn't see and then expect it to hit where you want it to. Thirdly, frequencies slightly offset would be the worst choice of technology as they would only add up constructively and thus deliver the energy at a fraction of the time of transmission. It simply makes no sense, sorry.  Simply doesn't work like that.  

Quote

I'm saying the one in Australia and the one in Alaska you forget these can send ultra high as well as ultra low frequency into the ground as well as into the air.

No, they cannot. This is plain out wrong, sorry. The HAARP antenna arrays are emitting energy at 3 and 10MHz, which is neither ULF (300Hz to 3kHz) or UHF (300MHz to 3GHz). Both transmission frequencies are within the same band, the High Frequency (HF) band ranging from 3 to 30MHz. And they cannot send energy very deep into the ground, relatively speaking, given that they should be capable of initiating Earth quakes. Only ELF (3 to 30Hz) has that capability. And then the energy is only absorbed gradually and cannot be focused and deposited in a given spot. At 3 and 10MHz, depending on the exact composition of the soil, it will penetrate a range from 10 to 100m. Nice image on global-gpr.com's website:

Posted Image

That should give you some idea. And in this respect it should be noted that the Japanese Earth quake happened under the seabed in a depth of 32km. That is far, far below any human capabilities. We can simply not deposit energy at such depths. And no, the super-secret-hidden technology card doesn't help. It is basic physics and not even CIA or whichever 3 letter acronym one might come up with is capable of such.

Quote

Remember this is far beyond what Tesla had that could direct a "death ray to anywhere in the world".

Which he couldn't. That was an idea he had, an idea that essentially had no basis in reality.

Quote

There are more than just the two haarp facilities LINK around the world now. Used in tandem these could do much much more than just earthquakes.

No, they cannot. For the exact reasons stated above. Those who peddle such ridiculous theories could do with a bit of basic math and physics. Could be an eye opener. They could just as well argue that 2+2 equals 5. It is just as ridiculous.

Quote

Yes it can and yes it does have the energy.

No and no. Those who claim such merely accomplish to display sheer ignorance (their own).

Quote

Ground penetrating radar only achieves KHZ range

Yes, for a very specific reason. Only radio waves in that frequency spectrum can be used for deep ground penetrating radar.  

Quote

HAARP on the other hand is capable of emitting 3.6 million gigahertz.

By all means of respect, but I have no idea how you managed to jumble that up so bad to be honest. But I guess you are not familiar with electromagnetic theory and thus actually don't know anything about HAARP besides what you get from ATS and other less than credible places. To restate, it has a max output power of 3.6MW (million Watts) and it operates at both 3 and 10MHz (million hertz).

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Edited by badeskov, 15 March 2011 - 02:20 AM.

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#32    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 15 March 2011 - 09:51 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 15 March 2011 - 01:31 AM, said:

This is just plain out wrong. You can only get out what you send in, thus the maximum you can get out of the HAARP antenna array is 3.6MW, and it will be even less than that due to loss factors in the system. Gain is not some "magical" entity that boost your output power of an antenna. For antennas gain in a given direction simply refers to much much energy is sent out in a given direction compared to what would be sent out by an ideal omnidirectional antenna with the same input power.
"The facility officially began full operations in its final 3.6 MW transmitter power completed status in the summer of 2007, yielding an effective radiated power (ERP) of 5.1 Gigawatts"

http://en.wikipedia....esearch_Program


#33    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 15 March 2011 - 10:09 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 12 March 2011 - 11:15 PM, said:

Resonance sounds intriguing, however, the problem is depositing the energy in the ELF radio waves at the right spot. Even assuming that HAARP had the ability focus energy in a given spot it would not be absorbed at said spot. The issue with ELF (and also the reason it is used to contact submerged subs) is that due to the very low frequency it can penetrate very deep. It can do that because at the low frequency only a very small fraction gets absorbed as it travels through water/rock. So you can't create a "hot spot" using ELF radio waves.
why would you need to create a "hotspot"? a light wind can take down a suspension bridge, not because the wind creates a "hot spot", but because it's frequency matches the natural frequency of the bridge. resonance is a capacitor in a system, it accumulates energy in the system with each wave. does an opera singer need to direct her voice and focus a "hot spot" on a glass to shatter it? a child can effortlessly move a heavy adult high on a swing by applying pressure at the right moment by timing his push to the frequency of the swinging adult.


#34    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,853 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 15 March 2011 - 10:13 AM

You didn't read enough:

Quote

In radio telecommunications, effective radiated power or equivalent radiated power (ERP) is a standardized theoretical measurement of radio frequency (RF) energy[1] [2] using the SI unit watts, and is determined by subtracting system losses and adding system gains. ERP takes into consideration transmitter power output (TPO), transmission line attenuation (electrical resistance and RF radiation), RF connector insertion losses, and antenna directivity, but not height above average terrain (HAAT). ERP is typically applied to antenna systems.

For a simplified example, if an antenna system has 9 dB gain and 6 dB loss, its ERP is 3 dB over (equal to double) the TPO. The use of circular polarization, or otherwise splitting between horizontal and vertical linear polarization, causes a "loss" of 3dB, cutting the reported ERP in half. If full-wavelength spacing is used between antenna elements in an array, the ERP is increased multiplicatively with the number of elements. For half-wave-spaced elements (used to limit RF radiation hazard beneath the radio tower), only half of the elements count. Null fill also detracts from the ERP by increasing the power in the nulls that form between side lobes. Stations with beam tilt often have two ERPs listed: one at the angle of tilt (the main lobe), and another in the standard horizontal plane. When only one ERP is listed, this is usually referring to the power in the main lobe.
.
.
.
For example, an FM radio station which advertises that it has 100,000 watts of power actually has 100,000 watts ERP, and probably not an actual 100,000-watt transmitter. The TPO of such a station typically may be 10,000 to 20,000 watts, with a gain factor of 5 to 10 (5× to 10×, or 7 to 10dB). In most antenna designs, gain is realized primarily by concentrating power toward the horizontal plane and suppressing it at upward and downward angles, through the use of phased arrays of antenna elements. The distribution of power versus elevation angle is known as the vertical pattern. When an antenna is also directional horizontally, gain and ERP will vary with azimuth (compass direction). Rather than the average, it is the maximum ERP in any direction that is usually quoted as a station's power. This is particularly applicable to the huge ERPs reported for shortwave broadcasting stations, which use very narrow beam widths to get their signals across continents and oceans.

http://en.wikipedia...._radiated_power

Now, what did Badeskov say?

Quote

For antennas gain in a given direction simply refers to much much energy is sent out in a given direction compared to what would be sent out by an ideal omnidirectional antenna with the same input power.


Edited by Obviousman, 15 March 2011 - 10:16 AM.


#35    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 15 March 2011 - 10:47 AM

I haven't seen so much obfuscatory sophistry since...well, your previous post.


#36    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,853 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 15 March 2011 - 10:56 AM

Yeah, well, facts are stubborn things, aren't they?


#37    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 15 March 2011 - 11:13 AM

View PostObviousman, on 15 March 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

Yeah, well, facts are stubborn things, aren't they?
do you disagree with post #28?
is post 28 "plain out wrong"?
http://www.unexplain...5

or are you just pretending or being misled that I said something that I didn't say.


#38    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,620 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 15 March 2011 - 11:27 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 15 March 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:

I haven't seen so much obfuscatory sophistry since...well, your previous post.
Interesting... using sophism to accuse someone of sophistry...


:rolleyes:




Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#39    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,650 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 15 March 2011 - 04:15 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 15 March 2011 - 09:51 AM, said:

"The facility officially began full operations in its final 3.6 MW transmitter power completed status in the summer of 2007, yielding an effective radiated power (ERP) of 5.1 Gigawatts"

http://en.wikipedia....esearch_Program

How about reading the official HAARP technical details page?

Quote

There is one transmitter cabinet (see Transmitter Information) dedicated  to each antenna mast. The complete IRI consists of 180 antenna masts and 180 transmitter  cabinets. Each transmitter cabinet contains two identical transmitters, each of which is capable  of producing a maximum output power of 10 kW. Thus, the maximum power that can be delivered to  any of the array elements (or masts) in the array is 20 kW.

180 x 20kW = 3,600kW or 3.6MW. As Obviousman correctly stated, ERP is a theoretical measure and no matter how much you wish for it, you can't get more energy out than you put into your system. And in contrary to amplifier systems where gain is active, in antenna systems gain is passive and simply gives a number for how well you can focus (transmitter) or collect (reciever) RF energy. Please read more here on antenna gain and what it really means.

Quote

Gain  is a parameter which measures the degree of directivity of the  antenna's radiation pattern. An antenna with a low gain emits radiation  with about the same power in all directions, whereas a high-gain antenna  will preferentially radiate in particular directions. Specifically, the  antenna gain, directive gain, or power gain of an antenna is defined as the ratio of the intensity  (power per unit surface) radiated by the antenna in the direction of  its maximum output, at an arbitrary distance, divided by the intensity  radiated at the same distance by a hypothetical isotropic antenna.

The gain of an antenna is a passive phenomenon - power is not added  by the antenna, but simply redistributed to provide more radiated power  in a certain direction than would be transmitted by an isotropic  antenna. An antenna designer must take into account the application for  the antenna when determining the gain. High-gain antennas have the  advantage of longer range and better signal quality, but must be aimed  carefully in a particular direction. Low-gain antennas have shorter  range, but the orientation of the antenna is relatively inconsequential.  For example, a dish antenna on a spacecraft is a high-gain device that  must be pointed at the planet to be effective, whereas a typical Wi-Fi  antenna in a laptop computer is low-gain, and as long as the base  station is within range, the antenna can be in any orientation in space.  It makes sense to improve horizontal range at the expense of reception  above or below the antenna. Thus most antennas labelled  "omnidirectional" really have some gain.[4]

In practice, the half-wave dipole is taken as a reference instead of the isotropic radiator. The gain is then given in dBd (decibels over dipole):

  NOTE: 0 dBd = 2.15 dBi. It is vital in expressing gain values that the reference point be included. Failure to do so can lead to confusion and error.

An ideal omnidirectional (isotropic) antenna will emit the same amount of energy in all directions and typically, for practical purposes, a half wave dipole antenna is used as a standard. An antenna with gain just radiates most of it's energy in a specific direction and not all over the place. HAARP can deliver 3.6MW, no more. It is really that simple.  

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#40    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,650 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 15 March 2011 - 04:19 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 15 March 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

do you disagree with post #28?
is post 28 "plain out wrong"?
http://www.unexplain...5

or are you just pretending or being misled that I said something that I didn't say.

I will let Obviousman post his own answer, but I will allow myself to chip in as well. Yes, the second half of post #28 is simply "plain out wrong". I suggest you actually read up a bit on electromagnetics and antenna theory.

Cheers,
Badeskov

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#41    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 15 March 2011 - 06:03 PM

View Postbadeskov, on 15 March 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

the second half of post #28 is simply "plain out wrong". I suggest you actually read up a bit on electromagnetics and antenna theory.
what is the effective radiated power of the HAARP system?

please refer back to post 28 to see what I said. do you see anywhere where I used the word "effective", anywhere at all?

this is the most elaborate strawman argument since...well, you know the rest.

Edited by Little Fish, 15 March 2011 - 06:04 PM.


#42    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,853 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 15 March 2011 - 07:34 PM

View PostObviousman, on 13 March 2011 - 04:39 AM, said:

Really? What is the natural frequency of "the planet"? Reference for your answer, if possible, please.

Still waiting for an answer for this, Little Fish.


#43    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,147 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 15 March 2011 - 08:20 PM

This, I think, is proof of what does seem to be the principle (which I have actually tried to argue against in the past) that if someone is generally temperamentally inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, then they have to believe in every single one there is going, no matter how preposterous, and no matter what it is, since, if the US Government is behind it, then it must be true. And every single time anything happens anywhere in the world, whether it's earthquakes or power stations blowing up or a revolution somewhere, then you can bet your last 20p that the same people will pop up with a ready-made theory that They (the US Government and/or the NWO) were behind it.

But one thing which never really seems to be explained to any satisfactory extent, is why, exactly? The only answer ever seems to be that They're capable of anything because They're evil enough, but, regarding this particular case, what exactly is HAARP designed for in the first place, if it was designed for evil purposes, and ( b ) why, when they put it to use, do they do it in such a random way?

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#44    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,147 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 15 March 2011 - 08:30 PM

View Postukilaily, on 14 March 2011 - 02:55 AM, said:

It's in the hands of a country who's killing civilians in Pakistan with robotic drones. In the hands of the people aiding the war in Afghanistan. A nation who's aiding a country commiting a genocide in Palestine, yet criticizes "murderous" dictators that they themselves put in power.


Maybe it was a horrible analogy, but I meant that it's in our best interest to question all possibilities. We live in outrageous times.
See, exactly what I mean. The "They're evil enough to do anything" argument in a nutshell. So why would the US Govt. wish to trigger an earthquake (a weapon that one could hardly aim with any accuracy, I wouldn't have thought?) in or off Japan? Does the US wish to take over and occupy Japan once again? Take over its industry?  
People seem to start off with the crime, then decide on the usual suspect, and not really bother with worrying about any kind of motive or how they might have done it. Why not just save an awful lot of time by announcing that, whatever might ever happen anywhere in the world, it's the US Govt. that's responsible for it?

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#45    S I N

S I N

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 64 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nightmares

  • Lets have some fun

Posted 15 March 2011 - 09:35 PM

It wasn't haarp ! ! It was those crazy people at CERN ! It was a micro black hole!

















         JUST KIDDING

Edited by S I N, 15 March 2011 - 09:36 PM.

I'm the conjurer of demons, I'm the father of your death. I bring forth the ancient evil, I control his every breath. I instigate your misfortune with the birth of killing trolls. I awaken armageddon, feeding on a thousand souls.... Have a nice day




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users