[Merged] US Air Force to dismantle HAARP

[Nenaraz]

The only irony here is, you failed to realize that it is your burden to prove, not ours to disprove.

What experiments and tests have you or the proponents of the theory YOU support have done to come up with your conclusions?

It's not me who claims that HAARP can't do it. If you claim that something can't do it you better properly prove it and not tell me that I don't understand something.

If you're more knowledgeable, as that person states to me, provide the peer-review effort in order to completely destroy any possibility that HAARP is not responsible for the several occurances with hazardous nature.

If you can't explain how HAARP works and why it's impossible for it to influence based on the frequencies, don't tell me "prove that it can" since that's equally stupid.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Nenaraz

[RaptorBites]

It's not me who claims that HAARP can't do it.

It was you who claimed HAARP can. So show us.

The burden of proof is a standard used to prove your claim that the current standard belief is not possible.

HAARP wasn't designed to control weather or create natural disasters. That is the original, fact based, and evidence backed claim.

You claim it can be used to manipulate natural disasters and weather.

Your burden to prove, not ours to disprove.

Shifting this burden is proof enough for me that you are spewing complete garbage.

Edited June 5, 2014 by RaptorBites

[Nenaraz]

It was you who claimed HAARP can. So show us.

Show that it can't.

- "People say that it's not meant to control the weather so it is not controlling the weather". Is this supossed to be the argument? Am I to believe in this?

"The burden of proof" - This works for whoever claims anything. If someone claims that it can't do it, you have to prove it. I have no acess to the mechanism and since the claim was that I don't understand the frequencies I expect to be utterly defeated argument-wise. I think that's just.

Edit : Basically, when there's a lot of claims and unrest among the people it's best to show the understanding and explain why something can't work the way it's claimed, before actually attacking the person. If you don't know how HAARP works, please, refrain yourself from asking the proof since the proof won't mean anything to you anyway.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Nenaraz

[RaptorBites]

- "People say that it's not meant to control the weather so it is not controlling the weather". Is this supossed to be the argument? Am I to believe in this?

The science behind HAARP is evidence enough to show that the attempt to control the ionosphere has nothing to do with effects on the troposphere. This is a simple fact you continue to fail to grasp.

You are trying to inject a wild claim that effects on the ionosphere has substantial effects on the troposphere, creating earthquakes, then pass on the burden for us to disprove your claim.

Like it or not, the ball is in your court.

"The burden of proof" - This works for whoever claims anything. If someone claims that it can't do it, you have to prove it. I have no acess to the mechanism and since the claim was that I don't understand the frequencies I expect to be utterly defeated argument-wise. I think that's just.

See above.

I believe when badeskov stated:

No, it is not possible. If you know the absorption rates of the various layers of the atmosphere (and the troposphere ain't cutting it), you can calculate the frequency ranges required. And then you look at the HAARP antenna array and you can derive the frequency ranges emitted with a good amount of certainty. So no, it is not possible to use HAARP for weather control/modification/modulation - or Earthquake generation for that matter. The notion is ridiculous to anyone with even a mediocre knowledge of RF and antennas.

He had already given you the necessary information to help you disprove your claim.

Now, if you do not understand his response, then maybe you can start asking questions instead of making long winded responses in order to conclude with a strawman such as:

I wouldn't be surprised to see you going around and defending anything US oriented.

[Nenaraz]

In other words, you don't know anything about HAARP nor you're a tehnician who works with HAARP oriented content?

[RaptorBites]

In other words, you don't know anything about HAARP nor you're a tehnician who works with HAARP oriented content?

Interestingly enough, neither are you I assume.

So exactly what point are you making again?

[Nenaraz]

Now that's better. Thanks.

- That weather manipulation exists

- Whether it's HAARP or not I do not know, but I'd like to learn

- Activation of HAARP coincidentally led to disasters in my area that others have been posting via internet for a long period of time, things that I usually don't care for.

- All the symptons that HAARP videos have been stating thus far are providing the evidence in my area where there's least possibility for it to happen or it didn't happen in the past 120-150 years, chronologically speaking.

So what do we have there, how to be sure that there's no malicious work behind it?! To believe in the words "We're innocent"?!

Edited June 5, 2014 by Nenaraz

[Space Commander Travis]

In other words, you don't know anything about HAARP nor you're a tehnician who works with HAARP oriented content?

Whereas you do know all about it, since you list above all the things it's been responsible for, such as earthquakes and rain. Do you know it's been responsible for these? or do you just assume that it's vaguely sinister, so it must have been?

[Nenaraz]

Please, no conjecture. Either give something tangible to demolish my assumptions or don't tell me how I'm all-blabla, whatever. I'm being nice here.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Nenaraz

[Space Commander Travis]

Please, no conjecture. Either give something tangible to demolish my assumptions or don't tell me how I'm all-blabla, whatever.

I'm sorry? Do they have the word irony in your world?

[Nenaraz]

As usual, no evidence or proper explanation leads strictly to ad hominem. Please, continue your bickering all that you want without me.

[RaptorBites]

As usual, no evidence or proper explanation leads strictly to ad hominem. Please, continue your bickering all that you want without me.

You failed to provide evidence to your claim to begin with.

Continue your ignorance all you want, its bordering on laughable.

[RaptorBites]

- That weather manipulation exists

- Whether it's HAARP or not I do not know, but I'd like to learn

Of course weather manipulation exists. It's called cloud seeding, intentional or not.

You claimed HAARP caused earthquakes. Which ironically, you seemed to have danced away from.

Activation of HAARP coincidentally led to disasters in my area that others have been posting via internet for a long period of time, things that I usually don't care for.

Where is your proof?

All the symptons that HAARP videos have been stating thus far are providing the evidence in my area where there's least possibility for it to happen or it didn't happen in the past 120-150 years, chronologically speaking.

So what do we have there, how to be sure that there's no malicious work behind it?! To believe in the words "We're innocent"?!

You can first start by proving proof.

[Nenaraz]

Vice-versa, you provided no evidence to suggest or explain on a concise level that you do have the knowledge of HAARP-esque technology and that it's impossible for HAARP to have any effect on ionosphere.

I'm no HAARP engineer so I have no knowledge of it's fundamental work, unless you suggest that I actually do so and learn in a to b to c in order to make the full-scale knowledgeable opinion. The thing is I have no opinion on the matter and I ask for clarification, however i completely deny the arguments such as "HAARP can't do so because it's not meant to do so" or "Provide proofs, that'll teach ya".

I see that more tangible evidences have all those people whom I'd rather deem crazy on YT on the simple fact that HAARP fascility was built near and all the "symptoms" are being shown to the letter.

Asking for proof isn't making your arguments clear nor anything to that effect which will provide the constructive conclusion. If you don't know and if you're not the HAARP engeneer, please, don't try to provide the answers with no clear distinction from the regular speculation. If you are knowledgeable of HAARP to the level of being able to conciesly explain why it can't affect the ionosphere i'd be more than willing to listen to the letter.

Earthquakes? I never claimed that HAARP did any of those, you're conjecturing as well. I've written that I've seen the "symptoms" of the YT videos and I've experienced first-hand everything that was proposed that HAARP's doing around the globe. I'd find it hard to beleive it's a coincidence, unless yo u want to adequatelly post evidence and assure me that you do understand HAARP to that degree that you can provide the tangible evidence which will support the claim that HAARP has nothing to do with it.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Nenaraz

[Space Commander Travis]

As usual, no evidence or proper explanation leads strictly to ad hominem. Please, continue your bickering all that you want without me.

Do different rules apply to you, then? You say that HAAAARP is responsible for everything round your way from earthquakes to occasional drizzle, but that assertion seems to need no evidence or proper explanation to back it up, you just assume that it does. But it's up to everyone else to provide evidence or proper explanation to prove that it doesn't?

[Nenaraz]

I have no words for your conjecture. I'm hoping that you'll be more constructive and provide the explanation. If you can't provide the explanation, please, make the way for someone who can. Asking for proof, me, about this isn't going to be fruitful since the lack of explanation remains active. I find no shame in stating that I do not understand the engineering behind the HAARP, if you can provide the explanation, since the authorities on the case are not to be trusted, please do so and I'd be willing to read what you have to write Rhubarb.

[RaptorBites]

I have no words for your conjecture. I'm hoping that you'll be more constructive and provide the explanation. If you can't provide the explanation, please, make the way for someone who can. Asking for proof, me, about this isn't going to be fruitful since the lack of explanation remains active. I find no shame in stating that I do not understand the engineering behind the HAARP, if you can provide the explanation, since the authorities on the case are not to be trusted, please do so and I'd be willing to read what you have to write Rhubarb.

You stated:

Still, yes, it's possible to use HAARP for the manipulation. To mention how it's not possible is to mention how you don't know how it can work in response to the weather itself.

Show the evidence.

Why continue being disingenuous?

Your own statement clearly states that you believe "HAARP is used for weather manipulation".

Yet you claim you don't know how?

Ironic, isn't it?

[Space Commander Travis]

I have no words for your conjecture. I'm hoping that you'll be more constructive and provide the explanation. If you can't provide the explanation, please, make the way for someone who can. Asking for proof, me, about this isn't going to be fruitful since the lack of explanation remains active. I find no shame in stating that I do not understand the engineering behind the HAARP, if you can provide the explanation, since the authorities on the case are not to be trusted, please do so and I'd be willing to read what you have to write Rhubarb.

If you believe it's responsible for anything from hurricanes to occasional fog over the hills, why do you not feel it's necessary for you to provide any kind of evidence that it does? Why is it up to anyone who questions your claims to prove that it doesn't? Explain that, please, nice & succinctly without using too many excessive words, if you would. Edited June 5, 2014 by Admiral Rhubarb

[Nenaraz]

So both of you are unable to explain why HAARP can't affect the ionosphere. Thank for your time. If you can't explain it I don't think that providing any evidence would suffice. Clearly that's futile.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Nenaraz

[RaptorBites]

So both of you are unable to explain why HAARP can't affect the ionosphere. Thank for your time. If you can't explain it I don't think that providing any evidence would suffice. Clearly that's futile.

Oh come now....you don't have any evidence to provide to begin with.

That's why you have been dodging requests to prove your claims.

Stop being disingenuous.

[Nenaraz]

Refer to the post #91 of this topic for further claims of my disingenuosness.

What sort of an evidence would be sufficient?

- In order to give you the evidence I have to know and understand the level of your authority on the matter. Are you, in any way, an authority of the HAARP matter?

- What proves to me that you'll understand the evidence?

I see no point in offering the evidence to someone who doesn't even know how to explain the fundamentalism behind why HAARP can't affect ionosphere.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Nenaraz

[stereologist]

Refer to the post #91 of this topic for further claims of my disingenuosness.

What sort of an evidence would be sufficient?

- In order to give you the evidence I have to know and understand the level of your authority on the matter. Are you, in any way, an authority of the HAARP matter?

- What proves to me that you'll understand the evidence?

I see no point in offering the evidence to someone who doesn't even know how to explain the fundamentalism behind why HAARP can't affect ionosphere.

So you believe that you are free to make any claim you want and that it stands until someone proves you wrong.

Not the way things work. Any claim you make requires you to support it. If you can't them your claim fails.

[Nenaraz]

Works "where" that way? In scientific circles, yes. When you make a doctorate, yes. When you make a postulation, yes. When you casually type on forum, no. Forgetting that this is a forum and not a scientific conference is cruical for understanding that people don't operate under the scrutiny for the sake of the modern agenda of skepticism, so bypass me with that by a long, long turn of 90°

If you can't provide clarification of how HAARP works, you prove that you're no authority on the matter and that you're equally in the fog about this.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Nenaraz

[Space Commander Travis]

So both of you are unable to explain why HAARP can't affect the ionosphere. Thank for your time. If you can't explain it I don't think that providing any evidence would suffice. Clearly that's futile.

Are you able to explain why and how it can cause anything round your way from tornadoes to plagues of frogs? You just assume it does? Why should people have to prove it doesn't when you can't prove that it does? Why should they have to do that? Are you just trying to hide behind smokescreens of more words than is strictly necessary?

[Nenaraz]

It's funny that it takes three of you to ask my validity on the matter despite me clearly stating that I'm no engeneer who works on HAARP and prolonging the discussion with unecessary questions. Either provide the explanation why the assumption doesn't work or don't. Blaming me for "words" is hypocritical in this scenario, admiral.

Untill you provide the explanation, you won't receive my reply. Think of it as a sort of my protest against your persistance to avoid explaining or answering whether you're any authority on the HAARP matter. If you're not an authority or an engeneer I'm not inclined to prove anything to you or ask anything of you to explain to me, but I'm being nice so I ask for explanation non-the-less. Since you don't offer the explanation of why HAARP can't influence ionosphere I'm left in the fog avaiting someone who's actually competent.

If noone comes front I'll be on my way thinking that it's haarp and US military doing what they've been doing the best - attacking the weak. Have a nice time.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Nenaraz