HAARP software: biblical targets ?

[turbonium]

Turbo, have you figured out yet that no one takes you seriously because you utterly ignore everything that gets posted and just start over again from wherever you where a week ago?

Maybe I should emulate MID and CZero, with their endless goofy emoticons and snide remarks, and then I'll be taken seriously.

Sorry, but I'll have to take a pass on that approach.

[turbonium]

Yea. I do, and have seen the big problem for most of the time you've been here.

Aspects of which are irrelevance, complete avoidance, and accusing others of dancing around an issue when you are the master of it ( ), as you illustrated here.

The big problem is you. Read aquatus' question above and you'll see that.

So just avoid my points with worthless emoticons and infantile remarks, since you can't address it with a mature argument.

One last try to get a serious respnse from you - how is your approach going to work for, say, a suspected crack-house? Are you fine and dandy, as long as they tell you it's not a crack-house, and they hold annual open-houses?

Because those seem to be the main criteria you have for HAARP being 100% up-front and honest.

Edited August 13, 2011 by turbonium

[aquatus1]

Maybe I should emulate MID and CZero, with their endless goofy emoticons and snide remarks, and then I'll be taken seriously.

Sorry, but I'll have to take a pass on that approach.

It...it took you a week to come up with that?

In all cases, you have the "seriously" thing backwards. They are not responding to you that way because they take you seriously; they are responding that way because they don't take you seriously. See previous post regarding why.

[MID]

So just avoid my points with worthless emoticons and infantile remarks, since you can't address it with a mature argument.

One last try to get a serious respnse from you - how is your approach going to work for, say, a suspected crack-house? Are you fine and dandy, as long as they tell you it's not a crack-house, and they hold annual open-houses?

Because those seem to be the main criteria you have for HAARP being 100% up-front and honest.

I don't suppose that I should add to aquatus' post above.

It says it all.

I think you know that too.

I won't even bother choosing the appropriate emoticon for this.

Edited August 13, 2011 by MID

[arglebargle]

So just avoid my points with worthless emoticons and infantile remarks, since you can't address it with a mature argument.

One last try to get a serious respnse from you - how is your approach going to work for, say, a suspected crack-house? Are you fine and dandy, as long as they tell you it's not a crack-house, and they hold annual open-houses?

Because those seem to be the main criteria you have for HAARP being 100% up-front and honest.

I understand where you're coming from. If we can't trust them, how can we trust them saying we can trust them? Well, we can by looking at what the entire scientific community says HAARP can be used for, and then look at the handful (and i do mean handful) of people who think HAARP is the grim reaper in futuristic weaponry form and simply dismiss them based on their complete lack of compelling evidence. I saw a guy demonstrate how he could use what he claimed to be the principles behind HAARP to do some simple weather manipulations inside a 1x1x1 meter cube. We have no access to his research materials or anything else. Who are you going to trust? Why is it okay to compare respected facilities to crack dens, but give unfounded claims respect and put your trust in their hands? Is it really enough for you to just accuse someone and then immediately those people must prove their innocence, and how would they do that? They have open days, but you seem to suggest they simply hide the nefarious stuff in time for visiting day. So you'd need to do random checks several times a year.

Let me ask you this: How do you know that IKEA warehouses aren't coverstories for underground nuclear missile silos? If I put forth that claim, based solely on "Well they're kinda pretty big buildings. Who knows what's hiding underneath them?" how would you react to that? Would you dismiss me as crazy, or would you work hard to get to the bottom of this claim?

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence at all suggesting HAARP is what it says it is. Personal anecdotes and suspicions are not good enough to lend any weight unless backed by hard evidence.

[turbonium]

It...it took you a week to come up with that?

In all cases, you have the "seriously" thing backwards. They are not responding to you that way because they take you seriously; they are responding that way because they don't take you seriously.

Ah, now I get it. You're saying it's really all my fault that they continually act like immature bozos!!

It seems you'll use any excuse to try and justify their infantile behavior.

Edited August 14, 2011 by turbonium

[aquatus1]

Yes, in large part it is your behaviour that is causing that reaction from them. After all, they react significantly differently when responding to other people.

This is not to say their behaviour is not infantile. It certainly is. However, you make it very difficult to punish them when your behaviour is just a hairsbreadth from being labeled as flamebaiting.

**So, here is the solution: Mid and Czero will stop their infantile behaviour. Turbo, you will stop posting things that you have already posted dozens of times before (I won't even ask you to admit they have been repeatedly addressed). First person to break goes on vacation.**

Edited August 14, 2011 by aquatus1

[turbonium]

I understand where you're coming from. If we can't trust them, how can we trust them saying we can trust them? Well, we can by looking at what the entire scientific community says HAARP can be used for, and then look at the handful (and i do mean handful) of people who think HAARP is the grim reaper in futuristic weaponry form and simply dismiss them based on their complete lack of compelling evidence. I saw a guy demonstrate how he could use what he claimed to be the principles behind HAARP to do some simple weather manipulations inside a 1x1x1 meter cube. We have no access to his research materials or anything else. Who are you going to trust? Why is it okay to compare respected facilities to crack dens, but give unfounded claims respect and put your trust in their hands? Is it really enough for you to just accuse someone and then immediately those people must prove their innocence, and how would they do that? They have open days, but you seem to suggest they simply hide the nefarious stuff in time for visiting day. So you'd need to do random checks several times a year.

Let me ask you this: How do you know that IKEA warehouses aren't coverstories for underground nuclear missile silos? If I put forth that claim, based solely on "Well they're kinda pretty big buildings. Who knows what's hiding underneath them?" how would you react to that? Would you dismiss me as crazy, or would you work hard to get to the bottom of this claim?

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence at all suggesting HAARP is what it says it is. Personal anecdotes and suspicions are not good enough to lend any weight unless backed by hard evidence.

You are the one who gives "unfounded claims respect" and you are the one putting "your trust in their hands".

The "entire scientific community" argument is always used when one cannot make a valid reply to specific questions. In this case, you're trying to justify why HAARP prevents any independent investigations like Ventura's. You also dismiss it when a minority of scientists question HAARP, as if they must be kooks or something. These are typical government propagandist tactics.

You're trying to compare HAARP to IKEA. But it's not a valid comparison. However, let's suppose IKEA - like HAARP - was being questioned and suspected by a significant number of people , and that - like HAARP - IKEA prevented an independent investagtion of their warehouses. What would you think of IKEA then? Without a doubt, it would seem they are NOT completely up-front and honest. And that it gives an appearance they may well be hiding something.

And that's the point you still fail to understand about all this.

Edited August 14, 2011 by turbonium

[aquatus1]

You really Can't see how that looks to other people, can you?

To you, that really looks like a calm, logical, non-confrontational response.

[Mike 215]

Before HAARP the US Government was tampering with the weather and earthquakes. Look up the following UN treaty singed by over a 100 nations in 1978 on google:

CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER HOSTILE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES.

The teaty came about because of the misuse of cloud seeding during the Vietnam War under Project Popeye (see google For more then seven years USAF planes sprayed chemicals into the clouds over SE Asis in order to create floods. The program was very successful and there was vast damage in North Vietnam due to this flooding.

The US was condemned for using this techology and laster signed a treaty promising not to play around with the environment for hostile uses.

The treaty is interesting because it admits that the techology to modify the environment already exited by the late 1970s:

"The Convention defines environmental modification techniques as chaning-through the deliberate manipulation of the natural processes-the dynamics, compositon of the structure of the earth, including its bota, lithosphere,hydrosphere, and atmophere, or of outer space. Changes of weather or climate patterns, in ocean currents, or in the state of the ozone layer or ionosphere, or an upset in the ecological balance of a region are some of the effects which might result from the use of environmential modification techniques."

It is interesting that the treaty is refering to earthquakes and hurricanes and tornadoes and weapons of war.

HAARP is much more dangerous then the older technqiues and is clearly a violatoin of this UN teaty.

Look up the following prorams to control hurricanes : Operatioin Cirrus and Operation Stormfury on google The government these programs failed, but there is plenty of documentation that they did work in slowing down and changing the dirction of these storms.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Mike 215

[arglebargle]

Before HAARP the US Government was tampering with the weather and earthquakes. Look up the following UN treaty singed by over a 100 nations in 1978 on google:

CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER HOSTILE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES.

The teaty came about because of the misuse of cloud seeding during the Vietnam War under Project Popeye (see google For more then seven years USAF planes sprayed chemicals into the clouds over SE Asis in order to create floods. The program was very successful and there was vast damage in North Vietnam due to this flooding.

The US was condemned for using this techology and laster signed a treaty promising not to play around with the environment for hostile uses.

The treaty is interesting because it admits that the techology to modify the environment already exited by the late 1970s:

"The Convention defines environmental modification techniques as chaning-through the deliberate manipulation of the natural processes-the dynamics, compositon of the structure of the earth, including its bota, lithosphere,hydrosphere, and atmophere, or of outer space. Changes of weather or climate patterns, in ocean currents, or in the state of the ozone layer or ionosphere, or an upset in the ecological balance of a region are some of the effects which might result from the use of environmential modification techniques."

It is interesting that the treaty is refering to earthquakes and hurricanes and tornadoes and weapons of war.

HAARP is much more dangerous then the older technqiues and is clearly a violatoin of this UN teaty.

Look up the following prorams to control hurricanes : Operatioin Cirrus and Operation Stormfury on google The government these programs failed, but there is plenty of documentation that they did work in slowing down and changing the dirction of these storms.

Cloud Seeding is a far cry from what HAARP is rumoured to be able to do. And it is just rumour. Cloud seeding is however a very real concept, but there's a difference between a chemical reaction and triggering earthquakes with radio waves. It's a bit like saying: Well if I subject an egg to water that is hot enough, for long enough I'll have a hard boiled egg - and saying, if I microwave the egg, it's gonna hatch el pollo diablo. One statement is true and can be easily proven by anyone, and isn't at all strange - while the other is a claim I pull out of my ass, backed by nothing except a very vague recollection of teenage mutant ninja turtles.

[MID]

Before HAARP the US Government was tampering with the weather and earthquakes. Look up the following UN treaty singed by over a 100 nations in 1978 on google:

CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OR ANY OTHER HOSTILE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES.

The teaty came about because of the misuse of cloud seeding during the Vietnam War under Project Popeye (see google For more then seven years USAF planes sprayed chemicals into the clouds over SE Asis in order to create floods. The program was very successful and there was vast damage in North Vietnam due to this flooding.

The US was condemned for using this techology and laster signed a treaty promising not to play around with the environment for hostile uses.

The treaty is interesting because it admits that the techology to modify the environment already exited by the late 1970s:

"The Convention defines environmental modification techniques as chaning-through the deliberate manipulation of the natural processes-the dynamics, compositon of the structure of the earth, including its bota, lithosphere,hydrosphere, and atmophere, or of outer space. Changes of weather or climate patterns, in ocean currents, or in the state of the ozone layer or ionosphere, or an upset in the ecological balance of a region are some of the effects which might result from the use of environmential modification techniques."

It is interesting that the treaty is refering to earthquakes and hurricanes and tornadoes and weapons of war.

HAARP is much more dangerous then the older technqiues and is clearly a violatoin of this UN teaty.

Look up the following prorams to control hurricanes : Operatioin Cirrus and Operation Stormfury on google The government these programs failed, but there is plenty of documentation that they did work in slowing down and changing the dirction of these storms.

Mike,

Ranyhyn is correct about the cloud seeding.

As to the wording of the treaty you speak to, you state:

"The Convention defines environmental modification techniques as changing-through the deliberate manipulation of the natural processes-the dynamics, compositon of the structure of the earth, including its bota, lithosphere,hydrosphere, and atmophere, or of outer space. Changes of weather or climate patterns, in ocean currents, or in the state of the ozone layer or ionosphere, or an upset in the ecological balance of a region are some of the effects which might result from the use of environmential modification techniques."

You also state that this statement implies that we had this technology.

It doesn't imply that at all. It merely prohibits it shoud the ability exist to do it.

Further:

HAARP is much more dangerous then the older technqiues and is clearly a violatoin of this UN teaty.

But these "older techniques" are nowhere mentioned, or to be found. And you state a fact about HAARP's work that you haven't substantiated; that it's "much more dangerous" than techniques that can't be substantiated.

Again, we're talking here, making declarations and interpreting things in support of a certain position, but no one has ever proven that HAARP is capable of any weather or environmental modification.

HAARP is a harmless scientific research program. Mostly of interest to pocket protector wearing geeks like me who still know what a slide rule is and know how to use one! It isn't a threat, not whatsoever.

It would probably bore most people to tears.

[Gregg Shaffter]

I have been researching the HAARP project, and this is one theory I made.

Well, as all may have known, the gas prices have gone higher and higher because of the "economy". I think the whole economy and the financial crisis is more of a hoax and fraud than people may think. This is the good part. Here is a link to an article talking about how oil prices are dropping, but the gas prices are rising: Here

Well, when I looked up HAARP, I made a connection. To run the amount of electricity that it needs, it needs a lot of oil to run it. Well, here is the thing. How are they getting the oil and how will they get the amount they need? Simple, they simply cause the gas prices for the citizens to rise, which means citizens will use less gas, which means the oil can go to the HAARP project.

Now, I have also made a connection of this project to the Middle Eastern war. Well, people are starting to say this really wasn't a war in the first place. As some, or all, may know that the U.S. oil comes from the Middle Eastern areas. Here is a link to tell: here

This, in fact, maybe true. And, I am starting to believe the 9/11 attack was a way to make it look like a war, but it was merely the government making a frame.

So, the conclusion is, all these wars, the financial crisis, and the gas prices are just a hoax to have most of the oil go to the HAARP project.

[arglebargle]

I have been researching the HAARP project, and this is one theory I made.

Well, as all may have known, the gas prices have gone higher and higher because of the "economy". I think the whole economy and the financial crisis is more of a hoax and fraud than people may think. This is the good part. Here is a link to an article talking about how oil prices are dropping, but the gas prices are rising: Here

Well, when I looked up HAARP, I made a connection. To run the amount of electricity that it needs, it needs a lot of oil to run it. Well, here is the thing. How are they getting the oil and how will they get the amount they need? Simple, they simply cause the gas prices for the citizens to rise, which means citizens will use less gas, which means the oil can go to the HAARP project.

Now, I have also made a connection of this project to the Middle Eastern war. Well, people are starting to say this really wasn't a war in the first place. As some, or all, may know that the U.S. oil comes from the Middle Eastern areas. Here is a link to tell: here

This, in fact, maybe true. And, I am starting to believe the 9/11 attack was a way to make it look like a war, but it was merely the government making a frame.

So, the conclusion is, all these wars, the financial crisis, and the gas prices are just a hoax to have most of the oil go to the HAARP project.

So you're saying that not only is HAARP a dangerous weapon - but 9/11 was faked. And the connection is that 9/11 was faked in order to stage a war that would provide fuel for HAARP. That has got to be among the craziest theories I have ever come across in my life. It's right up there with "The king of Sweden is broadcasting anti-semittic waffle recipes, which I know because I picked them up through the fillings in my teeth".

[MID]

Well, when I looked up HAARP, I made a connection. To run the amount of electricity that it needs, it needs a lot of oil to run it. Well, here is the thing. How are they getting the oil and how will they get the amount they need? Simple, they simply cause the gas prices for the citizens to rise, which means citizens will use less gas, which means the oil can go to the HAARP project.

Questions to consider before revising and polishing your theory:

How much diesel does it require to run the HAARP HF transmitters from the two diesel generators that HAARP uses for the purpose?

How does that compare to the amount of deisel burned by the transportation industry daily in the United States?

Is it at all significant?

[Daveisback]

All the theories about HAARP are so much CT mind fertilizer. CT logic(if there is any) falls apart when you start looking at their claims in detail. When you start picking the theories apart they start claiming you are:

1. Blind to the facts.

2. Paid by the Goverment in some way(cookies, Cheese, cash, hookers, drugs, trips to belize, ect.).

3 Just dont know enough science(such as how sheep bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes ).

Just my two pennies worth. I have a very low tolerance for CT, in whatever flavor they come in.

[MID]

All the theories about HAARP are so much CT mind fertilizer. CT logic(if there is any) falls apart when you start looking at their claims in detail. When you start picking the theories apart they start claiming you are:

1. Blind to the facts.

2. Paid by the Goverment in some way(cookies, Cheese, cash, hookers, drugs, trips to belize, ect.).

3 Just dont know enough science(such as how sheep bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes ).

Just my two pennies worth. I have a very low tolerance for CT, in whatever flavor they come in.

Well, I say that's a fresh new way of putting it.

[Daveisback]

Well, I say that's a fresh new way of putting it.

Thank you, bows

[MID]

Thank you, bows

You're very welcome!

[Inanna]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/images/newsitems/haarp.jpg

Peter Fotis Kapnistos: A Pentagon project named HAARP ((High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) can beam over a billion watts of radio waves into the ionosphere. But just what kind of software does it use? And where are its so-called communications and surveillance targets? The HAARP Research Station, near Gakona, Alaska, is supposedly there to analyze the ionosphere and develop enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance purposes. But HAARP has recently been blamed for a dreadful range of events, including numerous natural disasters such as earthquakes and bird deaths.

View: Full Article

Is'nt it awesome?! lol!

Is'nt it awesome! lol!

Edited August 26, 2011 by Inanna

[MID]

Is'nt it awesome?! lol!

Is'nt it awesome! lol!

HAARP is pretty awesome stuff...if you're interested in that sort of geek stuff.

HAARP is pretty awesome stuff.. if you're interested in that sort of geek stuff.

But what did you mean?

But what did you mean?

[Mike 215]

I was looking up articles on HAARP on google and I found some very interesting facts on the encyclopedia. First of all, the military has complete control of the facility. Here are the military organizations, in charge: Office of Naval Research, Air Force Research Laboratory, US Dept of Defense. Defense Advanced Rreeasrch Projects (DARPA) and BAE Advanced Technology, a civilian company inivolved in many miliary projects.

Athough there are many universities involved, they are given their assignments from the military. What I found distrubing is the constant expansion of the facility and the constanty increasing ability to send more engery into the ionospher. The latest is 5.1 gigawatts. I also see there are other installations around the world working with HAARP such as the large antenna found at Arecibo, Puerto Rico. This 1000 foot in diameter antenna was important in early space research, but I read it is also used ot heat the inosphere. The fact that many hurricanes seem to hit PR, I wonder if Arecibo has anything to draw them to the island.

Although we are told that the research done in this facility is not secret but is open to the public. Governor Jesse Ventura tried to enter the facility recently and was threatened with arrest.

With the military controlling this project then any wild conspiracy theories could have a basis of fact.

[MID]

I was looking up articles on HAARP on google and I found some very interesting facts on the encyclopedia. First of all, the military has complete control of the facility. Here are the military organizations, in charge: Office of Naval Research, Air Force Research Laboratory, US Dept of Defense. Defense Advanced Rreeasrch Projects (DARPA) and BAE Advanced Technology, a civilian company inivolved in many miliary projects.

I thought maybe you learned something for a second, Mike. But, you embellish the simple facts you find with that exaggeration so typical among folks of your ilk.

The military does not have "complete control" over HAARP. The Air Force and Navy are two organizations with management oversight responsibilities, along with 12 other Federal institutions, 5 state departments, 3 private ventures, and 2 commercial ventures.

BAE has no oversight. They were the builders of the place!

Athough there are many universities involved, they are given their assignments from the military.

Baloney. That's your imagination extrapolating because military research organizations are involved in the operation of the facility.There are 14 Universities involved, all performing research at the facility. No one tells them what to do. They do what HAARP does.

What I found distrubing is the constant expansion of the facility and the constanty increasing ability to send more engery into the ionospher. The latest is 5.1 gigawatts. I also see there are other installations around the world working with HAARP such as the large antenna found at Arecibo, Puerto Rico. This 1000 foot in diameter antenna was important in early space research, but I read it is also used ot heat the inosphere. The fact that many hurricanes seem to hit PR, I wonder if Arecibo has anything to draw them to the island.

I'd ask you to show something in support, and to indicate the relevance, but I know there won't be an answer.

Although we are told that the research done in this facility is not secret but is open to the public. Governor Jesse Ventura tried to enter the facility recently and was threatened with arrest.

You know it's funny, you were told, and probably on this thread, or the others, is that their work is not classified. You were not told the facility was open to the public. Another extrapolation on the facts. Ventura's (Not a Governor, and I wonder if he consulted the Governor of Alaska regarding his plans, like any actual Governor would???) ridiculous TV show attempted to gain entry into a private research facility that doesn't and shouldn't, simply allow people inside their facility. You think perhaps the people didn't know who this clown was at their gate with a TV crew and a Conspiracy TV show???

You are as naive as anyone I have seen here yet! You think anyone is simply allowed into a facility, scientific or commercial, without proper notice and authorization?

The facility holds open houses. You could read that too. If you or I went up there with cameras , or witholut, and demanded entry, we'd be denied too!

With the military controlling this project then any wild conspiracy theories could have a basis of fact.

And without the military controlling the project any wild conspiracy theories could be baseless, which they are...

I have to say, I appreciate you making an effort to research the matter. But reading carefully, good source documentation, without an eye toward embellishing based upon personal biases, is a key to actually understanding.

Edited September 1, 2011 by MID