Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Conspiracy Theorists Vindicated: HAARP Confirmed Weather-manipulation Tool

page: 4
101
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No I mean there is a reaction to the energy sent out due to the fact that the 3rd law is right.




posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Believe what you will. The scientists of the world are testing ideas daily that involve Tesla's inventions.
It isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of understanding.
We use Tesla's inventions every day. He was a very good engineer. He designed some very effective ways of doing things. He was also very wrong about some things. Radio waves for one. He just didn't get it.


edit on 5/18/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



No I mean there is a reaction to the energy sent out due to the fact that the 3rd law is right.

The "reaction" is a slight heating of a small region of the ionosphere but it has nothing to do with Newton's first law.

edit on 5/18/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Believe what you will. The scientists of the world are testing ideas daily that involve Tesla's inventions.
It isn't a matter of belief. It's a matter of understanding.
We use Tesla's inventions every day. He was a very good engineer. He designed some very effective ways of doing things. He was also very wrong about some things. Radio waves for one.



Radio waves are essentially what I understand the array sends out. But the affects may be subtle or not so, depending on the wavelength sweet spots. Places where the energy are more in tune with the earth (as the native Americans like to put things).

I honestly think Tesla saw Maxwell's equations different than others.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman



No I mean there is a reaction to the energy sent out due to the fact that the 3rd law is right.

The "reaction" is a slight heating of a small region of the ionosphere but it has nothing to do with Newton's first law.



Since you are here, I'm curious if you know if this technology could be used to affect ICBM's? I mentioned it in the other thread but it didn't get as much traction.

Is it possible that "cooking" the ionosphere over a certain region could disrupt the targeting or trajectory of ICBM's?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


ANY energy is still energy. It has an affect when focused and actions have an opposite action. When you slightly warm here or there, you are altering the atmosphere. If you learn which wavelength get which reaction you can use it as an advantage. Our military will not ignore such knowledge as long as the Military Intelligence Division is funded. Makes sense too, that there are certain wavelengths where the focus is stronger and where it is weaker.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph
In theory, sure. Given sufficient power one might create a localized effect similar to an intense solar event, a region of highly energetic particles.

In practice, not so much. Mainly because the power density required would require transmitter power many magnitudes greater than that of HAARP. But also, the results obtained by HAARP, in most cases were dependent upon ambient conditions in the ionosphere. Under good conditions something would work, under other conditions it wouldn't.

edit on 5/18/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
"Is it possible that "cooking" the ionosphere over a certain region could disrupt the targeting or trajectory of ICBM's?"

They have lasers guided by sophisticated computers to take those out. Saw a recent news blurb about successful testing of one a few weeks back.
edit on 18-5-2014 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Our military will not ignore such knowledge as long as the Military Intelligence Division is funded.
Yes. And that is why the military provided funding for HAARP. You know the military is not only concerned with weaponry, right? Communications are important to the military. Surveillance (and anti-surveillance) is important to the military. Protection of assets is important to the military.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman



Saw a recent news blurb about successful testing of one a few weeks back.

It would be cool if you could provide a source.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Good debate Phage. makes me think to read your posts, no doubt. 'Till we meet again.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman



Saw a recent news blurb about successful testing of one a few weeks back.

It would be cool if you could provide a source.


It was on Drudge I thought, but I didn't save the reference. Seems like it was NATO.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman
Thanks.
I've enjoyed it.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman

Our military will not ignore such knowledge as long as the Military Intelligence Division is funded.
Yes. And that is why the military provided funding for HAARP. You know the military is not only concerned with weaponry, right? Communications are important to the military. Surveillance (and anti-surveillance) is important to the military. Protection of assets is important to the military.



Damn I will never get sleep reading these.. LOL

Yes com is a goal. And the Navy has figured out a way to use low hertz transmissions to talk to subs as you probably already know.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DeadSeraph
In theory, sure. Given sufficient power one might create a localized effect similar to an intense solar event, a region of highly energetic particles.

In practice, not so much. Mainly because the power density produced by HAARP was not nearly enough. But also, the results obtained by HAARP, in most cases were dependent upon ambient conditions in the ionosphere. Under good conditions something would work, under other conditions it wouldn't.



As I mentioned in the other thread, and another member mentioned above, it seems (on the surface at least) that HAARP was more so initiated to enhance communications abilities and perhaps deal with solar flares. But I have to wonder if the ICBM issue wasn't a point of greater interest in the long run.

The location of the facility in Alaska is interesting in the sense that not only does it provide for easier experimentation by being closer to a polar region, it is also strategically located in proximity to Russia. Any ground launched ICBM's sent in the direction of the U.S from Russia or China wouldn't be flying over the Atlantic, but the Pacific, and if HAARP was capable of generating a strong enough disruption it could shield both the U.S and Canada much more effectively than interceptors or satellite based technologies by providing a "blanket" over the region.

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this may have been the real reason the U.S air force was so interested in playing with the ionosphere.
edit on 18-5-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph
It's a possibility that it was on the table as part of the research. But as a practical matter it seems unlikely to be a very effective method, and certainly HAARP itself was not up to the task. Besides, construction didn't start until 1993 and it didn't become "fully operational" until 2007. There wasn't much of an ICBM threat in that time period.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   
There were many experiments with HAARP, but I think the most important was focused on communications. If you could manipulate areas of the ionosphere in a way that could reflect, focus and help propagate carrier frequencies around the earth, then you have the foundation of a global data network without satellites. I am not sure of all of the successes they had in this area, but there were some.

It did it's science, and as it was pointed out, the cost to keep it going is no longer justified in what more it can achieve.

I wonder what the next phase of this research is going to be.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Jude11:

This is only one site that is now proved to be used as a weather modification tool.


I'm sorry, but I disagree. He doesn't state that it is a weather modification tool, but that it is used to 'inject energy into the atmosphere to control it'. You may assume this to mean weather modification, I don't. HAARP can only inject energy into the atmosphere directly above it, it is not target-able, it cannot be used to focus energy above other countries due to being non-directable and the limitations of 'line of sight' due to the earth's size.

Is HAARP capable of modifying the weather system above it, for instance, turning a sunny cloudless day into a thunderstorm? I don't know, but I think it highly unlikely. They have a better success at weather modification through 'cloud seeding' and 'chemtrail spraying', as that gives the moisture in the atmosphere micro-particulates to adhere to and form rain droplets. One thing HAARP will do is warm the atmosphere directly above it, but like removing a pan on boil from a stove, the heat is instantly dissipated as soon as HAARP is switched off. Even while the energy is being injected into the atmosphere above the HAARP facility, the earth's size and atmospheric scale easily deals with the heat man is injecting into it by radio emission.

Could HAARP be used as a weapon? Yes, I would think so, as a means to disrupt communications, if they could make it portable and place it on a plane, and still deliver the same amount of power.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: jude11


Well, much of the World has experienced the worst winter in decades and all of us at once. Not just a few.


In Scotland (and I daresay the rest of the UK) our worst winter in decades was a couple of winters ago, the winter just passed I think I saw about 5 snow flakes total. In fact the winter we had wasn't very cold at all, I started working for a Stone Mason in December and there was a day in February we were down to T-shirts, it was that warm but I hardly had to wear any extra layers from December until now.

Maybe this means HAARP hasn't been used on the UK? Or perhaps the milder winter is a result of HAARP? How would we find out?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: jude11

Did you catch this?

3:00 minute mark:

"to managing the ionosphere, what the HAARP was really designed to do, to inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it… [CJF emphasis added] "


Did you catch that?

Ionosphere. That is the upper part of the atmosphere that affects radio waves. It has nothing to do with the weather. The bad winter weather in the US was due to the jet stream "sticking" and pulling in cold artic air. HAARP has absolutlely naff all to do with that.

The only correlation between HAARP which is directed at the Ionosphere and the weather we humans feel in the Troposphere is 6 letters "S" , "P" , "H" , "E" , "R" , "E".






top topics



 
101
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join