okay. danman makes some pretty profound claims here and has presented a substantial amount of evidence. personally, i agree with danman. i trust
haarp about as much as senator mccarthy trusted the soviets, but that doesnt make haarp guilty of every crime they are accused of. again, i personally
think they are behind danman's claims (and more), but as stated in a previous post, the burden of proof rests on the accuser. im new to ATS but the
thing that attracted me to it in the first place was that its a safe place for people with "out there" theories to exchange ideas amongst peers.
COOL HAND may be a disinfo, he may be lurking on the behalf of the powers that be, or he may just disagree with danman. but one fact remains certain:
if you (danman) are onto something legit here, you should be a lot more careful about where you share this information. i agree: if you are absolutely
correct with all your accusations, they need to come to light, and they need to be dealt with. but be a little more careful and thorough with your
presentations as you never know who's watching. also, your haarp readings (and how they align with the disasters haarp supposedly caused) are
compelling to say the least, but some people need more than that. yes, the graph does seem to line up with the disaster, but how does haarp do what it
does. what is it about the energy it emits that causes these. HOW did haarp take down the towers? HOW did haarp cause the earthquakes? if this was a
classic murder trial, you would certainly have enough to paint a villainous OJ simpson picture, but not enough for a conviction. i want to reiterate
that i've been following haarp, and i fully agree with you, but i also understand why those who dont dont. i agree that this info is overwhelmingly
important which is precisely why thoroughness on your part is so important. and to all the people who read this particular post (or any "out there"
post for that matter) and immediatly say "psh", shame on you. that attitude is the EXACT reason why crimes of such proportions are so easy to get
away with. take the classic suess story The Cat in the Hat for example. as the parents of the children in that story, what would you believe; that
your kids ate too much sugar and ran amok, or that a 6 foot upright walking english speaking cat in a 2 foot top hat appeared out of nowhere and
started causing trouble? the cat gets off scott free every time because of how outlandish the accusations against him sound. think about that next
time somebody says something that sounds nutty. we should all still be skeptical so as not to fall for every outlandish claim, but, we should NEVER
dismiss something immediately because of how it sounds. people living in WW2 germany knew about the holocaust the whole time but didnt believe it
because of how absurd it sounded. lets not make that same mistake people


Maybe you could help me. 