It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Navy Responsible For Earthquakes

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Perceived Reality,

Information offered on shuttle entirely accurate, with zero disinfo.

The length of that portion of initial communication devoted to shuttle, intentional.

Disinfo intentionally floated about Soviets shooting down Challenger, U.S. shooting down Columbia, is a red herring, for those who would bite on it, take it up and trumpet it.
It was designed to take up space, thought, to divert/subvert, to muddy water(s).
We are obliging authors of this diversion right now, by even discussing it...
But, perhaps energy/time/life units (only have so much/many) expended upon it will cease to be spent to no avail by one (you, perhaps?) and better utilized in more productive avenues.


Life/Energy much better spent on detailed observation/analysis of environment, self/others in environment, engaging/improving critical thinking skills to process data, both written and otherwise.

Knowing what to throw out, and what to keep, has never been more important.

There is so much going on right now, in terms of what can be revealed/uncovered by personal observation. Putting oneself, with open eyes, in a different time referential, not the one that has been artificially created for people, will tell very much.
Holes in the fabric can be readily seen, many ploys discovered, and steps taken to remedy internal damages inflicted through years of deceit and manipulation, steps to bolster against onslaught that is at present, and that which is yet to come.

An aside: Your reference to haarp activity when shuttle launched. You should expect haarp, and/or other antennas to be operating. One of the uses for the array, and others, really IS for vastly improved satellite communications. That such used for a range of other things does not negate use for this purpose.
This is an example of what I mean about knowing what to throw out and what to keep, and improving critical thinking skills.
Mandatory, at this juncture.

[edit on 24-4-2008 by WizardOfId]




posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by WizardOfId
 


WizardOfId,

Agreed, to some extent. However, I am going to disagree with you about this theory being disinfo and the foam or o-ring being correct. I have personally researched and seen the facts, figures, and other information that leads me to my believe on the subject of the space shuttle disasters. Critical thinking (not your eyes it seems) is what has lead me to my conclusion that the "foam" or "o-rings" is the true disinfo (to be taken as "perceived reality" by the masses) and that technologies and a coming nuclear attack on Los Angeles unbeknownst to most were the real causes. Thus I do not blame the US government for the "disaster" but I do get riled-up when we are not told the truth, perpetuating the myth, "You can't handle the truth." Once us CT'ers acknowledge the existence of disinfo being out there for us to "bite on it, take it up and trumpet it", we must then acknowledge that the actual truth is out there too and that only critical thinking and logical reasoning will be able to deciepher the two.

You said "An aside: Your reference to haarp activity when shuttle launched. You should expect haarp, and/or other antennas to be operating. One of the uses for the array, and others, really IS for vastly improved satellite communications. That such used for a range of other things does not negate use for this purpose."

Okay? I am aware and (IMO) understanding of HAARP's ultra-low frequency capabilities in communications with deep sea submarines. (thus the NAVY involvement in the project) However, I haven't read documentation, heard previous arguments or seen any supporting data that HAARP somehow "vastly improves satellite communications." Would you care to share how you believe this to be the case?

Back to the space shuttle topic. I was talking about the re-entry and landing, not about launch. If I remember correctly, Columbia was in orbit at the ISS for about 1 1/2 months on that mission. HAARP was turned on at about 5:30AM and turned off at about 9:00AM during re-entry and landing. Duration was only during approach and re-entry as I have explained (no HAARP transmissions prior to 5:30AM 3/1/03 for over two weeks AND no HAARP transmissions post 9:00AM 3/1/03 for another 2 week period) If we could look into the electrical component debris from Columbia we would see EM damage across all hardware that was caused by HAARP. (well, the plasma shield of energized particles created by HAARP)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree about this, but let's not get all intellectual and claim that there are better things for each of us to research with our time (or "life force" to some extent) as you have said. As the OP claims (with recent earthquakes, Malaysian tsunami, and 9/11) HAARP may have more to do with the seemingly "natural disasters" than anybody (that has a clue) would care to acknowledge.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Ya.. be back


[edit on 24-4-2008 by danman23]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by danman23
 


Is it just me, or am I reading the date wrong? Columbia blew up on reentry on February 1, 2003. I'm getting a date of January 3, 2003 from the charts you posted, Dan.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


Sorry about that.. I haven't really been able to sleep for the past 3 days. I went to bed at about 10 am earlier and just tossed and turned till about 1 pm. For some reason I thought the shuttle went down on Jan 3rd? (I need to rest.) I must have been documenting a low scale earthquake or just a test. When I went to the real time of the Columbia disaster I found they had it turned up to 30 instead of 11 like I thought before. I didn't understand how they did it until after you pointed that out anyways. Now I do... They charged two layers of the atmosphere with extremely high power for about six hours. When the shuttle passed through it they exploded. Simple as that.. Here is a link to a guy who tries explain that the shuttles went down because of a "Rare Solar Shockwave" But you can obviously see that HAARP was on at an extremely high power before... so that "Rare Solar Shockwave" is actually HAARP's waves. He tries to explain but ends up asking "Did the shuttle inadvertently fly through a current sheet as it passed through the morning side of the ionosphere into daylight? Was this current sheet pushed by the Solar Wind Shockwave which arrived around the first signs of problems on the shuttle?" Well.. now he has his answers. "He goes on to say "Just as Columbia is over San Francisco within the ionosphere, entering sunlight, crossing a potential current sheet, while in a high right bank, with greater than normal vortexes created by the left double delta wing, as the solar wind shockwave hits the magnetosphere, an astronomer takes a picture of Columbia overhead and captures a luminous purple corkscrew object hitting the Shuttle." I think we all know what that "luminous purple corkscrew object" is from..

Anyways.. on to the graphs..





Again.. Save, Print and Share

Peace,
Dan

[edit on 24-4-2008 by danman23]

[edit on 24-4-2008 by danman23]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Danman23 - how many years have you been studying ionospheric activity using digisondes?

Under whom did you study? At which universities and research facilities?

How many other digisonde readings from the dates in question have you studied? How do that compare with the ones you have posted?

And, depending on your answer to those questions, why should we believe your unique interpretation of them?

[edit on 24-4-2008 by Essan]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Hey Essan,

If you read all my posts you would see that I am a website designer, I started studying these graphs about 2 days ago. I didn't understand them properly until I found the explanation HAARP gives on their website Here and it was pointed out that I had the times lined up wrong. I could see that there was increased activity during the disasters but after I figured it out it all fell into place. Please look over the graphs I posted on page 4.

Under whom did you study? At which universities and research facilities?
I never went to college. I got expelled from highschool my senior year for talking back to teachers and being late... I did officially graduate from highschool though, I had enough credits when they kicked me out. It didn't really matter much to me because I already was running my own web design business.. business was alright for about 3 years.. then about 8 months ago I started working with a large company on a very nice salary and I work from home. (Still run my biz though and do side projects.)

How many other digisonde readings from the dates in question have you studied? How do that compare with the ones you have posted?
I have not compared them with other digisondes.. actually I can't find others. I you find some post them.

And, depending on your answer to those questions, why should we believe your unique interpretation of them?
Because the evidence speaks for it's self. Look at the beginning of the thread.. I was sure they were using HAARP even before I came across the data. Find someone who is trained on reading those graphs and you will know for sure.


[edit on 24-4-2008 by danman23]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
They are using HAARP right now.. most likely just for weather modification. They are not letting it build up. It is at 14 which is strong but they are letting it go immediately. The black line going through the pink is a beam of plasma pushing the waves into the clouds above the US.



Check out the satellites.. Here



[edit on 24-4-2008 by danman23]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
i think the evidence presented are great. just how the graphs are the same shape as the magnetic beam, this is really a good find.

even i dont know that much about electricity, too many things points in the same direction, it would be nice if haarp is proved as used weapon, but its so hard to get anything proved, the chemtrails are a very good example.

i guess nothing helps more than to spread the word

thanks danman for your hard work and the gift of this knowledge.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
i dont like that they are charging it up right now.

today was some of the worst chemtrail bombings for month
complete ruining the otherwise perfect day
im writing from copenhagen denmark, central europe

i think the abstract connection between haarp and chemtrails is where they break common law. both are manipulation something which is everybodys right ie. the magnetic sheild and our sunshine/weather.

offcourse these covert programs are related



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by skywatch
 


Welcome.. this is not hard to prove though.. this is data from their own equipment. It can and will be used against them in the court of law. I am pretty sure there are already people putting a case together with other evidence. One major fact is that the towers fell at a free fall speed.. that is not possible if the towers fell the way the commission said it did. They said that the jet fuel weakened the steel in the upper floors then the upper floors fell on the next lowest flow which then collapsed and hit the next.. so on and so forth. But if that were the case the towers would have takien longer than free fall speed due to floors crashing into each other.

Peace



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by skywatch
 


They are not actually charging it up.. if they were you would see much more pink and green on the graphs. They are releasing the energy into the clouds above the USA immediately after they are released. (and probably a lil in Canada..) If they were charging it up.. I would start driving east. Keep track of the current graphs. If you see it start building up please post it. Here is the link
(They are turning it down now.)



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
i really hope it will go that well and that this will not be discredited
i encourage everyone reading this thread to check their mind for knowing somebody with a decent understanding of the ionosphere and magnetism
the more experts that see this the more "expert" proff
look good though.. or bad if youre an NWO freak.
i belive the tsunami was manmade and also that the next big war will not be on terror but on survival, nature is the NWO's "human favourite enemy"
nobody can blame nature... or maybe, yes they can, if its manmade it can

[edit on 24-4-2008 by skywatch]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
An Amazing Thing,

The half-cocked and running aspect.
If people from the inside of some of these, "things," endeavored to supply truthful information to net forum(s)...
Because of Prediliction Adversarial, staunch protectionism of vested psychic/mental territories suffering SacredCowItis of humanski americanus (so well trained/programmed to be just that), it is assured the info will quickly degenerate into disinfo.

Your keepers don't actually have to do much to keep you right where you are, ready for and unable to resist what they have in store for you. The programs have been inculcated within you and run of their/your own power at this point.

Tragic Magick.

So programmed, that if you don't have actual red herrings provided you, YOU GENERATE THEM YOURSELVES WITH TRUTH GIVEN YOU, BY POLLUTION FROM YOUR OWN MINDS.

You have actually been trained to do that.

At this stage, Powers That Be don't have to drop nearly as many moles into these forums as before.

Good Luck.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WizardOfId
 


Huh? Right. Even factual data is now disinfo, our feeble minds have been trained for this to happen!? I suppose I would agree to the extent that many claim every UFO photo or video to be a fake CGI hoax. However, when REAL proof does come along, they have been conditioned to say it is fake (almost automatically), so they will be wrong, no longer able to tell what is in fact is reality. At this point everything is fake, so why even consider the possibilities, right?

So tell me how do YOU deceipher fact from fiction in this world? And don't get into "critical thinking" like you eluded to in your previous post because many of us are already using our thought processes in a much sophisticated manner than your average sheeple....ie at least we are questioning a subject before judging the book by the cover!



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Wiz,

In the final analysis, all one has to go on is what rings true to one's self. Each of us has to distill the voice of truth that comes from deep inside of us. I agree there is a lot of interference. The signal is strong though, and can be isolated with concentration and devotion. I also agree "run and gun" is not the way to go about it. The truth is only elusive because we don't want to face its harsh realities and inescapable eventualities. The truth doesn't squirm around and try to avoid us, but vice versa. At the same time, those with a vested interest in the lie do their best to get in the way.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Hey check this out. Nikola Tesla's earthquake machine. This guy started a thread suggesting that the towers were brought down by a Tesla device.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by danman23
Hey Essan,

If you read all my posts you would see that I am a website designer, I started studying these graphs about 2 days ago


I think that answers my point
In 2 days, with no training and no prior knowledge of the subject, you've become an expert in interpreting ionospheric activity data.

IMO you're looking at graphs of ionospheric activity above one point on the earth and drawing wholly unfounded conclusions about its effect on other points on the earth.

If you wish to verify your conclusions may I suggest comparing the graphs with activity over a number of days, and, indeed, on the same dates in previous years. Also compare with activity elsewhere in the world.

If you can then find something truely anomalous in the graphs you have been posting, you may have a point.

You may also care to explain to us - as alluded to in some of your other posts - how ionospheric activity above Alaska impacts on cloud cover over the contiguous USA - bearing in mind such activity is many many miles above the troposhpere as well as hundreds of miles aways from the areas allegedly affected.

For those interested, here's a couple of links to info that may prove useful:

www.wdc.rl.ac.uk...

www.wdc.rl.ac.uk...

Here, out of interest, is the latest reading from Chilton in the UK. Not as exciting as the graphs from Gakoma I'm afraid, but it's morning and as yet there's not a great deal of activity (it various due to time of day). I'll see if I can find a more interesting one later today to compare with those previously posted






posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by danman23
Keep track of the current graphs. If you see it start building up please post it. Here is the link
(They are turning it down now.)


I bet you find that they normally 'charge it up' in the afternoon, local time, and that it turns down after dark



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I am still puzzeled that no HAARP experts seem to have joined this discussion.

It would be of great help to have some pro and con experts joining in to shine some light here on this thread.

[edit on 25-4-2008 by jaamaan]

[edit on 25-4-2008 by jaamaan]



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join