"2) Purposes:
-Allows for control of some physical processes in the space environment
-Allows for possible denial of adversary communication/navigation systems (military)
-Allows for possible new communication system techniques (military)"

Wont this cut off communication with any sentient beings up there, this could be a means to keep control from alien life perhaps.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Really. I'm trying to wrap my head around the Earth. No, not literally, but just calculating the immensity of it, the SURFACE AREA of the entire globe, and then trying to see how in the dickens we puny Humans can hope to make something THAT large and widespread with our current technology....

Ahhh there it is The Magic Question....

Your right you know... that puny little HAARP couldn't do a global thingie, that's for sure... but you already saw two other locations mentioned, the one in Norway and the use of the Arecibo dish..

Well hang onto your hat fly boy, because it's about to get interesting

Originally posted by Phage
HAARP and other similar programs can affect only a very small part of the ionosphere at altitudes far above the layers of the atmosphere which involve weather. The experiments have no lasting or dramatic effects on the ionosphere. The effect of the Sun is millions of times greater than what HAARP can produce.

Fear not oh noble opponent... I will get to the HAARPies soon... and we will speak again of weather, defense and power requirement...

Originally posted by Phage
There is nothing in the document which indicates "that HAARP is most definitely involved".

Well perhaps you and your 5 starlings should look a little closer..

I can clearly see the words HAARP Transmitter in that slide show... so Virginia Tech seems to thing it's involved




Sometimes I do notice that some people tend to focus on only one small section of a piece of the puzzle and brush everything else off the table... rather than sit back for a second and look at the implications of the whole picture


[edit on 22-9-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Phage
There is nothing in the document which indicates "that HAARP is most definitely involved".

Well perhaps you and your 5 starlings should look a little closer..

Perhaps you should.
Nice try on the switcheroo. Wrong document.

When you said, "that HAARP is most definitely involved", you were talking specifically about the CARE document. The document which references HAARP is talking about natural dust in the ionosphere. See, up above the HAARP transmitter? It says "Natural Dust Layer". See the slide with the artificial dust cloud? That one doesn't say HAARP, does it?

Sometimes I do notice that some people tend to focus on only one small section of a piece of the puzzle and brush everything else off the table... rather than sit back for a second and look at the implications of the whole picture

Often I notice that some people ignore and intentionally misdirect attention from details which contradict their speculations about the "whole picture".

[edit on 9/22/2009 by Phage]

---

---

Originally posted by neformore
Lets get some grounding and some terminology sorted out here a moment.

The recognised - and indeed long held definition of "Chemtrails" refers to what people see as lines in the sky. Those lines (and I'll go out on a limb right now and say that I beleive they are contrails, and nothing else) are generally formed at altitudes greater than 26,000 feet by aircraft passing overhead. (4.5-5miles plus)

Granted... the 'official term 'Chemtrail' has been used specifically in regards to contrail like looking trails from airplanes leaving chemicals.

Me personally... I am not that focused on that... spraying pesticides on an unaware population, spraying agent orange on people as a test with out their knowledge... running military aircraft spewing out tons of toxic fuel remnants ( I have the data sheets)... high altitude 'experiments' dumping chemicals from rockets and satellites to effect the weather, the ionosphere and the magnetosphere...

To me its all the same... but if you want to nit pick the term and its usage... fine...

Chemtrails of the 1st Kind...
Low level spraying of pesticides, crop dusting, chemical defoliants etc. These chemicals directly get into the air we breath (I still remember the mosquito foggers driving down the streets while kids played), the water we drink and the food we eat via the soil... Not to forget military testing of sprays on people (Don't believe me just google 'Agent Orange tests on towns')

Chemtrails of the 2nd Kind
These would be your aeroplanes spraying for whatever reason... I really don't see the difference WHAT the reason is IMO... smoke from sky writers, bad engines, nasty military jet fuels, cloud seeding... all of those are putting harmful chemicals into the air. It also seems MOST LIKELY that if they are now doing it in the upper atmosphere and space, that they MOST LIKELY did or are still doing, low level atmosphere tests first. In fact they even did it with Nukes in the 50's and 60's (yes I have the data for later)

Chemtrails of the 3rd Kind
LEO rockets dumping chemicals to 'test' changing the ionosphere etc. The use of high energy electron fields like HAARP produces to create plasma mirrors for a number of reasons

Chemtrails of the 4th Kind
Satellites in orbit releasing times amounts of chemicals like barium or gases for what ever reason we can still only guess at...

So you and other skeptics may wish to poke at the term 'Chemtrails' and stick to the narrow focus so you can say "But those are not chemtrails, they are rockets trailing chemicals"



To me its the same thing, dumping chemicals into the air... by what ever means... the end result is the same

Often I ignore and intentionally misdirect attention from details which contradict their speculations about the "whole picture".

*FIXED* for historical reality

Originally posted by zorgon
To me its the same thing, dumping chemicals into the air... by what ever means... the end result is the same

Except that if its in LEO, its not "in the air", its in space.

Technicality I know, but kind of an important one, don't you think?

Originally posted by zorgon
I tend to believe the MAJORITY of readers here comprehend what this implies just fine...

Funny thing about "implication"......it has a nasty tendency to be intentionally misleading. So, are you being coy and "implying" these connections? Or are you being very careful to not state them as "real world" or fact?

Welcome to the world of "zorgon's" conspiracies. Where many don't realize it's simply a different version of "The Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" game.....doesn't make any difference how relevant the connection between A and B is....as long as there is some kind of (usually irrelevant) reference.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by MrPenny]