HAARP Is Out Of Control, You be the judge!!!, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 70 times


reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 08:38 AM by davesidious
reply to post by jinx880101



You don't know there weren't earthquake lights, just that you've not personally read any reports about them. Again: objectivity.


reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 08:42 AM by davesidious
reply to post by antonia



What's more it can't be blamed for ANY weather/earthquakes, as it simply can not affect anything even remotely connected either phenomenon.

But that won't stop the lunacy.



reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 08:49 AM by NichirasuKenshin
reply to post by jinx880101



Your questions are legitimate, I didn't want to imply otherwise.

Since we do not yet have a coherent theory on what causes earthquake lights, it is impossible to predict or asses what conditions are needed to produce them.

There is some circumstancial evidence that points to the fact that only stonger earthquakes produce them, but we don't have enough data to prove that yet.

Considering the evolution of portable video/photo gadgets, I am not surprised that from the mid 2000's on the documentary evidence is pilling up - cells phones capable of making pics/vids and the means to distribute them (internet) are fairly new things in the third world - so it makes sense that we only have consistent documentation of them since a few years.

Some earthquakes produce lights, some don't. Today it is reasonable to assume that large earthquakes taking place anywhere in the world that are accompanied by earthquake lights will be documented by laymen - so our understanding and the documentation of the phenomenon will surely increase over time.

Then we might even be able to explain why some earthquakes produce lights and some don't.

But this whole line of argumentation does kind of disprove that earthquake lights are a new thing or that they are more common today than they were in the past - something that seems to be held as fact by some members here.

Hope that cleared up my position.


reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 08:54 AM by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Alaskan Man



Thanks for your reply Alaska Man. I'm pretty sure much of the stuff is correct, but, I'm sure I left a few things out here and there.


reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 08:54 AM by ExScientiaVeritas
reply to post by maoklein



I couldn't agree more! With the prevalence and pervasiveness of our modern media, any sensational story sits on our front doorstep 24/7 until either, (1) it runs out of momentum and the media tires of it, or (2) something more sensational strikes the media's fancy. Remember that the media has generally operated from the same basic premise for decades, if it bleeds, it leads! This effect is ultimately compounded by how easily accessible information has become to modern society.


reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 08:57 AM by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Monts



Well, you would hope that they wouldn't go around flaunting it. But, at the same time, think about the reasons why they would use such a thing. It really has nothing to do with being a weapon, but, more like an economy builder. Every time there is a "disaster," usually we are the first responders and we get all of the contracts for re-building that state. We declare it a disaster area, send in some troops, and then begin the building process. So far, it looks like business is good. And...technically, you don't have to declare war against these people, when it can appear that mother nature was responsible. And, so the building process begins.


reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 09:01 AM by EvolvedMinistry
Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to
post by Faiol



We don't " KNOW " about the Consequences of Man Playing Happ Hazzardly with Fire ? ......... I just hope the PTB in the HAARP Program do some Serious Scientific Thinking before they decide to Try and Conquer Mother Nature in the Future Again ...


I agree. I think merely by having such a device goes counter to mother nature.


reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 09:04 AM by EvolvedMinistry
Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to
post by bkaust



Please correct me if I am wrong here , but wasn't the HAARP Program from the beginning of it's conception in Theory a Possible " Weather Manipulator Device " ? Does it have more than that capability today ? Hmm...

[edit on 12-3-2010 by Zanti Misfit]


Yes, it was meant for weather control, communication with submarines, and a missile defense system.


reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 09:05 AM by NichirasuKenshin
Originally posted by GhostR1der
To the people saying HAARP cannot control weather - IT'S IN THE PATENTS!!! Perhaps they will read the horrible capital letters and let it sink in. Read the patents, patentstorm has them all listed. Note it can 'control communications and other effects'.



There are patents on perputual motion too. What does that prove?

...

Being familiar with this discussion and the skepitcs point of view on ATS, I can attest that none of the debunkers have ever suggested that HAARP was not used for or involved with resaerch in the field of military communications. But the communication aspect of HAARP is (or better, was) conceptually different from other fields of research that it was devoted to.

As far as weather control goes - we can influence local meteorological events, but not weather as such.

The claim about patents though is that anyone who has worked in the field of patent application will tell you that having been awarded a patent at some stage does not equate to proof of overall feasibility of the patent's content.

I used to believe that anything awarded a patent must be a real, functioning, reproducable mechanism - a belief I had to give up with the years as I have seen tons of patents that have been awarded and were neither real, nor functioning, nor reproducable.

If you want to prove anything on the basis of patents you would have to reproduce what is proposed in the patent (watch out for legal problems, though, depending on the patent your veryfying) and then make your own observations. This method has been used consistently to debunk patents with minor complexities.

The feasibility of much of what Dr. Eastlund claimed to be feasible in his patents have been seriously challenged, and he failed to meet that challenge. So either he too has lost his belief or interest - or there is some kind of massive conspiracy ...... it's all a question of probability... it's either a horse or a zebra, as the saying goes...


reply posted on 12-3-2010 @ 09:15 AM by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by djusdjus



It couldn't be PURE IGNORANCE as you say that pegs HAARP as a weather machine. Its creator claims that this was the very purpose from the onset.

So, it seems a bit of a dubious claim that you would equate one of its intended purposes, "weather control" with ignorance since the person who designed this facility and sold it to the government states that this was one of the "main capabilities."

I think I will believe the guy who designed and engineered HAARP about HAARP's capabilities over the guy who simply analyzes it from his own viewpoint.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Zombie Apocalypse is Real! And it\'s Here Now!
  Posted 15 days ago with 86 member flags
While Americans keep arguing about Trayvon-Zimmerman
  Posted 9 days ago with 79 member flags
The Suspicious Death of MI6 Agent Gareth Williams..
  Posted 19 days ago with 77 member flags
Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary
  Posted 11 days ago with 58 member flags
This is scary!
  Posted 16 days ago with 57 member flags