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.

 

HAARP Active @ 7.406Mhz Shortwave

page: 10
82
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
There seems to be a debate that sound is related to light.

Just because the two share the same unit, does not mean they are related.

It is like saying a bird and an automobile are related because both can go 30mph.

Measurement of light is the oscilations of photons as they travel through a medium, given in cycles per second.

Sound is measured similarly with the oscillations of molecules affected by the transmission of kinetic energy, also given in cycles per second.

Two very different causes but the same metric.

But there is a thing called Sonoluminescence where sound can be turned into light. In fact there is an animal on earth called the pistol shrimp that can actually produce this effect. It does however require a medium that allows a bubble shaped standing wave to occur. The bubble is maintained with the sound's standing wave, and the implosion of the bubble creates a extremely short burst of light. The temperatures reached when this happens can approach temperatures as hot as the sun. However it is on such a infinitely small scale that it has little to no impact on the surroundings. The standing wave has to be a longitudinal mode wave, and therefore can only substantially exist in liquids or solids. Gases are inherently poor conductors of sound, and therefore it would take tremendous energy to create such a standing wave. This would also assume the medium is homogeneous. The atmosphere of earth is far from homogeneous. There is a tremendous difference in density, and ions from the surface to the ionosphere.

As for HAARP... electromagnetic excitation of molecules may increase the amount of ionized particles in the ionosphere. This creates the equivelent of a voltage potential. The same effect that creates lightning. If the voltage potential is high enough and spread over a vast section of the ionosphere, it could quite possibly induce the piezoelectric effect... in a Crystal or Matrix at ground level. But to induce the effect on the earth surface itself might be a longshot.

I dont believe humans have the technology it takes to produce such high amounts of energies. If anything the sun may have more to do to it then HAARP.




posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
This statement is for everyone, but, it is pinpointing those in the debunking field who believe that their opinions of science equates to absolute fact.

There are plenty of things out there that science has yet to prove, which is the reason why most science falls into the category of theory. I constantly hear debunkers claiming that they outright know the inner-workings of science which seems to make them feel as if they can call someone else's theory psuedoscience; when science itself is constantly evolving. Just recently, it was discovered that Einstein's theory of relativity has been put into question because of an observation that scientists created in a laboratory environment. Whether the experiment was repeated or not, the outcome dictates that for an instant, everything that we ever thought we knew was incorrect. And for me, all it takes is an instant to realize that we have VERY little understanding of the Universe around us.

Unlike many of the debunkers posing as self made "experts," I tend to give sources for my information.

By the way: information about light bending matter is on the 3rd link. This implicates HAARP's capabilities as much stronger than a debunker would have you believe.

So, here we go.

Here's the one that puts Einstein's theory into question:
Snippet:

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

refreshingnews9.blogspot.com...
I'm sure someone will respond to this claiming to know more than the scientists who performed the experiment, but, I will assure you right now...You're wrong.

Here's information that talks about the very real possibilities of a multiverse. You know, that crazy stuff that only conspiracy theorists entertain. Although, again, I'm sure that our resident "experts" will convene in their smoke filled rooms to collectively disagree with the assessments here, but, they will come without a shred of evidence to back their statements.
news.nationalgeographic.com...


Here is some information about light bending matter, not the other way around. Imagine the implications, especially with electromagnetic radiation. (HAARP.) And, if this is the case, imagine what that could imply about thoughts, neural synapses,...etc. If light can bend matter, and electromagnetic radiation is made of LIGHT...what does that tell you??? It tells me that the possibilities are endless.
But hey, I'm sure that we have astrophysicists here on ATS and electromagnetic experts who will offer their casual disagreement and find a way to discredit the scientists that found out this information.
www.msnbc.msn.com...

This one here is so beautiful, that I don't want to spoil the surprise.
www.thirdeyeconcept.com...

And hey, this is another one that says quite a bit, but, I'm sure that our ATS disinfo agents know far more than the scientists who studied this one.
www.popsci.com...

My point is, science is constantly evolving more towards the truth. The one's who cannot accept these truths are the one's who are still living in a fictitious construct that they've created to protect their own versions of reality.

The OP presented us information because he detected a anomalous signal on his shortwave at the time of the earthquake. Personally, I believe that greater investigation is warranted considering the implications here. Trust me when I say, there's a whole lot more happening around us than our tiny little brains that only operate on a 10% consciousness level can illuminate. And for those who speak so definitively, you might want to watch your tongues, because you may end up having to swallow your own words in a less than pleasurable way.

Much love to all...


[edit on 5-4-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Just tuned up and searched around this frequency now and can't hear anything (UK). Currently got a broadcast radio station coming through weakly on 7406 kHz.

I have heard HAARP before though and it is distinctive, obliterating anything on the frequency at the time.

I must be one of the remaining few who sits for hours listening to static just to hear that one interesting transmission.

Already heard a letters station - eerie doesn't cut it...

[edit on 5-4-2010 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 

I'll ask the same thing I asked the OP.

How did you know it was HAARP you were listening to? Are you basing that conclusion just on the strength of the signal or something else?



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by rufusdrak
 


I am well aware of how sound not only push air like you say, but also travel through matter making it vibrate. I have been working quite a lot as stage crew and such during concerts and festivals, and as an examnple I can use once I was working at a Chemical Rother's concert. And the soundlevels and especially the bass levels and frequencies coming out of the subs made several people faint, vomit and complain about chest pains, and heart sensations and especially breathing trouble. Believe it or not this was early in the day and long before the C-Bros were known to the general public, so the outside tent wasn't crowded, people were mostly sober and temperatures etc were quite normal. We had to stop the concert and tell them to do something with the sound for it was making people ill and we feared that people might die if the concert carried on like that. So trust me, I know what this is about. I may not be a phycicist knowing everything there is to know about EM radiation, but I know my fair share.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
reply to post by pondrthis
 

The biggest proof is: If light and sound were the same, then why do we have two completely different/separate organs to detect them both? And both these organs (eyes and ears) work on completely different mechanisms.

Another area of expertise for me, haha. I don't quite think that's right. The frequencies dealt with by the ear range from 20-20kHz, or up to 20,000 cycles ('pumps' of air, so to speak) per second. This requires a highly compact elongated organ called the "cochlea", which essentially does a Fourier Transform on the signal created and amplified by the eardrum, selectively recognizing frequency content in a waveform.

But the frequencies in the visible spectrum are many, many times larger than that. In order to host a cochlear-scale organ large enough to detect these frequencies, we would have to cross size thresholds set by various planetary constants like gravitational acceleration, oxygen diffusion through tissues, etc. The processing power required for such an organ would similarly be monstrous, and would require a massive scale-up in brain size. Of course, that's if we used the "cochlear-style" Fourier analysis type organ.

What the retina does is different. Visible light doesn't even double from its lowest-to-highest frequency (as opposed to the gap between 20 and 20,000). Thus, we approximate: depending on the light's ability to stimulate three types of cones (color-, or frequency-, sensitive cells), our processing center decides about what color, or frequency, the incoming light was. If our frequency scale needed was huge, this approximation wouldn't work. We'd need too many types of "cones", and so our spatial resolution would suffer drastically... maybe to the point of uselessness.

Of course, light and sound are different, so this is a bunk argument. Nevertheless, I don't think one organ could suffice when the frequency discrepancy is so large.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


I think you might finally be getting it. Keep in mind that to my knowledge EM frequencies can't affect us because they are not physical pressure waves like sound is.


Then I suggest that you put a rat inside a microwave oven or something, well bringing in the more concious second thought, don't, for I am sure you know what would happen. Different wavelengths and frequencies of EM radiation have different and a wide variety of highly physical effects and impacts on us. Emmitting MW in around the 3 GHz range, which is not that uncommon in radars for instance, will heat water and if you place a gold coin into a MWoven you'd see something quite fascinating. And a regular MW oven is typically 750 Watts. How many terrawatts do the millions of radars around the world emmit their EM waves at, and what impact has it had on world climate the last 70 or so years? I have said this here many times before when people scream about greenhousegasses etc. Just a fraction of a degree temperature change in the upper atmosphere would cause weather change. This planet is glowing with manmade radiation, what impact has that had on the climte? I have never seen that being discussed, other than in my own threads, and just about all those threads flopped, since there has been done no research to my knowledge into it, leading me to know that this is a Non-subject. Something that TPTB doesn't want us to know about.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Not a problem. Radio is infinite. That is what makes HAARP technology so dangerous in the wrong hands.

Single-sideband modulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The high power SSB transmitters were located at Rocky Point, ... baseband signal modulated onto a 5 MHz carrier will produce a SSB frequency of 5.002000 MHz ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-sideband_modulation - Similar

I do not think HAARP worries about FCC


Well, there's some non-sequiturs for you. The Rocky Point experiment with SSB was before WWI, totally non-related to anything discussed here.

Oh, and radio's not infinite. Not sure what you mean by that.



There are no detectors in transmitters, Diodes multiply NOTHING.


Of course not, nor did I say that. We were talking about sidebands, which you don't believe exist or something, as far as I can tell. And yes, the function of a diode in a detector is it's non-linearity. The transfer function of a diode is a multiplication, thus it "detects" or produces audio from an AM or SSB modulated signal because it multiplies the carrier with the sidebands. With SSB it's tougher, you usually use a ring detector and you've got to add the carrier frequency back in.



SSB the higher frequencies can be very dynamic..Side band is not needed in HAARP heaters. Unless it is incorporated in the VHF UHF and higher frequencies. An AM/ HF signal can be used to pulse or pump the ionosphere. So what if there is detectable SSB. It is merely a by -product.


You always have sidebands. SSB isn't "very dynamic", it's just the product of modulation. You can't exactly have SSB without modulation, btw. If you don't it's just the carrier.

All modulation of a carrier IS is production of sidebands. It's not a byproduct, if you're modulating intentionally, it's THE product.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by David_Reale

Seems like there's a connection, seen from my conspiratory eyes. Might just be me, though.


[edit on 5-4-2010 by David_Reale]


My computer was on then, too. And I'm pretty sure I had a Taco Bell aftermath in that time frame, so it could be explosive deflatulation that did the deed.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ressiv
reply to post by Artaius
 


ofcourse you see and feel it... if it was generated by an radio station you must be able to track it douwn... if it is everywere in the same strengt it comes from outer space ore is generated in the core...

related to the shuman resonance????? perhaps that is wat you are picking up? 7 MHZ is the frequency of it...
en.wikipedia.org...


Um, no, you're not seeing or hearing radio waves, except the ones at frequencies we call "visible light".

And, no, Schumann resonances fall into the 7 Hz range, not 7MHz.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Here is a nice new type of speakers which are quite impressing. This is a small prototype, with a very limited range:



And here's a so called singing tesla coil speaker:



And yet another:



Besides most speakers around the world are electromagnetic ones, converting current into sound via a membrane, so I honestly don't understand why people can run around and believe that there are no relation between sound and electromagnetism. I have a bunch more different types of setup links showing many kinds of speakers not using the traditional speakers we all assosiate with electric sound. In the link below, scroll down until the small article about lasers producing sound.

wedgewalls.com...

[edit on 5/4/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]

[edit on 5/4/2010 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   
EM radiation can WITHOUT A DOUBT affect us. The problem lies in probability.

Some frequencies, like those in radiowaves, just simply can't be absorbed. The probability is so low that even monstrous quantities won't be scattered or absorbed by the electrons in our bodies. Since we lack electrons bound at very low binding energies (like the energies of outer-shell electrons in heavy metals), the photoelectric effect can't occur. Most low-frequency interactions are elastic and do not affect the target atom after the photon (light wave) passes through.

At higher frequencies, like visible light, we see some effect. Heating, mostly. Laser therapies utilize this in some form or another to congeal blood vessels, cause microscopic explosions, etc.

Higher frequencies still, such as those in x-rays, can and do induce effects like the photoelectric effect (which can induce currents or heating or DIMERIZE DNA, which is what can cause cancer). These energies are damaging to biological life, but due to their existence as "just on the edge between highly absorbing lower frequencies and nonabsorbing high frequencies", they are useful for things like medical imaging.

At very high frequencies, like gamma-rays, the probability of absorption is very low. These tend to pass right through us, but the few that DO get absorbed are rather dangerous in comparison to x-rays. This radiation is therefore still considered damaging.

Reasonable levels, not gov't secret project levels, of any of these types of radiation (barring very low energy like radio frequency waves) can and will injure or kill any living thing. Lasers can cut right through flesh. Microwaves will pop you in a few seconds. X- and gamma-rays are deadly in a few treatments' worth of radiation therapy if you get it at once.

While EM waves clearly do affect us, and could in theory impart momentum, EM radiation of any type is much more likely to melt away, explode, or fry an object than to move it. And heat energy is heat because it's random motion... not a bulk movement. In fact, if light imparted a bulk movement, the material wouldn't get hot at all... the energy would be kinetic rather than heat energy. And damn if we wouldn't love to be able to do that... the possibilities would be endless.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pondrthis

Originally posted by rufusdrak
reply to post by pondrthis
 

The biggest proof is: If light and sound were the same, then why do we have two completely different/separate organs to detect them both? And both these organs (eyes and ears) work on completely different mechanisms.

Another area of expertise for me, haha.


I agree with what you're saying because human audible sound frequency is roughly 20hz to 20khz whereas the wave-form frequency of visible light is somewhere like 20 terrahertz if not more. I.E. difference of 20,000hz to 20,000,000,000,000hz if I'm not mistaken. BUT the point I was trying to make is that sound and light are completely different and that if our EAR for example could "hear" a 20 terrahertz signal it would still not be able to hear "visible light" because sound and light simply are completely different things and the mechanisms for our organs to hear/see them are completely different as well. Similarly if our eyes could "see" a 5khz wave it would not be able to "hear" a 5khz sound sine wave because sound and light are completely different things.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotTheOne
Another piece of information here:

To send out an ELF frequency of say 6Hz you would need a sizeable or large antenna to support the size of the wavelength, so to even transmit an ELF wave, you would require a very large antenna or a large antenna array.

For example, the one the Alaska HAARP has, which is an antenna array. A very large one infact.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by NotTheOne]


Not anywhere near. A typical ELF wave is thousands of miles long. A 6Hz wave is 31,000 miles in length.

The Navy's old 72Hz ELF stations had about 70 mile long antennas, and were heinously inefficient because they were so short. The ones at Gakona are designed for HF, not ELF.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotTheOne
To be corrected, not all the power comes from HAARP, they have 360 kWatts of power fed into HAARP, and they use the waves from the antenna array and use the Ionosphere to amplify the power of the waves, by heating the Ionosphere up, so infact, HAARP isnt the one with the power its the Ionosphere.


To correct the correction, it's 3.6MW, and the ionosphere doesn't "amplify" the waves. They create ELF waves in situ by steering the electrojet. And they get about a 0.001% efficiency at the maximum. Most of the time they can't get close to doing that well.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
Some of the thinking is that you charge the ionosphere electro-magnetically. Using the dialectic that is the atmosphere. (air)
Call the ionosphere the positive plate and the iron core the ground.
By using the natural magnetic fields and the directional attributes of radio
the release of this energy at a specific weak spot in a fault area.
I am not up on magnetic's that much but know LC circuits real well.
Now I have never said this type technology has caused an earthquake but the evidence is really mounting.
Have you been listening?


Some of the thinking is wrong, then. EM waves do not carry charge.

Dialectic is something you'd have with Karl Marx over class warfare theory.

If you mean dielectric instead, then even IF your idea was right, and it's not, what you'd get would be a sort of lightning strike, not an earthquake mystery beam.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
And they get about a 0.001% efficiency at the maximum. Most of the time they can't get close to doing that well.


Hahaha, the joys of engineering. At that, I'm going home Bros. 'Till next time.

And this ain't no one-liner.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


Nice video but it has nothing to do with sound and light relation. What is it you think you're seeing in that video? Let me guess you think that in the first video "light" is being converted into "sound?"

When are you going to get it light and sound are two completely different things and are not related. All that's happening in that video is ELECTRICITY (which is NOT light, i.e. NOT electromagnetic radiation) is pulsing at fast enough frequencies to generate a pressure wave in the air around it to create sound.

This has NOTHING to do with light and NOTHING to do with electro-magnetic radiation. I don't know if that was a new attempt to prove that light and sound are the same to you or what, but you obviously have a poor understanding of science. Electricity and electric currents are NOT light and have nothing to do with electro-magnetic radiation.
You seem to think just because they share the common word "electro" that they are the same things.

edit: correction sorry it's not even electricity but rather Plasma that's tweeting the music in those speakers. That has even less of a connection to electro-magnetic radiation i.e. LIGHT since plasma is a gas.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by rufusdrak]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

It's VERY well documented that the Tesla technology that HAARP is based on is capable of causing earthquakes... and a lot more. Whether that happened in this case, I don't know. But to claim over and over that it's not possible is beyond dishonest.


It's only very well documented by people who haven't got a clue, like Begich.

It's not very well documented by people who'd like you to present some sort of rational linkage based on actual physics, like me.

And which "tesla technology" is it based on, exactly? I've always wondered that one. If you're going to claim the link Begich grasps for so frantically, you have to chase it down. It's not really there, he's just hoping that you won't notice.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by NotTheOne
To be corrected, not all the power comes from HAARP, they have 360 kWatts of power fed into HAARP, and they use the waves from the antenna array and use the Ionosphere to amplify the power of the waves, by heating the Ionosphere up, so infact, HAARP isnt the one with the power its the Ionosphere.


To correct the correction, it's 3.6MW, and the ionosphere doesn't "amplify" the waves. They create ELF waves in situ by steering the electrojet. And they get about a 0.001% efficiency at the maximum. Most of the time they can't get close to doing that well.


Just curious how you know what they (HAARP) is capable of getting? I just find it strange how on HAARP's official site they say all this stuff about how it's about ionosphere experimentation yet no where do I see the results of that experimentation. HAARP has been up for 20 years already and I have never once yet seen or heard of their findings. I thought it was a transparent/open institution or are their findings classified? If so I'm just wondering how you're able to know about what it is that HAARP was able to discover and how you know the % rate of their efficiency etc?




top topics



 
82
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join