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: 19
82
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Bedlam
 

Um, actually, its quite proven that a positive charge in the ionosphere creates negative weather, and that a negatively charged ionosphere means positive weather. Just like a battery. You do know what a battery is...correct???


Neglecting the obvious point that a battery is an electrochemical storage device and is not too similar to the ionosphere, I still don't think you're right. First, the ionosphere is generally neutrally charged, though ionized.

Second, there is some connection to tropospheric charge and nice weather, but it's backwards to what you stated. During clement weather, the tropospheric charge is generally positive with relation to the ground.

That connection is likely to be more an effect than a cause, as well, clouds/rain generally produce negative atmospheric charge due to droplet transport. So it would be more correct to say that the nasty weather causes a negative charge than it would be to say that negative charges cause nasty weather.



Also, EVERYTHING is nothing more than compressed energy and is frequency based. If you don't know this by now, then I am positive that you know far less about HAARP, EM radiation, and RF frequencies than you obviously pretend to know.


Matter has an energy equivalence, but it's not "compressed energy". I have a dollar in my pocket that has a penny equivalence, but it's not made of compressed pennies. Nonetheless, in certain monetary transactions, the outcome will be the transformation of that dollar into change.

You've never gotten past the word "frequency" being an attribute of some other phenomenon rather than a tangible thing by itself. That comes from using new age terms that masquerade as physics terminology, probably. "Frequency of what?" would be my reply to you, not that it'll get a rational answer.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Bedlam]




posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by djcubed
 

Oh come on. Not that stupid list again.
At the bottom of that page you will see that the "data" they use comes from here.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

An what is that list? It is not a complete list, it is a list of "selected" earthquakes. It is a subset of the data in the chart posted above. It is incomplete. The chart I posted is the complete dataset for earthquakes of 7.0 and greater.

Selected earthquakes of general historic interest



The chart that I have shown.. IS ALL QUAKES OF RECORDED HISTORY. The list I have shown is the trend of The Largest Quakes.

They are both complete lists for what they are showing.

1977-Present list used - www.earth.webecs.co.uk...

Please present some data that you dissagree with.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by djcubed]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by djcubed
 

Yes, from your link:

The count here is based upon U.S. Geological Survey, at this link


As I said:

Selected earthquakes of general historic interest.


Selected...as in not complete.


[edit on 4/6/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Bedlam
 

Um, actually, its quite proven that a positive charge in the ionosphere creates negative weather, and that a negatively charged ionosphere means positive weather. Just like a battery. You do know what a battery is...correct???


Neglecting the obvious point that a battery is an electrochemical storage device and is not too similar to the ionosphere, I still don't think you're right. First, the ionosphere is generally neutrally charged, though ionized.

Second, there is some connection to tropospheric charge and nice weather, but it's backwards to what you stated. During clement weather, the tropospheric charge is generally positive with relation to the ground.

That connection is likely to be more an effect than a cause, as well, clouds/rain generally produce negative atmospheric charge due to droplet transport. So it would be more correct to say that the nasty weather causes a negative charge than it would be to say that negative charges cause nasty weather.



Also, EVERYTHING is nothing more than compressed energy and is frequency based. If you don't know this by now, then I am positive that you know far less about HAARP, EM radiation, and RF frequencies than you obviously pretend to know.


Matter has an energy equivalence, but it's not "compressed energy". I have a dollar in my pocket that has a penny equivalence, but it's not made of compressed pennies. Nonetheless, in certain monetary transactions, the outcome will be the transformation of that dollar into change.

You've never gotten past the word "frequency" being an attribute of some other phenomenon rather than a tangible thing by itself. That comes from using new age terms that masquerade as physics terminology, probably. "Frequency of what?" would be my reply to you, not that it'll get a rational answer.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Bedlam]


Did you actually say that..."you still don't THINK that I'm right?"

You literally just said that. This tells me that you didn't read a bit of the information that I gave you and purposefully choose to ignore it to save face and retain your preconceived notions on how the ionosphere works.

Don't ask for any rationality from me when you just showed your own irrational nature by denying a scientific fact.

I can now officially ignore anything that comes from your posts because I can see the mentality that you're displaying.

I have no problem accepting when I am wrong, and have often re-evaluated information when it was presented properly, but, I do not see this quality in you. You will have to overcome your ego if you ever expect to learn new information.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   



You might be interested in this discussion:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Yes very interested... The OP agrees with me... and you are trying to fight the same uphill battle as you are with me. Stick to that thread and let me know how that works out.

The OP did tons of work for that post... AND YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING.
Congrats!~



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by djcubed
 

Yes, from your link:

The count here is based upon U.S. Geological Survey, at this link


As I said:

Selected earthquakes of general historic interest.


Selected...as in not complete.


[edit on 4/6/2010 by Phage]


THE CHART THAT I POSTED IS OF ALL QUAKES... I'm not going to type that again. ALL QUAKES... ALL AS IN LIKE ALL... EVERY ONE.

And yes general historic intrest for the numbers shown... LIKE THE BIGGEST ONES WITH MOST IMPACT.

12, 53, 71, 144... is that not a trend... can you provide better numbers?

How about this -


Or this -


[edit on 6-4-2010 by djcubed]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
There are quite a few misconceptions going on here, from both sides of the camp.

One idea that seems to be causing trouble is that the difference between EM and acoustic waves is a simple matter. Well, it's not. Those who don't accept that EM energy is not the same as, and can't interact with acoustic energy(in the simplistic ways they imagine it could or should be able to) need to go and read a comprehensive account of A/ the discovery of waves in general, B/ acoustic interactions and C/ the discovery of electromagnetic energy. Those of use who grasp the difference between EM-waves and acoustics have already done this reading but really don't have the time to properly address the entire issue with the detail that is needed to convince those who are ignorant on the subject.

Also the ignorant folk are able to prolong these silly arguments because the educated ones are making blunders. Light is not radio. They are different parts of the spectrum and pages of nonsense have erupted over this confusion of terminology. Also, waves of all sorts do share similarities so the uneducated are able to say..look, they are the same..and the educated ones fail miserably by denying the similarities(similarities that are obvious even to the uneducated) therefore creating holes at which can be picked...good god, 18 frgging pages of it.

Yes, all of our senses rely on frequency based phenomena, either detecting frequencies of some sort or using frequencies to encode other data, data which is frequency based at some level....this is why the dopey ones are having a field day here. The supposedly not-dopey ones are being dopey as well.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Did you actually say that..."you still don't THINK that I'm right?"

You literally just said that. This tells me that you didn't read a bit of the information that I gave you and purposefully choose to ignore it to save face and retain your preconceived notions on how the ionosphere works.


It's a nice way of saying "you're full of bullpoo", not an admission of lack of understanding.

The information you gave me was basically "bla bla mystic crap bla bla go look it up if you are too stupid to know this". And I did, even though I knew you were wrong, but I did go look, and behold! I found just what I knew to be true anyway. And so I told you you were incorrect, again, only I did it politely.

Let's try it another way. You're wrong. Wrong on that, like you're wrong on a number of things, only you don't understand enough about science or you're so willfully obtuse that you can't understand the explanations. There you go, that's the somewhat less polite form.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Can you guys stop this silly argument. Evolvedministry, you are bringing up vague idea's. Do you have anything to say on the specific mechanisms of anything that you're on about. If not then just leave it at that until you do. And bedlam, can you stop arguing against vague idea's. He/she's not listening.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by mrwiffler]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
There are quite a few misconceptions going on here, from both sides of the camp.

One idea that seems to be causing trouble is that the difference between EM and acoustic waves is a simple matter. Well, it's not.


Yes, yes it is.



Light is not radio. They are different parts of the spectrum and pages of nonsense have erupted over this confusion of terminology. Also, waves of all sorts do share similarities so the uneducated are able to say..look, they are the same..and the educated ones fail miserably by denying the similarities(similarities that are obvious even to the uneducated) therefore creating holes at which can be picked...good god, 18 frgging pages of it.


Light and radio are all part of the EM spectrum. They don't share similarities, they are the same phenomenon. Waves of all sorts share terminology, but that does not make them co-equal.



Yes, all of our senses rely on frequency based phenomena, either detecting frequencies of some sort or using frequencies to encode other data, data which is frequency based at some level....this is why the dopey ones are having a field day here. The supposedly not-dopey ones are being dopey as well.


Touch, taste, smell. These are not wave phenomena. "using frequencies to encode data" doesn't really apply. "Data which is frequency based" - again, frequency of what? You seem to be another one of those guys that thinks using the term implies similarity between vastly different types of cyclic phenomena. Other than that they both have a frequency at which they occur, there may be or may not be any similarity. Baseballs and birds, dude. Both have MPH, but they're not the same.

It makes a difference because it's apparently a common cause of confusion as has been displayed throughout this thread, as well as about half the others on ATS where something science based is discussed. It leads to "sound has a frequency, EM waves have frequencies, therefore they are co-equal and identical phenomena" when in fact nothing of the sort is true.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Bedlam]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Nope, I'm on your side. I'm just pointing out that everything is frequency based at some level so your going to have trouble arguing with those that don't understand the difference between EM and acoustics.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 



Light and radio are different parts of the EM spectrum. You leave yourself open to attack from the uneducated if you confuse the two. It makes for painful reading. You can't call light radio. It's quite wrong. You'd be in trouble from you teacher in a physics class.


[edit on 6-4-2010 by mrwiffler]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Nope, I'm on your side. I'm just pointing out that everything is frequency based at some level so your going to have trouble arguing with those that don't understand the difference between EM and acoustics.


Frequency of what? I've got a nice lump of rock here I use as a paperweight, on what frequency (and frequency of what?) is it 'based'? Based meaning that the frequency creates it? Or what? How are you using "based" in that statement? Just trying to understand where that statement you keep making is coming from.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by mrwiffler
 



Light and radio are different parts of the EM spectrum. You leave yourself open to attack from the uneducated if you confuse the two. It makes for painful reading. You can't call light radio. It's quite wrong.


They are the same thing, just different frequencies of EM. It's not confusion, it's fact. THz radio borders on the IR at the top.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Name me one thing that is not at some level based on electromagnetic energy.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


No, you can't call light radio. You can call them both electromagnetic energy. You confused the terms before and some knuckleheads jumped on you and I had to read a pile of garbage that could have been avoided.

I'm picking on you because I agree with you arguments. I'm not picking on the other guys because they are not even wrong, and are not worth wasting my time with.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
the frequency is a combination frequency from haarp and it can residualize the exhisting magnetic frequencies that already exist in the earth using the correct mixture of both UHF and VHF frequencies....it works similar to the brainwave entrainment frequencies used to make your own body create a projection frequency....look it up...google is a beautiful thing



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Nope, I'm on your side. I'm just pointing out that everything is frequency based at some level so your going to have trouble arguing with those that don't understand the difference between EM and acoustics.


"Nope, I'm on your side."

Please do NOT try to referee my game.
Now let's see which one are you--smart---not so smart--Oh I got it neither just a biased failed referee.
Yes they are all frequencies and new school thinks they are all radio.
They are not. Audio is not radio. Light is not radio.
EM and sound share the same, similar , alike frequency range.
Light and radio do not.
The guy you agree with twists this to suit his fancy and is dead wrong.
No matter as no one has proven HAARP or any HAARP technology produced the transmissions in the OP.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by djcubed
 

Here's another chart for you:


It seems pretty similar to those other charts you posted.
You think maybe because there are more people and bigger cities that maybe natural (yes, natural) disasters cause more deaths?

I did provide better numbers. The chart I posted is all recorded earthquake of 7.0 and greater since 1900. My data source is the USGS. Data from 1973 to 2009 comes from here. Data from 1900 to 1972 comes from here here.

As pointed out in that other thread (from which the OP seems to have vanished) there have been more located earthquakes of lower intensity in the past twenty years. That does not mean there are more earthquakes. You really should check the links that are provided.

While the apparent spike in lower magnitude earthquakes looks impressive, it can easily be attributed to an increase in the ability to locate these earthquakes. You'll also recognize that it coincides with the advent of the internet.

There are several reasons for the perception that the number of earthquakes, in general, and particularly destructive earthquakes is increasing.

1) A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications.

In 1931, there were about 350 stations operating in the world; today, there are more that 4,000 stations and the data now comes in rapidly from these stations by telex, computer and satellite. This increase in the number of stations and the more timely receipt of data has allowed us and other seismological centers to locate many small earthquakes which were undetected in earlier years, and we are able to locate earthquakes more rapidly.

earthquake.usgs.gov...


[edit on 4/6/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Nope, I'm on your side. I'm just pointing out that everything is frequency based at some level so your going to have trouble arguing with those that don't understand the difference between EM and acoustics.


"Nope, I'm on your side."

Please do NOT try to referee my game.
Now let's see which one are you--smart---not so smart--Oh I got it neither just a biased failed referee.
Yes they are all frequencies and new school thinks they are all radio.
They are not. Audio is not radio. Light is not radio.
EM and sound share the same, similar , alike frequency range.
Light and radio do not.
The guy you agree with twists this to suit his fancy and is dead wrong.
No matter as no one has proven HAARP or any HAARP technology produced the transmissions in the OP.


EM and sound do not share the same frequency range, nor do they have any similarities whatsoever.

Sound travels at roughly 750 miles per HOUR.

Light travels at 180,000 miles per SECOND.

Radio travels at 180,000 miles per SECOND.

ALL EM travels at 180,000 miles per SECOND.


Radio, light, UV, Xray, GAMMA, etc...all travel almost ONE BILLION MILES PER HOUR FASTER than Sound/acoustins/sonar/etc.


Now tell me which frequencies is it that sound and light have in common that allow them to have a ONE BILLION mph difference in speed?



[edit on 6-4-2010 by rufusdrak]




top topics



 
82
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join