HAARP should be shut down for good!!!!!

reply to post by Bedlam


Bedlam,
you said: "This would always be true - it's a basic truism of any EM source, and you will see it called the inverse square law if you want to go look it up. "

And you mentioned you had several degrees, a couple in physics, so I'm surprised actually.
Also, I know you've mentioned a couple times that your discussions and dialogue may be over everyones head, [but that you are here to help and educate].

I respectfully disagree with your statement, regarding the relativity of Inverse Square Law to EM radiation.


Inverse Square Law (ISL) :

While this is the stand-by argument for HAARP doubters, it is commonly (intentionally?) misapplied, for it only applies as a special case, with respect to a 'point source' , in your lumen/lighting analogy, inverse square law 'cannot' be applied to a fluorescent fixture.

You seem to have a working knowledge about antenna emission patterns, are you familiar with the terms 'near field', 'transition field' and 'far field'? and the implications? (i.e. in near-field, inverse square law does _not_ apply)

You started talking about isotropic (spherical) emitters, which do follow the inverse square law, but then you completely skipped over the plane wave concept, which _do not_ follow the inverse square law, curious isn't it?

A plane wave keeps the same cross sectional area during propagation, clearly the ISL doesn't apply.

I would recommend researching infinite plane waves.

For an infinite plane wave, the sideways propagation from each point is balanced by the propagation from its neighbors, so the wave continues on as a plane.

In our practical applications we create pseudo-plane wave emitters.

Some examples of pseudo-plane wave, high gain EM radiators, devices where ISL does not apply:
1. lasers 2. satellite dishes 3. long period antennas 4. fractal antenna 5. nuclear decay

Hi OP and All,

I do hope past Gov Ventura stays on this case as well as others. He knows some stuff is going on and his no nonsense attitude may not go to answers, but will give further detail as well as crediabilty to things behind the curtain, the world Pop needs to know, I believe.

Decoy

Originally posted by Unity_99
HAARP is a catch all word for me, I've read theres 4 facilities, one in Norway, and when someone suggests that it cannot affect weather, in unison they could do a lot.

There's more than four ionospheric heaters in operation around the world. Some can target the same patch of sky but a lot of them can't, so it's not practical for them to "act in unison", even if they were run by the same people, which they're not.

But this is only the one power level patent. Patents exist for a much larger technology, and a much much more amplified power, as CBC news in Canada did a coverage of, and presented the director with both patents, and he flatly denied the second existed though she was holding it.

What you have to understand is that Eastlund's patent doesn't describe HAARP, any more than it does Arecibo. So if you come up to someone at the facility and say "this patent is for this device!!" they're going to say "no, it doesn't", because it doesn't. Not because they're "covering it up".

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, acts like a duck, we can call it a duck. In fact, its very dangerous to ignore potentials and possiblities that this technology, widespread now throughout the world, and most obviously used in a larger completely classified or corporate owned maybe, technology. When someone posted the death star was ready and functional, on a thread pertaining to Germany and the AU, I think of HAARP, and that collider is worry too.

But if it looks like a chicken, quacks like a duck, walks like a dove and acts like a quail, it's quite possible that someone who spent their entire life in downtown NYC is going to call it a pigeon, because that person's never gotten closer to a wild animal other than a pigeon in real life except in cartoons on TV about talking owls or whatnot. Given a lack of understanding, such a person will not be able to accurately judge anything about the bird. Like you and HAARP, or the particle collider, or whatever in God's name the "death star" was supposed to be.

www.haarp.net...

How did the line go? "Mos Eisley spaceport: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." I feel the same way about haarp.net - "you will never find a more wretched site of crap and stupidity. You must be cautious"

This article goes into the things it "can do" and patents pertaining to it as well, and weather modification is mentioned in the patents, and I'm fairly certain these patents are the ones for the lesser powered facility, bearing in mind its just one of several such technologies at that power level.

It's not anywhere near "that power level", nor is it designed to operate the way described in Eastlund's patent. However, this is a fun bit of the site, and it's one of those things you should use as a touchstone for the inaccuracy of the rest of it. Actually, I'm not sure there ARE any accurate statements on haarp.net, it's mostly crap, wall to wall, but this is one of those bits you can prove for yourself, with a little teeny bit of effort.

Begich found eleven other APTI Patents. They told how to make "Nuclear-sized Explosions without Radiation," Power-beaming systems, over-the-horizon radar, detection systems for missiles carrying nuclear warheads, electromagnetic pulses previously produced by thermonuclear weapons and other Star-Wars tricks. This cluster of patents underlay the HAARP weapon system. ......

Actually, they don't. Remember, Begich and Manning are absolutely non-technical - they don't understand ANYTHING technical that they read past "plug the cord into the wall". Begich's "doctorate" was purchased from an online homeopathy school for $400.

What Begich did was go to uspto.gov, look up every patent ever issued to APTI, and slap the ones down that sounded the most gruesome in their titles. He does not understand jack about the contents. That one about "producing nuclear sized explosions" for instance. Here's your homework. Get his list of patents that he states absolutely underlie the entire "HAARP weapon system" - then look them up and read the abstracts. It's free - go to uspto.gov and do a patent number search. You'll find that, for instance, the "nuclear sized explosion" one has to do with filling a large empty structure with propane and oxygen and setting it off with a spark. Which, by the way, has diddly to do with HAARP, but he apparently figured you'd be too lazy or credulous to bother verifying it.

The United States Congressional record deals with the use of HAARP for penetrating the earth with signals bounced off of the ionosphere. These signals are used to look inside the planet to a depth of many kilometers in order to locate underground munitions, minerals and tunnels. The U.S. Senate set aside $15 million dollars in 1996 to develop this ability alone -- earth-penetrating-tomography. The problem is that the frequency needed for earth-penetrating radiation is within the frequency range most cited for disruption of human mental functions. It may also have profound effects on migration patterns of fish and wild animals which rely on an undisturbed energy field to find their routes.

Given that Nick has no background in the sciences and no college education (except the one he bought for $400), he can't begin to tell you if this is true or not. First, it's not "earth penetrating tomography" except in the vaguest sense - it's magnetotelluric tomography, which is a different animal. You generally use MT to scan for large formations underground - it's not so good for finding small things - but you CAN use it for that, with difficulty. The bad part is that you have to be right on top of it - literally. You have to plant a field of sensors over the area you're scanning, and then correlate their signals with a computer. You have to have boots on the ground to do it. Then you wait for ripples in the magnetic flux to provide you with the information. These mostly happen at sunup and sundown naturally, or during thunderstorms. If you don't want to wait six to eight hours for it, you need to provide a magnetic disturbance to produce the image. You can do THAT with an ELF signal, if HAARP has the right conditions to induce one, which sadly is only about 15-20% of the time. At one time you could use Sanguine but that's shut down. Otherwise you can just use a VLF transmission, for which we have lots of different sources. Or you can just wait a few hours. The whole "beaming down a signal" thing is bogus, that's not what happens.

A fun part here, although if you're absolutely non-technical you won't understand it, is that he's pulling the thing about people and animals out of his butt. Begich often confuses radio, sound, and electric potential for each other in his writing - he doesn't grasp the differences - so he comes up with these Emily Litella non-sequiturs.

It mentions Begich and Manning brought out in the open government documents suggesting the military already possess weather modification technology.

They also can't seem to read those documents with any understanding of the contents, or they're lying to you intentionally - they're about cloud seeding.

Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher talks about the ionsphere, giving science, and how affecting one part, affects the whole.

Rauscher-Bise also believes in Atlantis and fairies, and has written about them. She's not published in refereed journals anymore.

Crudely Plucking the Strings
Second concept: As Earth rotates, HAARP will slice across the geomagnetic flux, a donut-shaped spool of magnetic strings -- like longitude meridians on maps.
HAARP may not 'cut' these strings in Gaia's magnetic mantle, but will pulse each thread with harsh, out-of-harmony high frequencies. These noisy impulses will vibrate geomagnetic flux lines, sending vibrations all through the geomagnetic web. "

This sounds all sciency, but it's garbage. Not only is it not true on the face of it, but the things they mention are all new agey and bizarre - "out of harmony"? Give me a break. Here's a hint - if you see anyone but Lovelock mention Gaia, they're new age whack jobs.

The whole article is worth reading, its very important to read this, and I wish I could quote more of it. A lot of doctorates and scientists are mentioned and their opinions, research and conclusions about what this technology can do.

Begich cites himself as a reference a lot - he bought his for $400. The other guys he mentions are a mixed bag - most of them have no credentials at all, some he states have doctorates but if you look them up you'll find that a lot of the sources worked at the local "head shop" - I'd have to go dig through my notes but it was something like "Ring of the Unicorn" where they sold crystals and incense. None had doctorates, one ended up being dragged into court and forced to admit that he had an incomplete bachelor's in psych, after trying to defraud someone. One of Begich' sources is the local computer repairman. Their opinions are bupkis.

From what I understand from what I've read, its cappable of actually creating the pole shift 2012 warnings are about, tipping the earth over, based on Tesla technology. This is what I believe a small elite group that wants to depopulate planet earth is going to use, not HAARP specifically, but a cluster of similar technologies, located all over the world, with probably power house ones underground.

Riiiiight.

This is for real, nearly anything that is coming including from the sun, could conceivably be from this technology, and of course thats a general statement. Why do they point it at the sun???? I find that very alarming by the way.

Remember, even small changes can affect the whole in a significant way. I don't want these guys messing with the sun.

They don't - they point it up, because that's the closest path to the ionosphere. They also need to be near the pole, for some of the experiments. There is no conceivable way they can affect the sun.

First of all, I use the term HAARP to mean, that type of technology, and the actual HAARP facility is a part of it, probably due them not disclosing in full all of the various types of tehcnologies that have deveolped, and even forked out of this, so I don't know all their fancy names. So HAARP stands for it all to me, even Woodpecker is HAARP.

@Bedlam:

It's not anywhere near "that power level", nor is it designed to operate the way described in Eastlund's patent. However, this is a fun bit of the site, and it's one of those things you should use as a touchstone for the inaccuracy of the rest of it. Actually, I'm not sure there ARE any accurate statements on haarp.net, it's mostly crap, wall to wall, but this is one of those bits you can prove for yourself, with a little teeny bit of effort.

This was an interesting CBC broadcast. The look on the woman's face when the director flat out lies and denies the second patent, for the super powered up one, that the journalist is holding in her hand, says it all.


HAARP CBC Broadcast Weather control part 1


HAARP CBC Broadcast Weather control part 2

I have no doubt we're talking about a cluster of technologies, but the capacities are very big. Even taking one, such as the HAARP facility and supposedly doing a small job, in the ionsphere, alone, over time, can have huge consequences.

I thought it was a "fun" site too because they included some details of what the technology was capable of, and also gave various Scientists viewpoints of what it could do.

Now here is the part of wild speculation, but this I believe. They may even be plannign on bringing in earth changes, the shift, their Harvest, to rid the world of the useless eaters, and with this type of technology, can cause massive earth quake, volcanic erruptions, crustal displacement, and even probably tip the whole thing over.

Along with excite the sun. I think thats what they're doing. And I think they're going to be a lot more globally responsible, step down, make all technologies transparent and have councils of citizens overlooking and running everything, because thats the goal to work for.

Originally posted by thoughtform
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Bedlam,
you said: "This would always be true - it's a basic truism of any EM source, and you will see it called the inverse square law if you want to go look it up. "

I respectfully disagree with that statement.


Inverse Square Law (ISL) :

While this is the stand-by argument for HAARP doubters, it is commonly (intentionally?) misapplied, for it only applies as a special case, with respect to a 'point source' , in your lumen/lighting analogy, inverse square law 'cannot' be applied to a fluorescent fixture.

You seem to have a working knowledge about antenna emission patterns, are you familiar with the terms 'near field', 'transition field' and 'far field'? and the implications? (i.e. in near-field, inverse square law does _not_ apply)

You started talking about isotropic (spherical) emitters, which do follow the inverse square law, but then you completely skipped over the plane wave concept, which _do not_ follow the inverse square law, curious isn't it?

Nope, because you missed the entire purpose of getting an EIRP number, as I stated, which you seem to have also "missed" - it's to take into account the directionality of the source. Once you boil it into an EIRP, you still use the inverse square law, as I stated. And we're not talking about the near field of the antenna. Yes, obviously I know about near fields - I'm a comm engineer for God's sake - but why don't you tell me where the near field ends for, say, 10MHz? Then you can let me know why you think that's relevant in terms of a phase steered array, and to your argument in general. Seriously. Please come back, give me the near field radius for 10MHz, and then let us know why that's relevant in any way.

A plane wave keeps the same cross sectional area during propagation, clearly the ISL doesn't apply.

Only with perfectly parallel convergence, which doesn't happen, ever. Even a laser diverges. In cases where you have a spectacularly good waveformer, it simply cranks a really high antenna gain factor into the EIRP, and you get an EIRP that's very large. But it still diverges.

I would recommend researching infinite plane waves.

For an infinite plane wave, the sideways propagation from each point is balanced by the propagation from its neighbors, so the wave continues on as a plane.

In our practical applications we create pseudo-plane wave emitters.

Some examples of pseudo-plane wave, high gain EM radiators, devices where ISL does not apply.
1. lasers 2. satellite dishes 3. long period antennas 4. fractal antenna 5. nuclear decay

If you're trying to tell me that any of these doesn't produce a divergent wave, you're having everyone here on. Infinite plane waves are one of those mathematical fictions used to establish a baseline, like an isotropic radiator. They don't exist as practical devices, and the IRI at HAARP is definitely not perfect. For any of these, you still get ISL falloff, you just have a higher gain factor and a whopping ERP.

The other thing I'll ask you to do, other than the question about the near field, is to explain how a phase steered dipole array can be used to produce a plane wave of ANY sort, much less a perfect one. (hint - one thing that prevents a perfect beam from a steered array is analogous to why you can't get infinite resolution from a telescope)

Originally posted by Decoy
Hi OP and All,

I do hope past Gov Ventura stays on this case as well as others. He knows some stuff is going on and his no nonsense attitude may not go to answers, but will give further detail as well as crediabilty to things behind the curtain, the world Pop needs to know, I believe.

Decoy

You do know he lies about being a SEAL, right? Ventura is a windbag.

reply to post by Decoy

I do hope past Gov Ventura stays on this case as well as others. He knows some stuff is going on and his no nonsense attitude may not go to answers, but will give further detail as well as crediabilty to things behind the curtain, the world Pop needs to know, I believe.

Curse the day this man entered the conspiracy arena and brought that silly show along with him.

(and, Decoy, in no way is my above comment meant to bash you personally, it's just my personal feeling about Ventura.)

reply to post by Bedlam

edit: At least that's what I'm assuming - she claimed to be on the civilian side, so I dropped a program name from the military side and she vamoosed. That's always fun - if they say "huh?" you know you've got a poseur, if they run off you can at least assume they are going to feel creeped out that you might be someone they work with trying to get them in trouble.

Bedlam, I think I'm starting to like you already.

reply to post by Bedlam


Oh by the way, the part about 2012, is a very big interest to me. Because we're being inundated with this stuff, and I have long believed it to be a conspiracy enacted by tptb/black ops, for their goals to keep the resources of this planet for themselves, and it very much explains their underground bases. I see black ops, cia, fbi and jesuits even behind so much of the information and so called "nonsense" behind 2012. Strange stories of souls being wiped of memories, and galactic soups, others of nets, over the earth, quarantined. By whom? By benevolent ETs, or by the bad guys running this planet? The strange part is most of the people bringing some of these stories out have had military backgrounds, and connections with various programs. I find it rather odd.

i believe its all related to what they're dong underground in Black Op laboratories, and that whatever is coming down the pipes is of their making. And we the people need to pay attention, and start to demand transparency, disclosure ,redistribution of all goods, and to take back the power to the people. Period.

reply to post by Bedlam


What exactly do you mean by ISL fall off?

Are you saying we can just apply a coefficient to the ISL formula, 'to adjust' for the observable attenuation?

It is touted as Inverse Square 'Law', it either applies or it doesn't.
If you start 'tweaking' the formula for a given application, the original 'law', cannot be applied ubiquitously.

As I mentioned before, I think your vertical expertise in communication theory, where engineers are trained with a pragmatic approach so they can make stuff (even though we don't know 'exactly how it works), you are taught formulas and concepts that are practical, so ambiguity and uncertainty don't get into the way of application.

The 'reality' (did I just say that?) is, we don't have a solid handle on EM theory and it's relationship in terms of quantum mechanics. So, we can throw out standard practical application formulas all day. The guys working on quantum technologies (Tesla), are not constrained by those concepts or formulas.

The EM theory formulas that you use for communications work 'good enough' for the practical application.

Originally posted by Unity_99
First of all, I use the term HAARP to mean, that type of technology, and the actual HAARP facility is a part of it, probably due them not disclosing in full all of the various types of tehcnologies that have deveolped, and even forked out of this, so I don't know all their fancy names. So HAARP stands for it all to me, even Woodpecker is HAARP.

If you want to be grossly inaccurate, ok, I guess. It's a bit like calling all art the Mona Lisa, "The Scream" is the Mona Lisa, "Femmes au Puits" is the Mona Lisa, even opera, say "Die Valkure" is the Mona Lisa.

This was an interesting CBC broadcast. The look on the woman's face when the director flat out lies and denies the second patent, for the super powered up one, that the journalist is holding in her hand, says it all.

Like I say, what she's holding in her hand ISN'T relevant to HAARP - the reason he's giving her the blank look is that she's wrong, and the reason she has "a look on her face" is that she's a humanities major talking head who maybe got one semester of non-math based general physics overview 10 years prior.

I have no doubt we're talking about a cluster of technologies, but the capacities are very big. Even taking one, such as the HAARP facility and supposedly doing a small job, in the ionsphere, alone, over time, can have huge consequences.

You DO realize that every broadcast below, say, 50MHz or so, interacts with the ionosphere as well? Every AM radio station you see - it's all producing some degree of ionospheric heating, although it's too small to detect. The Sun causes a lot LOT more. Orders of magnitude more.

Now here is the part of wild speculation, but this I believe. They may even be plannign on bringing in earth changes, the shift, their Harvest, to rid the world of the useless eaters, and with this type of technology, can cause massive earth quake, volcanic erruptions, crustal displacement, and even probably tip the whole thing over.

Along with excite the sun. I think thats what they're doing. And I think they're going to be a lot more globally responsible, step down, make all technologies transparent and have councils of citizens overlooking and running everything, because thats the goal to work for.

Compared to the solar output, even if you got it all there with one of those fictionally perfect plane waves a previous poster was reading Wikipedia and trying to post about, 3.6 MW isn't noticeable in the least. Hell, you couldn't dump the whole thing in to a cubic kilometer of seawater for a year and measure the temperature difference.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Oh by the way, the part about 2012, is a very big interest to me.

I could see how it might be interesting if you liked that sort of stuff, but I don't believe in any of it, so I don't pay it any attention at all.

There's plenty of doom to go around, sadly enough, there are some pretty creepy projects that are real. Pray that there continue to be really stable leaders in the 1st world countries, there's lots of wacky lethal crap to take care of everyone and then some.

reply to post by Bedlam


I can assure you, its not being grossly innacurate by choice, but then you know, its not up to citizens who are being kept in the dark to prove anything. Since we know that everything is in the hands of these cartel, and we can see wtih our own eyes the horrors and abuses and genocides done on this planet, and hear from their own lips what the think of us, the onus is on them to transparently disclose everything, and run everything under the careful eyes of the citizen panels/councils until those very same citizens discover how since they're becoming so grown up, they don't need anyone over their heads any more.

The sheep don't need to prove every action of the wolves, they just have to say, this looks bad, even scientists think bad things can be done, so its over. Period. All the things its said to be able to do, must be assumed by all citizens to not only be possible, but knowing the black hearts of these elites, we can assume its already been done on some level or other, and people have already died horribly, including children due this kind of mentality and its black operations.

As a citizen, the shoe is on the other foot, and they have certainly not proved to me that the scientists viewpoints are wrong, in fact, the opposite.

That one video alone I posted, where the director lied outright to the journalist, means every single theory about HAARP and all related forked off technologies as well, and everything they say about is an outright lie. Their house of cards fell on one lie.

As a citizen, they're got struck out and yeah, the author of this thread is correct, we have to end this technology being used by jackyls and wolves, but the change has to be so much bigger.

We need to oversee everything, and have everything in open transparency.

I don't have to trust mass murderers.

double post

For some reason I want to think that if HAARP and PLUM island were put together it would be catastrophi. That's just my opinion and I don't know what radio waves can do to viruses but could HAARP be bad if it was somehow used in a weird way with plum island if that's even possible?

Originally posted by thoughtform
reply to post by Bedlam

 

What exactly do you mean by ISL fall off?

Are you saying we can just apply a coefficient to the ISL formula, 'to adjust' for the observable attenuation?

That's the entire point of having an ERP or, less ambiguously, an EIRP. That's why that term exists. It's a comparison between the inverse square falloff of an isotropic radiator, and one that's not. Any directionality at all, and it's not the same as that of an isotropic radiator, which I pointed out in that long post.

It is touted as Inverse Square 'Law', it either applies or it doesn't.

It always applies - and you can have one set of equations describing the effect so that you can calculate the power density at whatever distance - if you convert the apparent brightness to an EIRP first, which takes the directionality into account. That's why there IS an EIRP. I'm not making it up.

If you start 'tweaking' the formula for a given application, the original 'law', cannot be applied ubiquitously.

It's a coefficient, basically, that takes the nature of the radiator into account. It changes the scaling, not the existence of the rule.

As I mentioned before, I think your vertical expertise in communication theory, where engineers are trained with a pragmatic approach so they can make stuff (even though we don't know 'exactly how it works), you are taught formulas and concepts that are practical, so ambiguity and uncertainty don't get into the way of application.

And I think you're really good at hitting wiki and a few other websites, reading some key words, then trying to insert them into arguments, where they look good but don't really relate to the discussion - like the comment on the near field.

Again, how does anything you're bringing up relate to a steered-beam dipole array? I know you want to believe in scalar waves, but there's no such thing. Oh, by the way, just for fun, your boy Bearden didn't invent the thing. I was intending to go back to that other thread but since you're here, he got it wholecloth from someone else and sort of built on it to form the big ball o' whackiness he's reached today. (Did you ever read about Zog? That's your guy)

Originally, the entire "scalar" thing came, as far as I can recall, from a guy named Wally Minto. I don't think there's a lot about that phase of Minto's "career" on the net. Back in the mid sixties, Minto invented a gadget called a "plasmonic communicator", which sort of evolved into something called a "hydronic device", which, basically, supposedly used "space compression waves" to send signals. Anyway, it had all the hallmarks of Tom's "scalar waves". You ought to take an afternoon and go to a library with a good microfiche collection, if you ramble around in the guide to periodical lit for the period of, say, 1962 to 1970, you can find some articles about it. They start off sounding almost sane, but by the end of the period, he was full-bore Bearden about it, and no one wanted to talk to him anymore. I think the first article or two even had some schematics for building one, in something like Popular Electronics, IIRC. Towards the end, Minto was exploring auras, chakras, meditation, and all the other things people like this tend to get into. At least Bearden was a bit more creative and made up Zog.

The 'reality' (did I just say that?) is, we don't have a solid handle on EM theory and it's relationship in terms of quantum mechanics. So, we can throw out standard practical application formulas all day. The guys working on quantum technologies (Tesla), are not constrained by those concepts or formulas.

Tesla didn't know diddly about quantum physics, sad to say. He was, however, really big on exposing his head to high-power x-rays to "speed up his thoughts".

Originally posted by Unity_99

That one video alone I posted, where the director lied outright to the journalist, means every single theory about HAARP and all related forked off technologies as well, and everything they say about is an outright lie. Their house of cards fell on one lie.

The problem is, it's not a lie. The journalist doesn't have the background to understand, or is being intentionally misleading to the audience. What she's got hasn't got anything to do with HAARP. His answer was correct.

There are very very few MSM journalists that have any sort of grasp on technology, and the BBC and CBC seem to be among the worst at technical accuracy, sad to say.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Bedlam

 

As a citizen, they're got struck out and yeah, the author of this thread is correct, we have to end this technology being used by jackyls and wolves, but the change has to be so much bigger.

We need to oversee everything, and have everything in open transparency.

I don't have to trust mass murderers.

I understand the sentiment completely, but more inclined to the 2nd approach; Open transparency and oversight.

The problem with the technology is that it is so powerful, if as a good, healthy society we decide it's not in our best interests, you can bet some other country or organization will continue develop it, and they have.

Hopefully, we will reach a point of applying the technology as a defensive means; like someone mentioned about solar shielding (to mitigate incoming CMEs).
Even provide an active cancellation effect, much like active noise cancellation, from scalar activities being deployed by 'the bad guys'.

But, yes kid_cudi, in spite of it all, has maintained an engaging thread.

From my understanding other countries like China also have a HAARP or equal. Now that they have it we will never give it up.

Originally posted by thoughtform
We need to oversee everything, and have everything in open transparency.

Christ, no.

I understand the sentiment completely, but more inclined to the 2nd approach; Open transparency and oversight.

The problem with the technology is that it is so powerful, if as a good, healthy society we decide it's not in our best interests, you can bet some other country or organization will continue develop it, and they have.

With some of this stuff, what you DON'T want is for it to be out in the open. I'd rather it didn't exist at all. But if it has to exist, I'd rather it be in the hands of a group of countries that's at least fairly sane, and not in the hands of someone who might decide it's a great day to die for Allah.

Seriously, at least if it's in the hands of, say, Putin and Medvedev, or Jiabao, you understand how they think. Political differences aside, they're not likely to say "Wow, I think I'll just kill off the biosphere today". Not too likely for them or their political structure to allow it. I'm not sure I can say the same for, say, North Korea.