New Ice Age Movie Depicts 2012 Crustal Shift Scenario ! The Evil Agenda Behind 2012.

There seem to be huge glaring problems with all the supposedly accepted and established theories of Geology - which for some reason people never get to hear about, text books dont mention them.

Of course if these theories were to be overturned - then Pole shifts, expanding earth, and hydritic earth theories would have to be considered

Did ice ages even occur? - Problems in the Glacial Theory

Difficulties in the Glacial Theory The layer of drift is the main body of evidence for the glacial theory. When one considers how this material is distributed, considerable difficulties arise in the notion that it has been caused by glaciers. It is not present in many areas where one would expect to find it, and it is present where one would least expect it. Thus in the northernmost parts of Greenland, and in some of the islands of northern Canada, no drift is present. But it is found in tropical areas such as the Amazon jungles. Regarding the tropics, right at the equator, no less an authority than Louis Agassiz reported: "There were drift accumulations, and scratched rocks, and erratic boulders, and fluted valleys, and the smooth surface of tillite ..." [5] The presence of drift has been reported from such places as British Guinea, equatorial Africa, Madagascar, and India. Wherever the characteristic features of the drift are found, it seems necessary to postulate former glaciers to explain it. The theory of continental drift is partly an attempt to explain how the ice-sheets could have existed in these areas at various periods in the past. - www.sentex.net...

As for Plate Techtonics - upon examination - none of this seems to be based on any solid evidence whatsoever

users.indigo.net.au...

davidpratt.info...

The Earth has a hot core of molten rock and metal - really! - where is the slightest direct evidence that is the case?

blog.hasslberger.com...

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


You seem to have a limited understanding of geology so let's try to address a few of these smatterings of commentary you've tossed out. I'll only look at what you posted here. I have little interest this evening in looking over yet another asinine hoax site as it appears you have referred to in your post.

The existence of materials associated with glaciation have to be resolved no matter where they appear. They can be found in many locations on the Earth and the few mentioned may or may not exist. A sure sign of a hoax is when a site has to refer to material that is hundreds of years old as in the case of Louis Agassiz. Drift as it is called here is found in the depositional zones of glaciation. It is not deposited under glaciers, but at the locations where glaciation ends or along the edges of a glacier. To not find drift in large expanses of the north means that the zone was not glaciated, that any drift has been eroded, or that this was an area where glaciers did not exhibit edges.

Glacial deposits found in places like South Africa are not recent deposits. Some of the deposits are over a billion years old. They are due to ancient glacial events some of which imply that the Earth was completely frozen as during the time 800Ma.

It is a rather typical lie to suggest to people that the existence of glacial deposits in tropical zones means that geologists are somehow wrong.

BTW, it spelled plate tectonics. Plate tectonics is an amazingly well established theory that unifies evidence from seismological data, volcanic data, tectonics, paleontology, paleomagnetism, and a host of other Earth science disciplines.

Seismological data demonstrates what is inside of the Earth. Mines and drill holes show that the temperature increases as you go deeper into the Earth.

The reason no one supports "then Pole shifts, expanding earth, and hydritic earth theories" is these theories are no supported by the world we see about us. As an aside pole shifts have occurred, but as suggested by Hapgood or the fraud author Hancock.

reply to post by truthseeker2000

Thanks for Confirming the HAARP Patent.

I guess reading is not your forte. The patent exists, but it is a lie to claim it is a HAARP patent. Sheesh.

Now you have gone back and confirmed the Weather Modification Point.

That's 2 lies in your post. Sheesh.

You have not defended this point in my previous reply. Look at this paper of US Air Force, whats the intention here?

You are very confused. I do not have to defend your post.

In the previous post you suggested that this paper was related to HAARP. That was a lie. It is still a lie to connect this report with HAARP.

You are a repetitive liar. Why?

In general I do not waste my time watching entire videos. Do you have anything in particular that you want to discuss about the video? Please indicate the section you'd like to discuss.

You need to be able to separate out your delusions about HAARP from the reality that is out there. Although some fool may claim that a patent is related to HAARP that needs to be shown. No US patent application mentions HAARP. If you don't believe go search for yourself.

If you lie I will point out that you lied. You lied several times in this post and in the previous post. The pattern is clear.

reply to post by works4dhs


I don't believe in the NWO or alien invasions.

In the case of climate change I think that it is clear that things are changing. Lakes in northern areas that froze over every winter no longer do. Glaciers have reverted to being permanent snowfields. Polar ice caps are changing. Something is up. Is it good or bad? Is it manmade or not manmade?

Good or bad is relative to people's wants. Do they want more rain or less? Do they want snowy winters and four seasons or the chance to plant an orange tree in their backyard?

I think the jury is still out on the impact of man on climate. The desertification of large tracts of the world and the destruction of species rich zones is as great a destruction of the world's lands as the predictions from doom and gloom climatologists. That's just my opinion.

Cheers

reply to post by stereologist


Granted I am not a credentialed geologist - but I know Zombie science when I see it! - and plate tectonics was a theory that was rushed into prominence and accepted despite glaring anomilies that have been covered up ignored and glossed over ever since.

The mid-1950s, during which the new field of palaeomagnetism was revitalizing the discussion of polar wander and continental drift, was a most crucial time in the evolution of the Earth sciences. Regrettably, the leading palaeomagnetists of the day chose to follow blindly the Wegenerian mode of continental motion – instead of searching for alternative solutions, a decision which has led the Earth sciences astray

www.ncgt.org...#
New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter, issue 55

And when I say there are glaring anomolies - I mean huge! - it seems there is no-one more easily fooled than idiots following a theory, especially when after they have swallowed all the bullcrap they can get to call themselves 'scientists'.

reply to post by stereologist

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
A Research Paper presented to Air Force 2025
SEE it at: csat.au.af.mil...
It is dated August 1996—Bear in mind this is 11 years old!
What was discussed as being in preliminary stages back then is now a reality.

Your answer to my earlier point of Weather as a Force Multiplier a US AF initiative is still a question. Is the Weather Modification for Military point of view not the line of action? HAARP has been operational since the early 1990s. Its system of antennas at Gakona, Alaska, was initially based on a technology patented by Advanced Power Technologies Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Ritchfield Corporation (ARCO). The first phase of the HAARP Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) was completed by APTI. The IRI system of antennas was first installed in 1992 by a subsidiary of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) using the APTI patent. The antennas beam into the outer-atmosphere using a set of wireless high frequency transmitters.
In 1994, ARCO sold its APTI subsidiary, including the patents and the second phase construction contract to E-Systems, a secretive high tech military outfit with links to the CIA (www.crystalinks.com... ).
E-Systems specializes in the production of electronic warfare equipment, navigation and reconnaissance machinery, including "highly sophisticated spying devices":
"[E-Systems] is one of the biggest intelligence contractors in the world, doing work for the CIA, defense intelligence organizations, and others. US$1.8 billion of their annual sales are to these organizations, with $800 million for black projects-projects so secret that even the United States Congress isn't told how the money is being spent.( www.earthpulse.com... )
"The company has outfitted such military projects as the Doomsday Plan (the system that allows the President to manage a nuclear war) and Operation Desert Storm." (Princeton Review, www.princetonreview.com... )
With the purchase of APTI, E-Systems acquired the strategic weather warfare technology and patent rights, including Bernard J. Eastlund's US Patent No: 4,686,605 entitled "Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere and/or Magnetosphere".
It is worth mentioning that the Eastlund /APTI patents were based on the research of Yugoslav scientist Nicola Tesla (many of whose ideas were stolen by US corporations). (See Scott Gilbert, Environmental Warfare and US Foreign Policy: The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction, www.globalresearch.ca... )
Eastlund described this deadly technology as capable of:
"causing…total disruption of communications over a very large portion of the Earth…missile or aircraft destruction, deflection or confusion… weather modification…" ( www.wealth4freedom.com... ),
Not surprisingly, the patent had previously been sealed under a government secrecy order.
Barely a year following the E-Systems purchase of APTI's weather warfare technology, E-Systems was bought out by Raytheon, the fourth largest US military contractor. Through this money-spinning acquisition, Raytheon became the largest "defense electronics" firm in the World.
Meanwhile, ARCO which had sold APTI to E-Systems, had itself been acquired by the BP-AMOCO oil consortium, thereby integrating the largest oil company in the World (BP).
Raytheon through its E-Systems subsidiary now owns the patents used to develop the HAARP weather warfare facility at Gakona Alaska. Raytheon is also involved in other areas of weather research for military use, including the activities of its subsidiary in Antarctica, Raytheon Polar Services.
"Owning the Weather": Towards the Expanded Final Stage
The HAARP antenna array and transmitters were slated to be built in several distinct phases www.haarp.alaska.edu...
• Developmental Prototype (DP) (See www.haarp.alaska.edu... )
• Filled DP (FDP),
• Limited IRI (LIRI)
• Full size or final IRI (FIRI).
See www.haarp.alaska.edu...


globalresearch.ca...
"Owning the Weather" for Military Use
Climatic Manipulation by the US Military: The HAARP Program
The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska, has been in existence since 1992. It is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere" [upper layer of the atmosphere]:
"[HAARP will be used] to induce a small, localized change in ionospheric temperature so that resulting physical reactions can be studied by other instruments located either at or close to the HAARP site". (HAARP website)
Nicholas Begich --actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP-- describes HAARP as:
"A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead." (for further details see Michel Chossudovsky, www.globalresearch.ca... )
World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet." (quoted in Chossudovsky, op cit.)
According to Richard Williams, a physicist and consultant to the David Sarnoff laboratory in Princeton
HAARP constitutes "an irresponsible act of global vandalism." He and others fear a secret second stage where HAARP would "beam much more energy into the ionosphere. That could produce a severe disruption of the upper atmosphere at one location that may produce effects that spread rapidly around the Earth for years." (Quoted in Scott Gilbert, Environmental Warfare and US Foreign Policy: The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction, www.globalresearch.ca... )
HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." (quoted in Chossudovsky, op cit).
Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar. (Ibid)
HAARP also has the ability of triggering blackouts and disrupting the electricity power system of entire regions.
An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications systems and electric power as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions of the World.

www.infowars.com...
WEATHER AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER: OWNING THE WEATHER IN 2025
MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF WEATHER MODIFICATION
Airforce University | December 16, 2001
Acknowledgements
We express our appreciation to Mr Mike McKim of Air War College who provided a wealth of technical expertise and innovative ideas that significantly contributed to our paper. We are also especially grateful for the devoted support of our families during this research project. Their understanding and patience during the demanding research period were crucial to the project's success.
Executive Summary
In 2025, US aerospace forces can "own the weather" by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures. The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for the use of a future weather-modification system to achieve military objectives rather than to provide a detailed technical road map.
A high-risk, high-reward endeavor, weather-modification offers a dilemma not unlike the splitting of the atom. While some segments of society will always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather-modification, the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. Some of the potential capabilities a weather-modification system could provide to a war-fighting commander in chief (CINC) are listed in table 1.
Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary for an integrated weather-modification capability: (1) advanced nonlinear modeling techniques, (2) computational capability, (3) information gathering and transmission, (4) a global sensor array, and (5) weather intervention techniques. Some intervention tools exist today and others may be developed and refined in the future.
Table 1 - Operational Capabilities Matrix
DEGRADE ENEMY FORCES ENHANCE FRIENDLY FORCES
Precipitation Enhancement Precipitation Avoidance
- Flood Lines of Communication - Maintain/Improve LOC
- Reduce PGM/Recce Effectiveness - Maintain Visibility
- Decrease Comfort Level/Morale - Maintain Comfort Level/Morale
Storm Enhancement Storm Modification
- Deny Operations - Choose Battlespace Environment
Precipitation Denial Space Weather
- Deny Fresh Water - Improve Communication Reliability
- Induce Drought - Intercept Enemy Transmissions
Space Weather - Revitalize Space Assets
- Disrupt Communications/Radar Fog and Cloud Generation
- Disable/Destroy Space Assets - Increase Concealment
Fog and Cloud Removal Fog and Cloud Removal
- Deny Concealment - Maintain Airfield Operations
- Increase Vulnerability to PGM/Recce - Enhance PGM Effectiveness
Detect Hostile Weather Activities Defend against Enemy Capabilities

You cannot label as liar or confused. This is a very controversial global issue. Every country has classified areas. But I can only say that if you are defending this as a Disinformation Agent then you are doing a great job but if you are an ordinary citizen then you are digging your own GRAVE by safeguarding dangerous secrets. I only hope you open your eyes if you know the Asian Tsunami or Hurricane Katrina www.youtube.com... and many more similar GLOBAL events.

Originally posted by truthseeker2000
You cannot label as liar or confused. This is a very controversial global issue. Every country has classified areas. But I can only say that if you are defending this as a Disinformation Agent then you are doing a great job but if you are an ordinary citizen then you are digging your own GRAVE by safeguarding dangerous secrets.

Agreed with you truthseeker2000, stereologist is most probably a disinformation agent and might be on payroll here. He has only made two threads until now, even though he joined on 5/4/2010, and both of them are in 2012 forum, if he has so much to say why he hasn't made any thread on that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&display=threads

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Your claim that there are huge anomalies is false. Please tell us about one instead of pretending there are huge anomalies. I found an interesting statement of the origin of the NCGT by Pratt.

Organized Opposition to Plate Tectonics
It is lush with the sort of silly commentary found in fringe groups. Here is an example:

In this context, in the 1950s and 60s the new theory of Plate Tectonics was propounded by “Geophysicists” (Physicists) and mainly young Geologists with little experience, depth of understanding or respect for existing geology. The theory, although admittedly simplistic and with little factual basis but claiming to be all embracing, was pursued by its proponents in an aggressive, intolerant, dogmatic and sometimes unfortunately an unscrupulous fashion. Most geologists with knowledge based locally or regionally were not confident in dealing with a new global theory which swept the world and was attractive in giving Geology a prestige not equalled since the nineteenth century.

That is supposed to be a quote from Choi. Apparently Choi either knows the history of plate tectonics and chooses to lie about it or he has no knowledge of the history and chooses to make up a fairy tale.

I am reading the newsletter from which you quoted to see what I think.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

it seems there is no-one more easily fooled than idiots following a theory, especially when after they have swallowed all the bullcrap they can get to call themselves 'scientists'.

This sentence describes you except for the scientist part. Do you by any chance call yourself a scientist? I doubt it. That's the sort of nonsense spouted by people that have no idea what scientists do or the rigorous nature of their work or how the peer review process works.

You have chosen to take a quote which is the caption to Fig 16. Examining the reference to figure 16 we see that this statement is based on comments by a Kenneth Creer. There is no foot note to tell us where this came from or who Creer is. He may be a professor from England. If so his inputs into sea floor spreading were taken up by others in the early 1960s. See here:
John Wilson

We know that Creer's ideas did have an impact on the study of plate tectonics. What we do not know is when Creer said what he did or if he said it at all. The when is the most important part. It is all too common for fringe groups to purposely mix material from different time periods to mislead the reader.

reply to post by truthseeker2000


Is English a second language for you? This doesn't make any sense to me. Could you please clarify your statement. I have already addressed this paper twice.

Your answer to my earlier point of Weather as a Force Multiplier a US AF initiative is still a question.

Using crystalinks, infowars, and other tall tale sites as a reference is laughable at best.

Why did you mention Tesla? It serves no purpose in the discussion.


Two mistakes in this statement:

Eastlund described this deadly technology as capable of:

1. Someone other than Eastlund made the description
2. No where does it say deadly

The purpose of the technology is to modify space and possibly the ionosphere. The latter is important in radio communications.

You also make reference to someone else that has your opinion on the weather and HAARP. Nowhere does the author make any connection. It's all innuendo and rather vague suppositions that make up the article.

You cannot label as liar or confused.

Of course I can and should point out when you lie. If your position was strong why do you resort to telling lies?

I can only hope that you open your eyes and realize how unfounded your claims are and how gullible you are to the nonsense claims being repeated across the internet.

reply to post by vinay86


Another post of no content. Vinay86 this is the failed last ditch effort of those that learn that they have been tricked into thinking nonsense was truth. You are not the first to resort to calling me a disinfo agent. It is better to try and learn more about what is actually happening than closing your eyes to the world and denying the evidence.

reply to post by stereologist

Karsten STORETVEDT………………………………………………………………………………….………4 Despite the fact that all critical tests have failed – having made plate tectonics a crisis-ridden construct already by the late 1970s, an almost pathological conservatism has enabled the 'beloved' hypothesis to stumble along, turning global geology into a classical zombie science. The purported simplicity of plate tectonics and the model's promised capacity to unify the Earth sciences are long gone.

The problems with plate tectonics are so numerous, glaring and serious that it defies belief that they ever managed to persuade anyone to go along with it!

There is simply no credible driving mechanism - I remember being taught it in school (it was mantle plumes at that time) and thinking - no way, there is simply not enough force there to make that work! - now they are pretending that the driving force is 'slab pull' as though less dense continental sea floor can somehow sink through the more dense mantle, and pull everything after it.

Then there are the problems with Antartica and Africa - no subduction zones!

In fact the world is full of acknowledged spreading zones but sorley missing supposed subduction zones.

Where are the scraped of seafloor sediments at these subduction zones - or dislocated seamounts?

Why is the Pacific not closing- if the Atlantic opening!

Why do recent detailed studies demonstrate that the Pacific was once closed?

The idea that India has skated about all over the indian Ocean and crashed into Asia to create the Himalayas is ludicrous nonesense!

What created the mountains in Antartica? - what created the Andes - in the absence of colliding plates!

All the Tomography evidence is wishful interpretation of their data- because they start with the assumption that there 'must' be subduction in order to keep the earths radius constant = more bad science, but good tradecraft in that it avoids them having to say - sorry we havn't got a clue!

But can we see subduction? Is it well documented? The answer is no, ...we can't. And it isn't. What we can see (that is well documented) is a zone of earthquakes that releases about ten times as much energy as spreading ridges and transform faults combined, that occupies about 200km of lithospheric thickness, that reaches down to about 760 - 800km, that goes all around the Pacific, and whose relative first motions of displacement are in fact much more ambiguous than the 'carrying down' of subduction says, and many of which are as much (if not more) sideways than down. But plate tectonics assumes that these earthquakes (= brittle behaviour) mean that the zone of mantle in which they occur (which they call a 'slab'/ 'mantle slabs') is cold, and is therefore more dense, and is therefore sinking. So when plate tectonics uses the term "subducting cold mantle slabs" as shorthand for what it intends to convey, it is being highly misrepresentative of the facts. It is in fact saying no more than "..a zone of Earthquakes that reaches down to 800km".
users.indigo.net.au...

This theory was hastily pushed into acceptance, to avoid coming to the conclusion of an expanding earth and regular pole shifts - which account for the observed data far more simply and elegantly - which is in case you had forgotten what science is all about - note it does leave a huge question as to where the extra mass is coming from - but then real science is not worried about admitting ignorance - unlike geologists and academics whose stock in trade, is cornering the market as 'authorities'

More importantly TPTB do not want people to understand about periodic pole changes, earth changes, lost civilisations, the Annanuki - or anything else that would lead people to understand just who they are and how long they have been running the planet.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


The unattributed quote you gave is nonsense. By the 1970s the theory was still being heavily worked on and has been seen to be a more robust theory as better information has been attain through improvements in seismogical instruments and computers to process the data.

There is simply no credible driving mechanism

That's false. There are different theories at present.

Then there are the problems with Antarctica and Africa - no subduction zones!

False again. There is a subduction zone along the Antarctic plate. A lack of a subduction zone along along a plate is meaningless in terms of whether or not plate tectonics is viable. it simply means that today there is no subduction zone.

In fact the world is full of acknowledged spreading zones but sorley missing supposed subduction zones.

Not true or false, but a vague statement of no consequence when discussing scientific issues.

Where are the scraped of seafloor sediments at these subduction zones - or dislocated seamounts?

Are you referring to the subducted materials?

Why is the Pacific not closing- if the Atlantic opening!

Another falsehood is suggested here. Ever heard of hte ring of fire?

Why do recent detailed studies demonstrate that the Pacific was once closed?

Do you have any real studies to point to?

The idea that India has skated about all over the indian Ocean and crashed into Asia to create the Himalayas is ludicrous nonesense!

This statement is ludicrous since plate tectonics does not allow for that behavior. I think you are confusing Wegener's continental drift with plate tectonics.

What created the mountains in Antartica? - what created the Andes - in the absence of colliding plates!

The South American plate is colliding with plates to the west including the Antarctic plate. Why are you purposely suggesting a lie here?

All the Tomography evidence is wishful interpretation of their data- because they start with the assumption that there 'must' be subduction in order to keep the earths radius constant = more bad science, but good tradecraft in that it avoids them having to say - sorry we havn't got a clue!

Another glarinhg lie. No one starts with the assumption of subduction. Sorry you haven't got a clue.

This theory was hastily pushed into acceptance, to avoid coming to the conclusion of an expanding earth and regular pole shifts ...

You call decades and decades hasty? A laughable claim.

Periodic pole shifts are demonstrably false. I think you've been reading too much Hancock or some other hoaxer.

reply to post by stereologist

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
A Research Paper presented to Air Force 2025
SEE it at: csat.au.af.mil...
It is dated August 1996—Bear in mind this is 11 years old!
What was discussed as being in preliminary stages back then is now a reality.

" Weather as a Force Multiplier " . If this does not mean Weather Modification then what is the Intention of US Air Force?

Why did you mention Tesla? It serves no purpose in the discussion.

The similarity of Tesla's ideas to Eastlund's invention are remarkable, and by extension the overlap between Tesla and HAARP technology is downright intriguing. Apparently, APTI and the Pentagon are taking Eastlund's--and by extension, Tesla's--ideas seriously.

The APTI/Eastlund patent was filed during the final days of the Reagan administration, when plans for high-tech missile defense systems were still all the rage. But Eastlund's blue-sky vision went far beyond the usual Star Wars prescriptions of the day and suggested even more unusual uses for his patented ionospheric heater. "Weather modification," the patent states, "is possible by... altering upper atmospheric wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of particles which will act as a lens or focusing device." As a result, an artificially heated could focus a "vast amount of sunlight on selected portions of the earth." HAARP officials deny any link to Eastlund's patents or plans. But several key details suggest otherwise. For starters, APTI, holder of the Eastlund patents, continues to manage the HAARP project.

During the summer of 1994, ARCO sold APTI to E-Systems, a defense contractor known for counter-surveillance projects. E-Systems, in turn, is currently owned by Raytheon, one of the world's largest defense contractors and maker of the SCUD-busting Patriot missile. All of which suggests that more than just simple atmospheric science is going on in the HAARP compound. What's more, one of the APTI/Eastlund patents singles out Alaska as the ideal site for a high-frequency ionospheric heater because "magnetic field lines... which extend to desirable altitudes for this invention, intersect the earth in Alaska." APTI also rates Alaska as an ideal location given its close proximity to an ample source of fuel to power the project: the vast reserves of natural gas in the North Slope region--reserves owned by APTI parent company ARCO.

Eastlund also contradicts the official military line. He told National Public Radio that a secret military project to develop his work was launched during the late 1980s. And in the May/June 1994 issue of Microwave News, Eastlund suggested that "The HAARP project obviously looks a lot like the first step" toward the designs outlined in his patents. Eastlund's patent really trips into conspiratorial territory in its "References Cited" section. Two of the sources documented by Eastlund are New York Times articles from 1915 and 1940 profiling Nikola Tesla, a giant in the annals of Conspiratorial History. Tesla, a brilliant inventor and contemporary of Edison, developed hundreds of patents during his lifetime, and is often credited with developing radio before Marconi, among a host of other firsts. Of course, mainstream science has never fully acknowledged Tesla's contributions, and his later pronouncements (he vowed that he had developed a technology that could split the earth asunder) have left him straddling that familiar historical territory where genius meets crackpot. Not surprisingly, fringe science and conspiracy theory have made Tesla something of a patron saint. Whenever, talk radio buzz or Internet discussion turns to alleged government experiments to cause earthquakes or modify weather, references to government-suppressed "Tesla Technology" are sure to follow.

Judging from the APTI patent, Tesla was a major inspiration for Eastlund ionospheric heater. The first New York Times article, dated September 22, 1940, reports that Tesla, then 84 years old, "stands ready to divulge to the United States Government the secret of his 'teleforce,' with which, he said, airplane motors would be melted at a distance of 250 miles, so that an invisible Chinese Wall of Defense would be built around the country." Quoting Tesla, the Times story continues: "This new type of force, Mr. Tesla said, would operate through a beam one hundred-millionth of a square centimeter in diameter, and could be generated from a special plant that would cost no more than $2,000,000 and would take only about three months to construct."

The second New York Times story, dated December 8, 1915, describes one of Tesla's more well-known patents, a transmitter that would "project electrical energy in any amount to any distance and apply it for innumerable purposes, both in war and peace." The similarity of Tesla's ideas to Eastlund's invention are remarkable, and by extension the overlap between Tesla and HAARP technology is downright intriguing. Apparently, APTI and the Pentagon are taking Eastlund's--and by extension, Tesla's--ideas seriously.


The Military's Pandora's Box

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by works4dhs

 

I don't believe in the NWO or alien invasions.

In the case of climate change I think that it is clear that things are changing. Lakes in northern areas that froze over every winter no longer do. Glaciers have reverted to being permanent snowfields. Polar ice caps are changing. Something is up. Is it good or bad? Is it manmade or not manmade?

Good or bad is relative to people's wants. Do they want more rain or less? Do they want snowy winters and four seasons or the chance to plant an orange tree in their backyard?

I think the jury is still out on the impact of man on climate. The desertification of large tracts of the world and the destruction of species rich zones is as great a destruction of the world's lands as the predictions from doom and gloom climatologists. That's just my opinion.

Cheers

thx for response
I don't believe in aliens either but I wonder if others' belief could be exploited.
I don't think we have nearly enough data to confirm global warming. climate change takes thousands of years either way.
desertification is a very underreported issue.

reply to post by stereologist


Look Steriologist to be frank I can't be bothered to go through your ridiculous rebuttal line by line - you clearly have just swallowed the official geological pablum without ever developing a critical sense about it. You clearly do not know nearly enough about the subject as you imagine - otherwise you would realise that there are serious intractable and fatal flaws in it - which is why it has been called Zombie science!

Do yourself a favour a read some of the many works detailing these flaws

Introduction There are major facts that refute the theory of plate tectonics in the forms accepted by its supporters. It only takes one recalcitrant fact to wreck a postulate, and the number of recalcitrant facts is too great to ignore. However, objections raised have been indeed largely ignored. For a list of papers raising examples of objections to various aspects of the plate tectonics theory, click here. Note that this list is not all embracing. Except for papers by Drewry et al. (1974) and Fallaw (1977), there has been no attempt to counter the many objections that have been raised. The failure of plate tectonics advocates to answer all but two or three of the major problems that these authors have raised is inexplicable. A few of the unexplained facts are discussed below in this entry.
en.wikipedia.org...

uncan.france/PT_EA#Absence_of_subduction_zones_in_critical_areas

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


I took the time to look at your rather ridiculous claims line by line. The "you can't be bothered" is an admission that you can't rebut the claims. You might think that selecting fibs and "science for dolts" is amusing, but it is painfully obvious that these claims are false. You might think that reading nonsense lends you some sense of critical analysis, but it doesn't. Take for example the easy demonstrated falsehood that there are no subduction zones around the Antarctic plate. I don't see you making any effort to refute the ludicrous claim you made.

Do yourself a favor and apply critical reasoning to these articles you have taken hook, line, and sinker.

Don't feel too ashamed in having been sucked into a hoax.

BTW, your links in many cases do not work.

reply to post by stereologist


The reason I havn't gone through them line by line is because, they are not serious replies, I have a life! - and besides it makes it boring reading for others to have a page fullof he said, she said, he said bickering.

All my links work fine when I try them here is yet another paper written by a credentialled Geologist detailing why the theory is fatally flawed.

Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under Threat
David Pratt
© 2000
..............................

TextConclusion Plate tectonics – the reigning paradigm in the earth sciences – faces some very severe and apparently fatal problems. Far from being a simple, elegant, all-embracing global theory, it is confronted with a multitude of observational anomalies, and has had to be patched up with a complex variety of ad-hoc modifications and auxiliary hypotheses. The existence of deep continental roots and the absence of a continuous, global asthenosphere to "lubricate" plate motions, have rendered the classical model of plate movements untenable. There is no consensus on the thickness of the "plates" and no certainty as to the forces responsible for their supposed movement. The hypotheses of large-scale continental movements, seafloor spreading and subduction, and the relative youth of the oceanic crust are contradicted by a substantial volume of data. Evidence for significant amounts of submerged continental crust in the present-day oceans provides another major challenge to plate tectonics. The fundamental principles of plate tectonics therefore require critical reexamination, revision, or rejection.
davidpratt.info...

reply to post by vinay86

Agreed with you truthseeker2000, stereologist is most probably a disinformation agent and might be on payroll here.

Now stereologist has nothing to say. He can lie only upto a certain limit but what now? I dont know what he will get by safegaurding danderous secrets. I have clearly stated how Tesla is relevant here. Also he is unable to explain " Weather as a Force Multiplier " . If this does not mean Weather Modification then what is the Intention of US Air Force?

reply to post by stereologist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
A Research Paper presented to Air Force 2025
SEE it at: : csat.au.af.mil...
It is dated August 1996—Bear in mind this is 15 years old!
What was discussed as being in preliminary stages back then is now a reality.


" Weather as a Force Multiplier " . If this does not mean Weather Modification then what is the Intention of US Air Force?

Why did you mention Tesla? It serves no purpose in the discussion.


The similarity of Tesla's ideas to Eastlund's invention are remarkable, and by extension the overlap between Tesla and HAARP technology is downright intriguing. Apparently, APTI and the Pentagon are taking Eastlund's--and by extension, Tesla's--ideas seriously.


The APTI/Eastlund patent was filed during the final days of the Reagan administration, when plans for high-tech missile defense systems were still all the rage. But Eastlund's blue-sky vision went far beyond the usual Star Wars prescriptions of the day and suggested even more unusual uses for his patented ionospheric heater. "Weather modification," the patent states, "is possible by... altering upper atmospheric wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of particles which will act as a lens or focusing device." As a result, an artificially heated could focus a "vast amount of sunlight on selected portions of the earth." HAARP officials deny any link to Eastlund's patents or plans. But several key details suggest otherwise. For starters, APTI, holder of the Eastlund patents, continues to manage the HAARP project.

During the summer of 1994, ARCO sold APTI to E-Systems, a defense contractor known for counter-surveillance projects. E-Systems, in turn, is currently owned by Raytheon, one of the world's largest defense contractors and maker of the SCUD-busting Patriot missile. All of which suggests that more than just simple atmospheric science is going on in the HAARP compound. What's more, one of the APTI/Eastlund patents singles out Alaska as the ideal site for a high-frequency ionospheric heater because "magnetic field lines... which extend to desirable altitudes for this invention, intersect the earth in Alaska." APTI also rates Alaska as an ideal location given its close proximity to an ample source of fuel to power the project: the vast reserves of natural gas in the North Slope region--reserves owned by APTI parent company ARCO.

Eastlund also contradicts the official military line. He told National Public Radio that a secret military project to develop his work was launched during the late 1980s. And in the May/June 1994 issue of Microwave News, Eastlund suggested that "The HAARP project obviously looks a lot like the first step" toward the designs outlined in his patents. Eastlund's patent really trips into conspiratorial territory in its "References Cited" section. Two of the sources documented by Eastlund are New York Times articles from 1915 and 1940 profiling Nikola Tesla, a giant in the annals of Conspiratorial History. Tesla, a brilliant inventor and contemporary of Edison, developed hundreds of patents during his lifetime, and is often credited with developing radio before Marconi, among a host of other firsts. Of course, mainstream science has never fully acknowledged Tesla's contributions, and his later pronouncements (he vowed that he had developed a technology that could split the earth asunder) have left him straddling that familiar historical territory where genius meets crackpot. Not surprisingly, fringe science and conspiracy theory have made Tesla something of a patron saint. Whenever, talk radio buzz or Internet discussion turns to alleged government experiments to cause earthquakes or modify weather, references to government-suppressed "Tesla Technology" are sure to follow.

Judging from the APTI patent, Tesla was a major inspiration for Eastlund ionospheric heater. The first New York Times article, dated September 22, 1940, reports that Tesla, then 84 years old, "stands ready to divulge to the United States Government the secret of his 'teleforce,' with which, he said, airplane motors would be melted at a distance of 250 miles, so that an invisible Chinese Wall of Defense would be built around the country." Quoting Tesla, the Times story continues: "This new type of force, Mr. Tesla said, would operate through a beam one hundred-millionth of a square centimeter in diameter, and could be generated from a special plant that would cost no more than $2,000,000 and would take only about three months to construct."

The second New York Times story, dated December 8, 1915, describes one of Tesla's more well-known patents, a transmitter that would "project electrical energy in any amount to any distance and apply it for innumerable purposes, both in war and peace." The similarity of Tesla's ideas to Eastlund's invention are remarkable, and by extension the overlap between Tesla and HAARP technology is downright intriguing. Apparently, APTI and the Pentagon are taking Eastlund's--and by extension, Tesla's--ideas seriously.


The Military's Pandora's Box

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Your links in these fora do not work. It's as simple as that. It matters little if you have them working at your PC. What matter is what others experience.