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.

 

Birds likely flew into power lines

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
"3,000 blackbirds rained down on New Year's Eve revelers in Beebe, Ark., and the mass die-off in Louisiana three days later."
Those must have hit power lines too.
This thread is about the 500 found under a power line. I don't know what killed the 3000, they weren't found under a power line.



Nah, it must be the fireworks cause we all know how many thousands of birds are slaughtered every fourth of july thanks to our careless explosions in the sky!
I'm as skeptical of the fireworks explanation as anyone else, I don't know what killed the 3000. but how do you explain so many of the 500 this thread is about being found under the power line?


Come on, you seem smarter than this. This isn't just a series of freak accidents.

USE YOUR MIND HERE.
How do I know that you aren't just making more false assumptions like you did about flock size? I would say, right back atcha. Use your mind and don't jump to conclusions, like a flock can't possibly be as large as 10,000. Now you're just jumping to other conclusions. Use your mind instead of jumping to conclusions. Why were so many of the 500 found under the power line?

Poisoning doesn't explain that, does it?




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No, poisoning doesn't explain that, that's why I said I think it's HAARP. But that's my personal opinion and you're entitled to your own. I was linking the stories because the government admitted to killing other birds, why wouldn't they behind the other mass die-offs? I was wrong in my flock assumption, I even did a google search on how many birds are in an average flock before I posted. Seems as though that failed me, and I stand corrected which is why I did not bother trying to defend that any more. But I still stand behind the theory that something is behind all of these deaths and they are all linked somehow. We will probably never know how they're linked.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No, poisoning doesn't explain that, that's why I said I think it's HAARP. But that's my personal opinion and you're entitled to your own.
That opinion isn't much better than your opinion on flock size, I'm afraid. First and foremost, HAARP can't even reach that far from Alaska.

And even if we had bird deaths in Alaska they would be hard to explain with HAARP:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Edrick
 

HAARP, with all its transmitters operating, can produce a maximum of 3.6MW. At the surface that is spread over an area of about 33 acres. This yields a power density of 2.5 watts per square foot. That isn't going to warm cold toast.

At an altitude of 100 km the beam has spread to an area of 247,000 acres and has a power density of about .0002 watts per square foot.
I know HAARP is a favorite conspiracy topic on ATS, however the people who make claims about all the evil it is doing seem to have little understanding of what it's actual range, power level, and capabilities are. The power from someone's cell phone would be larger than the power level from HAARP reaching Louisiana so you may as well say a cell phone did it if you just want to make stuff up.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Power lines? Bwuahaha!!! They either are that dumb or are just completely at a loss for any rational explanation. I'd rather listen to the hail and firework theories some more. Or, I still like the theory that the birds have been running in to invisible UFO's. That one is my favorite.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There is more than just the one in Alaska. There is one in Puerto Rico as well. Where did that guy get his information on how far it can "reach?"

HAARP is an Ionospheric heater. It changes the shape of the ionosphere, allowing for beamed energy to be concentrated on a known spot.


EDIT: Here are some quotes from the page in which you linked me to.


Since the Charge density increases towards the center of the Belt... the same Ionic refraction from earlier ALSO applies... this would in theory, give HAARP a MUCH longer Range than just bouncing off the ionosphere, since it is several orders of magnitude farther away.




Since HAARP is capable of generating a fairly controllable beam of Radiation and reflecting it to almost any place on the globe...

It should be no trouble at all to create a near microwave frequency "Display" that heats the surface of the water in a rotating pattern, in order to induce the creation of rising Thermals, that spin around a cold vortex.





Increasing power input to the transmitters will not increase power output, that is not how transmitters work. HAARP's maximum is 3.6MW.



So you know for a fact that they do not have transmitters that are more powerful than what they state they have?

Buried underground hooked up to a nuclear reactor or something?


Are you saying that a power increase *CANNOT* happen, or are you saying that the Government SAYS that is not what *IS* happening?


See where I'm going with this? What the government says, and what the government does are two completely different things. But like I said, just my opinion
edit on 31-1-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic

Originally posted by getreadyalready

It is equally ridiculous that it is HAARP. HAARP produces radiation such as radio and/or microwaves, it might even create EM pulses, and maybe even weather modification, but it does not produce blunt force trauma! If they were microwaved to death, then I would believe HAARP, but not trauma.


HAARP doesn't cause blunt force trauma but falling from the sky to the ground does....


Yes, but the trauma is what injured them. So, I suppose HAARP could have briefly disoriented them enough for them all to crash to the ground? Maybe, but I don't buy it.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


I must address this notion that I am somehow irrational and less intelligent than you for holding my viewpoint. I do not understand how you can say that I am irrational for believing it plausible that power lines can kill a bird in flight. You have been given a link that shows in Holland alone 500,000 to 1,000,000 bird die annually from hitting power lines so we know it does happen commonly.

Do you feel my desire to see each case of animal deaths evaluated independently and without bias from other cases is irrational? Do you think that running around screaming HARRP GUBMIT HARRP GUBMIT every time some animals die is rational? Is it rational of you to look at a photograph and extrapolate from it data that the photograph in no way shows?

It is an established fact that birds flock can flock in numbers of 500,000 to 1,000,000 or more. It is also an established fact that birds do die from injuries sustained in collisions with power lines. Why is it irrational to assume that 500 or so birds found underneath and very nearby power lines are dead due to a collision with those power lines?

I want to thank you for editing the parts of your text where you dismissed me as a "child". That was very mature on your part to take out such rantings. I also appreciate your addition of the whole rationality argument to the "yep" answer you gave regarding my question of intelligence.

I also wanted to address the notion of throwing marbles one at a time at a suspended string. That is a complete straw man argument. Throw 500,000 to 1,000,000 marbles at a string almost at once and see how many hit is a valid argument and a worthwhile experiment for those whom doubt the plausibility of the OP.
edit on 1-2-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Yes I decided I shouldn't stir the pot more so to speak. But eh I guess your right. I suppose the argument could be made that rationality is subjective, and that the wire theory is plausible. However, the argument is being made that there were 10,000 birds, or 50,000 birds, and it is not known how many there actually were to begin with, so the entire argument is based on assumptions from both sides. (Me believing the government had a hand, you believing 10,000 birds flew and 500 hit it.)

This argument was garbage from the start because neither of us have evidence to prove our claims



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Maybe a different way to go is to assume that the birds were blinded in some way. That they were saturated by light in some form that would be peculiar to them. Most birds are thought to be able to see in ultra violet, I've no idea if they could be overcome visually by the same source, but we certainly can be blinded by the sun, or vision impaired temporarily by the sun, especially in winter months. Just thought I should add this link to discuss,

www.bismarcktribune.com...

edit on 1-2-2011 by smurfy because: Add link.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
Maybe a different way to go is to assume that the birds were blinded in some way.
I'm not sure that's different.

The suggestion was that they were blinded by something simpler: lack of light. Or at least light levels too low to see power lines.

Some people may not want to admit this, but even airplanes have flown into power lines they couldn't see, in broad daylight. At night, with the moon completely dark, they're that much harder to see.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
I also wanted to address the notion of throwing marbles one at a time at a suspended string. That is a complete straw man argument.
Yes that was a straw man argument and so is this:

Originally posted by apodictic
the entire argument is based on assumptions from both sides. (Me believing the government had a hand, you believing 10,000 birds flew and 500 hit it.)

This argument was garbage from the start because neither of us have evidence to prove our claims
You don't appear to have read or understood the claim, so let me repost it:


LaCour said it was possible the birds were startled by a passing train — and then hit the power lines.


Do you notice how he says "it was possible"? That's the claim, that it's possible. It's not a claim that's what happened.

I never said I believed 500 birds out of 1000o hit the power lines, only that it's possible.

And I've seen nobody disprove the claim that it's possible.

The very statement that "it's possible" is an acknowledgment that nobody is sure what happened but for some reason you and others misrepresent this claim.
edit on 1-2-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I tried to tell you guys that it was an unusual number of cloaked alien craft appearing
in various parts of the world since December that has been causing these problems, but oh well.....



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That 10,000 shouldn't even be part of your argument. It wasn't even part of the original story. By your logic, it's also possible that there were only 500 birds, and you dismissed that when someone stated that on the first page. Why can't someone do the same to you?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 
It's just an example of what might be possible.

I only brought it up because a poster said something about all 500 birds hitting a power line as if officials were suggesting a possibility that there were only 500 birds and all 500 of them hit a power line. That wouldn't be a very logical assumption.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yeah, okay. If that's possible, then so is HAARP, right?

www.youtube.com...

Doesn't really look like they're under any power lines to me..?

Edit: I also just listened to a 911 call that was released and a lady said some were "bleeding out of the mouth" and that she "thinks they were poisoned." Maybe a coincidence that the government just admitted to poisoning other birds? Who knows.



There's a map of the deaths. Coincidence that most of them are along the New Madrid fault? Who knows. But it's kinda freaky.

Who lies smack in the center of all these deaths? Alaska and Puerto Rico, the two HAARP sites.
edit on 2-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by smurfy
Maybe a different way to go is to assume that the birds were blinded in some way.
I'm not sure that's different.

The suggestion was that they were blinded by something simpler: lack of light. Or at least light levels too low to see power lines.

Some people may not want to admit this, but even airplanes have flown into power lines they couldn't see, in broad daylight. At night, with the moon completely dark, they're that much harder to see.


It is completely different, I was talking about light saturation on a particular wavelength that birds are sensitive to, it's the complete opposite of dark. And besides, witnesses reported birds hitting vehicles and roofs of houses. That does not gel with hitting power lines, but more like already dead. That makes both my suggestion and power cables a bit moot.
edit on 2-2-2011 by smurfy because: Add text.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Well, the power lines are not limited to the wires and lines. There are power towers and they can be huge. Imagine a huge flock of birds trying to fly through these with their eyes closed?




posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic


There's a map of the deaths. ..

Who lies smack in the center of all these deaths? Alaska and Puerto Rico, the two HAARP sites.
I looked at your map.

I don't see anything anywhere near Alaska.

If anything your map does more to prove HAARP has nothing to do with it.

Those aren't the only two HAARP sites. Some of the other similar research facilities in the world have more power than the Alaska and Puerto Rico facilities combined, by far. If they were causing animal deaths I'd expect to see lots of such deaths around the higher power facilities.

The Alaska and Puerto Rico facilities really aren't that powerful.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I didn't say there was anything near Alaska. I said all of the deaths that have occurred are in the middle (within a reasonable reach of) the two facilities in America. You seem to lack an understanding of how HAARP works. It's not like they activate it and it kills everything within a radius. It is possible for it to be able to utilize the Van Allen radiation belt and target specific points on the earth when otherwise it would not be able to reach that far.



And yes, there are only two HAARP facilities in America. You're welcome to look it up....lol

But you are correct that there are also two other ionospheric heating facilities, one in Russia and the other in Norway I think, more powerful than the government says HAARP is, which is all the more reason for it to be possible. Thanks for helping my point.

Like I said, what they say they're capable of, and what they're ACTUALLY capable of are two completely different things. Are you trying to say it's not possible that the HAARP facilities in Alaska and Puerto Rico put out more energy than the website says it does? LOL...that is EASILY possible.

So tell me, how does this discredit HAARP in any way?
edit on 4-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
You seem to lack an understanding of how HAARP works. It's not like they activate it and it kills everything within a radius.
The propagation of electromagnetic radiation like that coming from HAARP was part of my studies at the university, so not only have I read the science on how HAARP works, but I understand the physics and am not fooled by attempts by people that really don't understand it to misrepresent it.

www.haarp.alaska.edu...


The effects of this added energy are limited to a small region directly over the HAARP observatory ranging in size from 9 km in radius to as much as 40 km in radius.

It is important to realize that HAARP interacts only with charged (or ionized) particles in a limited region of the ionosphere directly over the facility.
Even if you really stretch that to 250% of what they claim, it's still only 100km or about 62 miles away from the facility.

www.haarp.alaska.edu...


That portion of the ionosphere that is not directly over the facility is not affected in any way by HAARP. As a result, there will be no impact produced by HAARP on the protective qualities of the earth's atmosphere. This was the conclusion of the environmental impact process, and the question was thoroughly studied by experts in the field prior to granting permission to proceed with the project.

It is very important to realize that the bulk composition of the gas in the volume that is being studied changes imperceptibly. The protective qualities of the atmosphere over HAARP do not change. It takes very sensitive instruments to observe the effects, and some of the best instruments currently available for this purpose are installed at the HAARP facility.
So not only does it only affect the ionosphere directly over the facility (within a certain radius), but even directly overhead, the effect is so small as to be difficult to measure.

So whatever influence it has on the van allen belt is similarly going to be extremely small and difficult to measure also, and would be dwarfed by something like the effect from a solar flare or CME which we get hit with from time to time, or even smaller naturally occurring variations from the sun.

www.haarp.alaska.edu...


The intensity of the HF signal in the ionosphere is less than 3 microwatts per cm^2, tens of thousands of times less than the Sun's natural electromagnetic radiation reaching the earth and hundreds of times less than even the normal random variations in intensity of the Sun's natural ultraviolet (UV) energy which creates the ionosphere.


So if you think the Van Allen belts had something to do with it, you're better off saying the Sun did it since natural variations from the sun are far larger in magnitude than what HAARP is doing.


It is possible for it to be able to utilize the Van Allen radiation belt and target specific points on the earth when otherwise it would not be able to reach that far.

Source and explanation of the claim and graph?

And how big will this Van Allen belt effect be from a 3.6 MW source in AK or a 2 MW source in Puerto Rico reaching to Louisiana? And how big will this effect be compared to naturally occurring variations caused by the sun itself? And even if the almost immeasurably small effect to the Van Allen Belt reaches the area over Louisiana, how does the effect get from the Van Allen belt to the lower altitude the birds are flying at?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join