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: 5
14
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Once again, you're quoting HAARPs website and like I've said a million times, what they say and what they do are two different things lol. I mean come on, it's frickin military owned. You really think they tell the truth? How naive...




I'm pretty sure that's more credible than any nonsense you're trying to spew here....It's proven weather manipulation lol. Even mind control. (at 36:15)
edit on 10-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
You really think they tell the truth? How naive...
Have you ever heard someone sworn in to promise to tell the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."

The military doesn't have to tell "the whole truth" because they have classifications and secrecy provisions to not tell what they don't want to tell. Therefore we don't know the classified details about what HAARP will be used for.

But this also means to me that they don't have to lie. For example, if they wanted to, I don't see why they couldn't just build a classified facility and not disclose the power level, and say it's classified. I don't know what would stop them from doing that.

So if you're trying to claim that they are lying about the maximum power level, I don't see any reason why they need to lie about that. Is that what you're claiming and do you have any evidence? And do you know that we could go to the fence around the facility measure the radiated power and make an estimate of the power level at the source? So if they did lie we could catch them in the lie.

Now if you're claim is that they're not telling us everything, that's no secret, they've already admitted some aspects of the research are classified.

But this still boils down to power. There's only so much you can do with such a low power level. If you think they're lying about the power level, prove it. It can be measured without having to go inside the facility.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
For example, if they wanted to, I don't see why they couldn't just build a classified facility and not disclose the power level, and say it's classified. I don't know what would stop them from doing that.


How can you keep a facility that huge, classified? How much more secretive can you get than deep inside the Alaskan wilderness? And by using your logic, if they somehow CAN keep it secret, what's to say there isn't already classified facilities?


So if you're trying to claim that they are lying about the maximum power level, I don't see any reason why they need to lie about that.


So they can keep a massive war weapon undercover by saying it's strictly a "research facility" and wage a war without hard proof. HAARP can disable satellites and aircraft. As explained in the video I provided, Nikola Tessla's "death ray" papers are sided in Bernard Eastlund's HAARP patents, essentially meaning HAARP IS a giant "death ray."


Is that what you're claiming and do you have any evidence?


You're asking me for evidence for something that you yourself agreed has classified aspects? Please, for your own sake, watch the video.


And do you know that we could go to the fence around the facility measure the radiated power and make an estimate of the power level at the source? So if they did lie we could catch them in the lie.


No, and no. The facility is double fenced, meaning in order to even get CLOSE to the facility's actual fence, you would have to get through the first one. Also, HAARP doesn't necessarily "radiate," it's projected upwards. Hence "ionospheric heater." So no, you wouldn't really be able to measure anything.


Now if you're claim is that they're not telling us everything, that's no secret, they've already admitted some aspects of the research are classified.


All the more reason to suspect something. What could possibly be classified about "studying" the ionosphere, or "studying" the northern lights (for 25 years) like they try to tell Alaskan residents? There's no need for that. Where there is military involved, you can be sure there's some sort of foul play.


But this still boils down to power. There's only so much you can do with such a low power level. If you think they're lying about the power level, prove it. It can be measured without having to go inside the facility.


Once again, bold claim seeing as HAARP transmits RF and that doesn't determine the amount of watts supplied into it. Good luck also catching them on a day where it's functional to it's highest ability, too. Have you tried this yourself? If not, why are you making this claim?

Also, what makes you think that HAARP doesn't have enough power to do what it's completely capable of doing? I would like to see your evidence of how much power is exactly needed to modify weather, seeing as a guy can create a man made cloud in a chamber and cause it to move by only using 100 watts. Apply this to what HAARP gives off, and you get large scale weather manipulation.



Edit to add:


The military's "HAARP Fact Sheet" says that the project is merely another ionospheric heater, like the small-scale ones currently conducting scientific research in Puerto Rico, Norway and the former Soviet Union. And HAARP's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), prepared by the U.S. Air Force, claims that HAARP's power levels, though 10 times higher than any transmitted on Earth, will cause "no significant impacts to birds, aquatics or the atmosphere," according to James Boatwright, deputy assistant secretary of Air Force installations.


Link


Now enlighten me, how is 3.6 million watts a "low power level", anyway?
edit on 10-2-2011 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
Also, what makes you think that HAARP doesn't have enough power to do what it's completely capable of doing? I would like to see your evidence of how much power is exactly needed to modify weather
I already provided the evidence that the amount of power created by HAARP is less than the natural variation of power coming from the sun.

So can the sun affect the weather? Sure. HAARP has a barely measurable effect but it has an effect, it's just that it's smaller than natural variation coming from the sun.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The sun doesn't spew electrons directly up into the ionosphere. I'm not trying to be an ass but I really don't understand the connection you're making. The Earth has the magnetosphere and van allen radiation belt to protect mostly anything from the outside.

All I was trying to prove is that there's a *possibility* that HAARP can cause the bird deaths, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. I'm not trying to prove that it's the ACTUAL case by any means. That would be pretty hard to do. Just that there's a possibility.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
To me, this is just one more step that shows that government is so out of touch with the public, they think we'll believe anything put in front of us. Really?? Seriously? You expect the masses at large to believe that all those birds at once (in multiple areas of the country) all just flew into power lines? While they're at it, why not just come up with the theory that they collided with Santa's sleigh?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
The sun doesn't spew electrons directly up into the ionosphere. I'm not trying to be an ass but I really don't understand the connection you're making.
You're right about the sun to some degree. Many of the ionized particles in the solar wind are diverted by the van allen belts, but the EM radiation from the sun (some of which we see as light, and some of which occurs at non-visible frequencies) is NOT diverted by the Van Allen belt.

Ionosphere


The ionosphere is a portion of the upper atmosphere, between the thermosphere and the exosphere, distinguished because it is ionized by solar radiation.


And HAARP doesn't "spew electrons directly up into the ionosphere" either.

Both the sun and HAARP emit electromagnetic (EM) radiation. It is this EM radiation that ionizes the ionosphere, so they are similar in that respect. The EM radiation coming from the sun can be referred to as the

Solar constant


The solar constant, a measure of flux density, is the amount of incoming solar electromagnetic radiation per unit area that would be incident on a plane perpendicular to the rays, at a distance of one astronomical unit (AU) (roughly the mean distance from the Sun to the Earth). ...The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²).
That's 1366 watts per square meter which filters down to about 1000 watts per square meter by the time it reaches the ground. Part of that 366 watts per square meter lost in the atmosphere, is used to heat the ionosphere.


But not only does the sun's total influence dwarf that of HAARP, even the small changes in the sun's output are much larger than the total output from HAARP.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


3 microwatts per square cm is 0.0000000003 watts per meter squared. Compare this with the roughly 366 watts per square meter from the sun heating the Earth's atmosphere and ionosphere.


Originally posted by apodictic
All I was trying to prove is that there's a *possibility* that HAARP can cause the bird deaths
If we were talking about bird deaths near the HAARP facility in Alaska I wouldn't rule it out. Talking about bird deaths in Louisiana, I would rule it out.

You can say that HAARP may have an effect, and you can say that peeing in the ocean raises the sea level. Both statements are true. However they are also irrelevant because those effects are dwarfed by other factors like natural variation in sunlight in the case of HAARP, and tides in the case of the ocean. That's why there's no merit to the argument, because even if it's a real effect, which it is, just like peeing in the ocean to raise the sea level, it's dwarfed by other factors of natural variation.




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join