HAARP - The truth

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I have found a government website and have found details on HAARP, more specifically, the 'HAARP heater' - not my words, theirs.

It appears that it IS being used for weather modification, this paper relates to 'macroscopic time and altitude distribution of plasma turbulence induced in ionospheric modification experiments'.

It's a biggie.....

[This is the final report of a three-year Laboratory-Directed Research and Development (LDRD) project at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). This research concentrated on the time dependence of the heater, induced-turbulence, and electron-density profiles excited in the ionosphere by a powerful radio-frequency heater wave. The macroscopic density is driven by the ponderomotive pressure and the density self-consistently determines the heater propagation. For typical parameters of the current Arecibo heater, a dramatic quasi-periodic behavior was found. For about 50 ms after turn-on of the heater wave, the turbulence is concentrated at the first standing-wave maximum of the heater near reflection altitude. From 50--100 ms the standing-wave pattern drops by about 1--2 km in altitude and the quasi-periodicity reappears at the higher altitudes with a period of roughly 50 ms. This behavior is due to the half-wavelength density depletion grating that is set up by the ponderomotive pressure at the maxima of the heater standing-wave pattern. Once the grating is established the heater can no longer propagate to higher altitudes. The grating is then unsupported by the heater at these altitudes and decays, allowing the heater to propagate again and initiate another cycle. For stronger heater powers, corresponding to the Arecibo upgrade and the HAARP heater now under construction, the effects are much more dramatic.]

www.osti.gov...
Visit the above link for access to the full report (.pdf format)

Alternatively, if this isn't your cup of tea, just visit the main site, www.osti.gov...
and type your desired field of knowledge in the search box on the right. After a bit of digging and reading inbetween the lines you will be able to find what you want.

Definitely one to be bookmarked.

Peace


Haha, just had a loud knock at the door as I posted this, nearly **** myself.
Wasn't the MIB though, just my housemates sister....phew.
edit on 4/2/11 by iamahumandoing because: typo and addition




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Bookmarked my butt, I downloaded it. Great find and it needs some serious reading to make heads or tails of. Couple of things. Loadstar Corp. and (tada) one of the contributors is from Norway, another of the HAARP facilities.

From a quick scan, here's what I've picked up:

. Ground-based experiments have been carried out at the radar and heater (hf) facilities at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, and at Tromsg, Norway.

There are direct lessons to be learned for problems of interest to the Department of Energy (DOE) inertial confmement fusion (ICF) program.
Apparently, government employees responsible for modifying the weather can't spell either. Guess we better hope it's not an important misspelling. Like "shoot 150 gigawatts" instead of 150 watts.


The Alfred Hanssen guy appears to be a seismic imaging guru of some sort.
Alfred Hanssen



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by billxam
 


Thanks, there is also a lot of research on here about the effects of nuclear power stations on the local environment, ecology and weather. Wonder how long before the site gets amended?...

This Hanssen guy seems rather important. Nice find
edit on 4/2/11 by iamahumandoing because: addition
edit on 4/2/11 by iamahumandoing because: typo



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Scientists keep playing with our atmosphere and tell us were the cause of climate change.

Magnetic north had been moving eastward at an average of 10m per year, but now has sped up to 40m per year. My uneducated question is; could bouncing these waves off the upper atmosphere affect the core and the magnetic poles?

In the 1950s, the american military were detonating nuclear weapons up in the atmosphere, not knowing whether or not it could cause a chain reaction and ignite the atmosphere. Thankfully it did not.

But hey, let's keep messing with a vital part of the ecosystem that sustains our life, in the name of science. What could go wrong?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by leemachino
 


Don't know if they would affect the poles, but try searching for it on the website - they have probably researched it and found the answer. We're just a hop, skip and a jump away from the truth with this site, that is, before all the really tantalising reports get pulled, as they undoubtedly will.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
wow interesting lol crazy scientest and i do think "they" cause global warming lol



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
And then you have to understand what they are saying. Really, this stuff is all serious scientific work, REAL science, tough stuff. It's not like the sites you usually find on "conspiracy" sites, which is bad science. Bad science is worse than no science at all.
Someone got all hot and bothered about a paper talking concerning "Atmospheric Aerosols". Ah-ha! Government document, proof they are spraying! It even says that in the title! Right?
Well, wrong. Completely.
The word "aerosol" does not mean "sprayed". It means things in the atmosphere that are not a gas and so small they remain suspended. Smoke from a fire is an aerosol. So is salt from waves crashing and the dust you throw up when going down a dirt road. Not about "chemtrails" or anything like it. All he did was look really, really stupid.
If you don't have a higher degree of learning with these advanced published science papers, then you won't know what they are talking about. The standard science IQ level on a "chemtrail" site, for instance, is middle school (and is wrong much of the time). The papers on this site are done on an advanced stage, written by people with PhD's who are writing for people who have similar level of learning.
Good Luck!



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 


I agree, one must thoroughly check the source agrees with the point one is trying to make.
But there are a lot of papers on there, so while a paper may say something that doesn't quite fit...... maybe others will. Either way - it is obvious the data they collect could be used for either righteous or nefarious purposes. What then do we think of the intentions of TPTB? We're members of ATS for God's sake.

Anyway, surely someone who is educated to that level can think of the optimum search terms to use, check the papers available, and in the spirit of good will, assimilate the information therein for us conspiracy theorist plebs who decided to leave the education system before we were completely brainwashed.

Plus, you never know, you might learn something along the way.

Peace
edit on 4/2/11 by iamahumandoing because: typo
edit on 4/2/11 by iamahumandoing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by iamahumandoing
 


Great stuff!!
Thats why you did a good job to place the thread so we can all download as much as we can find. For publishing later thanks for making it public! That were ATS stands for right?
edit on 21/12/2010 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
some possible HAARP locations worldwide
www.rense.com...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamahumandoing

It appears that it IS being used for weather modification, this paper relates to 'macroscopic time and altitude distribution of plasma turbulence induced in ionospheric modification experiments'.



I don't see that it does. I just finished reading the paper by Rose, Dubois, et al,

I hate to be the perpetual nay-sayer of ATS and, God knows, I have my own ideas that most would consider crazy or half-baked. However, a lifetime of training in physics and mathematics has instilled in me the recognition of the importance of delineating observation from speculation. Not that there is anything wrong with speculation. Humans are, in general, very adept at detecting subtle patterns. Unfortunately, humans are at least equally good at imagining patterns that are not present.

One must be careful when reading technical literature of this sort. For example, a researcher may use, without explanation, terminology that has a very specific and narrow meaning, one that would be immediately assumed and understood by other researchers for whom the article was intended. However, the nonspecialist might recognize the terminology and attach to it connotations that were not intended by the author(s). As an example, when the physicist refers to energy, he/she is referring to something quite specific, whereas, in general usage, the term has become a catch-all to express a wide variety of ideas and connotations. Another example, mentioned above, is the term "aerosol". For most people, the term implies something being sprayed, as from a can. However, as stars15k rightly pointed out above, when the atmospheric scientist uses the term, it carries no such connotation.

On to the article at issue. Now, I grant that I am not an expert in this particular field of specialization. My own area of relative expertise is in foundational issues in mathematical physics, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory in particular. However, I know enough about physics to get the gist of the article.

This appears to be a report published by OSTI, based upon research done by LANL. It is stamped "distribution of this document is unlimited." I take this to mean that OSTI is unconcerned with copyright issues, unlike most scientific journal publishers. Here is how it works: the authors are getting grant money from DOE and LANL to do this research, which they had presumably carefully outlined in a grant proposal at some prior point. Now, in order to keep that grant money flowing, they need to produce results. So they write up this summary of what they have been up to for the last three years and send it to DOE. And DOE, in order to demonstrate that whole thing is not a great big waste of money, publishes the summary for the world to see. To my mind, there is nothing mysterious here.

But what of the content? As far as I can tell, they say that they fired a beam of radio waves, in the HF portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, at the ionoshpere. They used the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico for this, since in 1996, HAARP was still under construction. Then they noticed some turbulence in the ionoshpere, which is basically a plasma of charged particles, electrons and ions. The timing of it seemed to confirm that the turbulence was caused by the localized heating of the plasma due to the incident radio waves, rather than some random occurrence. Then there is a description of some of the technical features of the turbulence.

Well, pardon me, but this does not seem like an earth-shattering result. Hm, charged particles are affected by electromagnetic radiation, you say? The only thing that I might have found surprising here would have been if they had *not* seen any effect. In other words, this is what charged particles do, respond to electromagnetic fields. To be fair to the authors, they know all this, and are apparently merely trying to point out that the observed effects were *caused* by Arecibo, as well as quantify certain features of the effects.

But what I am not seeing in this article is any reference to weather control or modification. Furthermore, weather is a tropospheric, and possibly stratospheric, phenomenon. This paper deals with ionospheric phenomena. One may argue that ionospheric disturbances translate into weather features, but this would be speculation. If anyone knows of any studies that have been done on this, feel free to enlighten me.

In closing, I am not saying that HAARP has no capability for weather modification. I am saying that the present paper is not the smoking gun, as is being claimed here.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Spectral Norm
 


I call a spade a spade, they call a heater a heater.

Ionospheric modification experiments....
So modification does not relate to change???

Respectable scientific pedigree I must say......
What about English?

I don't mean to be flippant but it plainly says what it says.

Peace
edit on 5/2/11 by iamahumandoing because: just a thought



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
"heater" in terms of radio transmission refers to the cathode. OH MY!

your television (assuming you have one of those old-timey tubes) has a HEATER in it. they must be trying to modify the weather in your home! aaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!


nope. guy above is right. you made yourself look a fool about the aerosols on page one of your other thread. and same for this one. those papers are written at a level that is apparently above your head. good respectable science, nothing that they arent already teaching at the university.


glad you are having fun, tho.
edit on 5-2-2011 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

For stronger heater powers, corresponding to the Arecibo upgrade and the HAARP heater now under construction, the effects are much more dramatic.


If they were just observing, surely they wouldn't have wasted millions of dollars developing HAARP to study an effect they've obviously already concluded exists.

That's just common sense - no degree necessary.

Also please note the repeat occurence of the word 'heater'.

Peace



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


So are you saying it couldn't cause any variation in temperature? Just so I can be clear in this obviously retarded head of mine


ps. what was that post about aerosols? Was I the author?
edit on 5/2/11 by iamahumandoing because: question


pps. cast your eyes upwards (further up this thread) and see my reply to the gent who commented on the aerosols post.

ppps. Fool? Thanks for that.
edit on 5/2/11 by iamahumandoing because: more thoughts



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by iamahumandoing
 


As Spectral Norm was TRYING to explain to you....NO, you are not understanding what you've read RE: HAARP.


I call a spade a spade, they call a heater a heater.

Ionospheric modification experiments....



Do you know what the ionosphere is?

I think what you did (out of a lack of full comprehension regarding the make-up of Earth's atmosphere) is saw the part of "ionosphere" that said "sphere"...and you didn't look it up to educate yourself.

The ionosphere has NOTHING to do with our weather! It can't....technically, it isn't really a part of our atmosphere at all...it is a layer of charged particles (hence, "ions") that are electrically energized by the Sun's radiation, in various EM spectra. But, since it surrounds us, is called part of our "sphere"....certainly, though, there is so little "air" there, that high, as to be a virtual vacuum.

POINT is, the ionosphere doesn't even begin until about 40 miles, and up.

Please, learn: en.wikipedia.org...


So, no....no "smoking gun" regarding HAARP In fact, ALL of the "HAARP Hype" is from people who either are intentionally hoaxing, or are terribly misinformed, and spread the junk "pseudo-science" all over the place....assisted today, of course, by this handy-dandy thing called the "Internet"...
edit on 5 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by iamahumandoing
 


no, sorry, you were not the author of that POST.


well, an energy beam certainly does have the ability to heat-up anything that it is directed at. dont stand in front of a satellite antenna, for example. but i think that it is important to consider

1- earths weather is not generated in the ionosphere
2- calling it a "heater" is referencing it as specifically a communications device.


but, yes, it certainly can heat the atmosphere. let yer imagination run wild, huh?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Way to go, This might open a few eyes. When HAARP heats up the ionosphere and then quickly releases it can cause and has caused earthquakes. It is like when you put your hand over your ear and create a vacume it causes your inter ear to jump, sorry that is the closes analogy I could come up with. But that is what happens on the earth and causes it to jump.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hey, thanks for the Wikipedia link :s

'yes, it certainly can heat the atmosphere'


I'm getting tired of this...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by coolottie
 


Oh, really?? Got a source to confirm this?:


When HAARP heats up the ionosphere and then quickly releases it can cause and has caused earthquakes.


Really....we will all pull up our chairs, and wait intently.....





top topics
 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join