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.

 

HAARP - The truth

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


lightworkers.org...

I'm not saying the source is necessarily the most credible but maybe you'll find something there.

[thanks to Wolfenz for the link]




posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by iamahumandoing
 


That was fast...you read and absorbed that Wiki article in about eleven minutes?? That's the time difference between when I posted it, and you replied.

SO...tell us...just how much heat is HAARP able to add to the ionosphere? Also, how does this action affect the thermosphere, and mesosphere?

IN addition....since ALL weather in our atmosphere is limited to no higher than about 50,000 feet....55,000 in extreme cases of towering cumulonimbus....but, they collapse soon, can't sustain themselves for long that high.

55,000 feet is only about 10 statute miles. But, 99% of all weather occurs lower than that. Now, how can the ionosphere affect the weather, when it is four to five times higher than any weather ever in existence?

Also....do you even understand what the purpose of HAARP is? DO you know what the ionosphere does, to some radio waves? How it affects the ones in the lower frequency bands? Ask any amateur Ham Radio enthusiast. Also, it's how some very powerful AM radios stations manage to get themselves heard well beyond normal line-of-sight reception ranges.




edit on 5 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
"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)


Starred: Thank you for pointing out yet another ill- informed; anti technology; paniced jump to conclusion on ATS.
Agree there is NOTHING about weather modification and certainly nothing about creating freakin' earthquakes.They measured "standing waves" lasting milliseconds after a transmission.

formtheabovelightworkers .org link:'

It can be seen from the foregoing that by appropriate application
of various aspects of this invention at strategic locations and
with adequate power sources, a means and method is provided to
cause interference with or even total disruption of
communications over a very large portion of the earth.
This
invention could be employed to disrupt not only land based
communications, both civilian and military, but also airborne
communications and sea communications (both surface and
subsurface). This would have significant military implications,
particularly as a barrier to or confusing factor for hostile
missiles or airplanes.


The belt or belts of enhanced ionization produced by the method
and apparatus of this invention, particularly if set up over
Northern Alaska and Canada, could be employed as an early warning
device, as well as a communications disruption medium. Further,
the simple ability to produce such a situation in a practical
time period can by itself be a deterring force to hostile action.
The ideal combination of suitable field lines intersecting the
earth's surface at the point where substantial fuel sources are
available for generation of very large quantities of
electromagnetic power, such as the North Slope of Alaska,
provides the wherewithal to accomplish the foregoing in a
practical time period, e.g., strategic requirements could
necessitate achieving the desired altered regions in time periods
of two minutes or less and this is achievable with this
invention, especially when the combination of natural gas and
magnetohydrodynamic, gas turbine, fuel cell and/or EGD electric
generators are employed at the point where the useful field lines
intersect the earth's surface.



It is clearly for controlling or disrupting communications or navigation .
edit on 5-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by iamahumandoing
 


The "patent"? Your point? I'm wondering if you read it?

In any case.....as needs to be pointed out, on this (and other) topics so often...a "patent" does NOT mean any device or invention is actually built, or in operaiton. Patents are a guarantee of an IDEA..."intellectual property"...there are plenty of patents awarded to people for things, and ideas that have never been implemented.

www.patentlysilly.com...


Back to the "HAARP Patent"....here, in case you didn't read it (because it's long-winded)...THIS Is what is about, the purpose for it:


It can be seen from the foregoing that by appropriate application
of various aspects of this invention at strategic locations and
with adequate power sources, a means and method is provided to
cause interference with or even total disruption of
communications over a very large portion of the earth.

This invention could be employed to disrupt not only land based
communications, both civilian and military, but also airborne
communications and sea communications (both surface and
subsurface).
This would have significant military implications,
particularly as a barrier to or confusing factor for hostile
missiles or airplanes.

The belt or belts of enhanced ionization produced by the method
and apparatus of this invention, particularly if set up over
Northern Alaska and Canada, could be employed as an early warning
device, as well as a communications disruption medium
.


Communications. THAT is what the ionosphere has been noted for, ever since radio was invented.

Oh....and also, the Aurora Borealis. THEY show up, because of the ionosphere layers.



edit on 5 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Quite an argumentative soul aren't we Weedwhacker?

Maybe this thread may be of interest: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Peace


Anyway, was sticking up for coolottie, check the diagram on the patent, it kinda shows the point.
edit on 5/2/11 by iamahumandoing because: addition



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Mmm, nice quote, from someone who later backtracked and said; 'but, yes, it certainly can heat the atmosphere'

Yawn...



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by iamahumandoing
 


that wasnt backtracking. i was supporting my own argument (and helping you save a little face).

i was merely giving full disclosure about use of the word "heater". there are man-made EM waves flying all around our atmosphere, and your head, that are also generating heat....in the strictest sense.

but the [i[purpose of these transmissions is not to generate heat, it is to communicate.


so, does it generate heat? yes. any transmitter does. but that is NOT its PURPOSE. that is merely a side-effect.

i was not backtracking.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Dear iamhumandoing,

You must be new to the whole HAARP thing. What you seem to be missing is that it is no secret that HAARP and other similar facilities are "ionospheric heaters". That's what they are called. Also there has been as yet not one bit of evidence to say that they can affect the weather in any way whatsoever. Let alone cause earthquakes. All those theories come with an astonishing lack of scientific proof.


edit on 5-2-2011 by mrwiffler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Goodnight guys...It's very late here in UK so it's way past my bedtime.

www.youtube.com...

Hope that we may share some common ground on future threads


Peace



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 
You have been on ATS for a long time, yet you try to pull the rug out of people and their theroies. Instead of just debunking someone then put some meat in it, and give your theories with some meat in it, that the rest of us can see there was some intelligence backing it up.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iamahumandoing
 
I know where you got the info, and if they try to knock that it just shows that they either work for someone to knock info down or either they do not even have the intell to know what you are talking about so debunking is the only way they feel intelligent. Now this is not meant for anyone in particular just an observasion, My luck I meet an iamahumanbeingdoing in a veritual reality.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
This was just posted on another thread.
cftc

It is a future trading commission report from 2003 discussing how to regulate trading on natural events, and how governments are able to create them.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamahumandoing
reply to post by 46ACE
 


Mmm, nice quote, from someone who later backtracked and said; 'but, yes, it certainly can heat the atmosphere'

Yawn...



"Nice Quote"???
uh check the REPLY times:
My post beat the following post by several minutes( guess I found the operative paragraph in the patent link quicker).They are adding energy to the charged particles; ( which is what the ionosphere is all about anyway .)

NOT physically "HEATING"it temperature wise! Making it more or less reflective at different rf frequencies. I stand by my post. baseless fear mongering."Ohhh big scientific words; look one says"heating"...Christ I'm going back to the:" The U.S.A. is a "doody head" and my country is better threads...
edit on 5-2-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by coolottie
 


look, dear. it is true that i have been here for a long time. and if you look at my most recent past posting history, you will see that i write posts that tend to be quite lengthy and informative. i have no problem giving more information where i feel that it will be duly noted and appreciated.

however, i can easily spot a situation wherein the information that i post will be treated as disposable. that is another advantage of having been here a long time.


what would you like me to do? write a treatise on the kinetic interactions of molecules propagating electromagnetic waves? seriously? i could do that. would you like me to?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 
That does sound interesting, but I guess it is off topic. It just seems to me every time a new person starts a thread everyone just jumps right in trying to knock them down. All the months I have read ATS I just never noticed that until I joined. I try to look for things I am interested in and have something to offer. If I go to something I disagree with, I just pass it up. Who am I to judge.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by coolottie
 


i can appreciate your sensitivity. i do not try to be harsh to others, but i also do not hold my tongue.

some of us here at ATS are working toward an ambiguous goal which involves weeding through the nonsense as quickly as possible to get to the important stuff.

a lot of times people will say that we have judged too quickly in tossing a certain topic aside. in that case, i am always happy to hear new evidence.

dont take it too personal.





posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
S&F

Just the words 'HAARP heater' is a dead giveaway. Dl'ed as well.. And laughing very hard at your knock at the door!!



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I have some more evidence to back up my claim that HAARP (aka The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is also being used for weather modification.

Compiled with love especially for all the naysayers


Here are links comprising the full episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura on the subject of HAARP. For those who don't want to watch all of this to see how HAARP relates to weather modification, please skip to Part 2 and watch the first 1 minute 23 seconds of footage.
If you want further evidence please skip to Part 3 and watch the footage from 1 minute 59 seconds through to 4 minutes 12 seconds...
What more could you want? It's as close as we'll probably ever get to 'straight from the horse's mouth'. Apart from the statement that started this thread, of course
but then again I would say that, wouldn't I?
Alternatively, for the bigger picture settle down and watch the whole show – it's a good one.

Part 1: www.youtube.com...
Part 2: www.youtube.com...
Part 3: www.youtube.com...
Part 4: www.youtube.com...

Thanks to those of you who can see the validity of the point I'm trying to make here.
Coolottie, a true beacon of hope for humanity, as always

Also thanks to stephinrazin, whitbit, billxam, leemachino, sheeky11random, Observer1 and lonegurkha. There is hope for us all yet...

I can understand that this post will probably cause further doubts to be cast on the validity of my research by those who would wish to debunk what I'm trying to say.
I really don't mind, this is fun and obviously everyone is entitled to their own point of view.
I just hope that for those who read this thread who have an open mind I have been able to put forward my argument effectively, and although I have received no higher education as such, and do not aspire to be classed an intellectual among my peers, I hope in your eyes I have been able to hold my own against such eloquent adversity....along with all the help from my friends.

Peace...as always,

Dave



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Please get this .pdf before its too late:
www.cftc.gov...

Download document CL02 (it's the second one on the page).

Weather modification is real.......

Please give any credit due to ManicSpecimen: www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 6/2/11 by iamahumandoing because: credit where it's due



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by iamahumandoing
 


Thanks for the link but pretty much *everything* in the document talking about weather modification is prefaced with 'might be,' 'would be' and 'possibly could be.'

It's not evidence, it's rehashing of speculative documents produced by the US military discussing toys they'd like to have. I've still yet to see *any* actual evidence of weather modification beyond cloud seeding.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join