Nice try, but here's an exposition of the definition of propaganda:
Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding an "if they do it then that's propaganda, while if we do it then that's information and education" biased approach. Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."[4] More comprehensive is the description by Richard Alan Nelson: "Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion."[5]
My motivations are not ideological, political or commercial, and despite your (odd) accusation of my being a propagandist, in fact what I write are simple observations - and memory recall of commonly known information that I've come across in the material I've read. I don't doubt I could prove my claims if i could be bothered to engage on this topic fully. I claimed the following:
a) HAARP is developed in accordance with an underlying appreciation/ knowledge of particle physics, and the ways in which such constitute our biosphere (to include all meteorological and geological phenomena). The science started off innocently enough with simple 'beam and observe' experimentation, but without a shadow of a doubt could (and probably has begun to) develop into the ultimate tool of mass-interference with the biosphere - specifically as an 'EM mega-weapon', or EM-WMD, suitable for a number of highly distinct purposes.
b) HAARP can be focused on a specific or general region of either the ionosphere, or (by reflection) onto a specific/general surface region of the Earth itself. This can be either within or over the horizon boundary (a direct line of sight to the target region is not necessarily required). Over the horizon radar applications, including communications with deep sea submarine vessels, have been cited as one of the reasons for the development of the technology. The militarization of components of the project is quite apparent to anyone that chooses to look.
c) EM radiation is emitted by HAARPs antenna array, and can be used to literally heat the targeted regions (for example, heating the ionosphere in order to affect the velocity or trajectory of the jetstream / to alter the path of a hurricane etc). It could also be used to propagate radiation through particles in a substrate (any and all parts of the biosphere), resulting in simple energetic transfer affecting the stability of the particle arrangement. Dramatic effects could be achieved by means of harmonically resonant pulsing (particularly when 'tuned' to the target medium's resonant frequency), which could change the distribution of stored energy (strain/ stresses being released by resonance) in the substance of the macro-environment.
This is no feat of imagination, it is a logical application of the available technology.
d) All points being taken into account, one can surmise that secrecy would be paramount, and that purposeful disinformation would be spread, if such potentially controversial activities were taking place under the cover of regular HAARP research programs. A lifetime of secrecy, behind the green door. Hence 'propagandists', would not need to lie about the purpose of HAARP; theirs would be to merely direct public attention onto those activities not related to weapons/ geo-modification research, and to deflect / ridicule any and all interest in the projects 'behind the green door'.
******* ******* *******
Incidentally, to counter your misrepresentation of my statements, I am most interested to know and understand the stated goals of the research being conducted at HAARP. I do not presume to call academics of any ilk 'propagandists'. However, being a generally level-headed bloke, I take politics and marketing drives associated with potentially hazardous scientific activities with a pinch of salt, and prefer to find out the answers from an in-depth look at all possibilities.
Marketing guys, management, security teams and politicians who are the propagandists. Oh, and the paid propagandists are obviously propagandists.
***** ***** ***** *****
Your attempt to make it seem I was shouting hysterically that academics are 'in on it' was quite clear to see (links to academic studies, sarcastically introduced as 'propagandists')
Hopefully people will have noticed that you directly attempted to portray my motivations or cognizance in a negative light. I did not specify who the propagandists were in my last post, which is how you were able to manipulate the wording of my post to suit your objectives. As I said in the opening words of this post, 'Nice try...'.
****** ****** ******
U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen publicly discussed the dangers of HAARP-like technology, saying "others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves... So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations... It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts."
This quote derives from an April 1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn, quoted from "DoD News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy," held at the University of Georgia-Athens, Apr. 28, 1997.
{my emphasis}
Oh and by the way - I find it interesting that you tend never to address issues or contentions raised against you in response to things you've posted. It seems that generally, you'd rather find something you can use to distort the meaning and intention of what was raised; if possible, you seek to misrepresent the objecting party as someone not worthy of trust / not credible / ignorant.
You will reply civilly, or post in support of those who agree with you, or who post in support of the mainstream view of... anything.
Crystal clear - a dead giveaway.
******* ******* *******
Any chance you might get round to answering my criticism of your argument? Which, in case you thought I'd forgotten, was...
{Chadwickus}
'...magnetometer readings from the days prior, when no earthquakes occurred, lead us to the conclusion that HAARP is incapable of causing an earthquake...'
{paraphrased}
I still think that argument is logically fallacious - quite literally 'nonsense'. HAARP can be AIMED and FOCUSED. Precisely the same as the way in which a gun can be fired in safety on the shooting range, or with lethal intent on the front line of a live conflict.
edit on 16-3-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: (no reason given)
