HAARP Caused Japan Earthquake : Benjamin Fulford

reply to post by discostu123


dude...thats the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in sometime. If I need to explain why governments would kill people you wouldn't understand anyway.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Nope that doesn't answer my question, i will ask again why does the army need 12 HAARP stations around the globe?

So what is this, a riddle or something? I answered your question. Sorry if you didn't like my answer.

... your using the sources from the so called marker of the HAARP i believe?

Among others, yes. I can't think of anyone who'd know more about it than the guy who invented the technology.

and also if you have 12 HAARP stations dont you know what happens when you have 12 stations on the same frequency?

Yes. You get 12 separate signals that have less than 5 watts at the reciever.

you can create very powerfully signals all beamed straight up into the ionosphere.

No, you don't. Multiple transmitters do not have a cumulative effect. You might want to study up on how radio transmitters work.

reply to post by CDNBilderberg

I'd be interested in checking out the source of the graph you posted.
Have you a link perhaps? Thanks.

Originally posted by roadtoad
Oh mr. X,
Now you're claiming to be a mind reader. You're claiming that my observations are false, and I'm only saying that to make myself look smart.
Where did that one come from?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

Using my Indian skills, I've been observing the scalar changes to this earth since 1972.

Ok, if you say so.

And you're talking about reality?

Yep.

What is your diffinition of reality?

That's irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Why don't you go to the incredible length of going outside, swinging your head up to the heavens, observe the clouds, and then tell me what you see.

I look at the sky nearly every day. I see clouds.

The scalar clouds are the observable evidence of scalar waves.
They're easy to see.

Well, it should be easy for you to post a picture of these "scalar clouds" to show me what you're talking about.

When you see clouds that are not in a natural formation, what is your conclusion?

I have yet to see anything I'd consider "unnatural cloud formations". As above, maybe you could post a picture so I can see what you're talking about?

reply to post by kwakakev

Attributed to HAARP by whom? Ben Fulford?
I can't read the info at the link you provided as I don't speak the language.
I feel it's safe to say that if earthquakes are at a depth of 10km, then 10km is a natural depth for some earthquakes, because HAARP can't cause earthquakes. It doesn't have nearly enough power, and radio transmissions can't couse an earthquake, in any event.

reply to post by infomaster

Ben Fulford is a very interesting guy with some very interesting connections.

In 2008 he thought he was onto something; he quite possibly was.

I know that the criminals who have been trying to defend their power base against the inexorable advance of truth are fully willing to bring the entire planet to its knees, given the technology to make it happen.

reply to post by subject x

What makes you think that 3.6 million watts of radio energy (the official specification on the HAARP website) would not be capable of causing an earthquake? Do you really understand the physics of earthquake production that completely?

On the other hand, it is possible that HAARP had nothing to do with the most recent events in Japan, regardless of what it is capable of.

reply to post by subject x


The earthquake data on that site is in English to proves my point. If you are interested in the rest then you will need to translate from Spanish, there are lots of translators around. I use goggle chrome as a browser and it does it for me automatically.

To call haarp a radio antenna is an over simplification, like calling a missile a gun, they both go bang. A better analogy would be a radio antenna is like a light bulb and harrp is like a laser. A radio antenna is omnidirectional in it's propagation of electromagnetic waves, the signal strength declines the further you go away from it as the signal is spread in all directions. Try seeing if your local tv station will let you climb their antenna. The main reasons this request will be declined is due to the strength of the signal so close to the source and the dangers to human health this has. Haarp with its array is unidirectional in its propagation of electromagnetic waves, the signal strength maintains a lot more of its strength over distance. This is how the lensing effects off the ionosphere is used for over the horizon communication links.

If you are happy with the official story and wish to disregard similarities with other suspected haarp induced events and unusual phenomenon that is your choice. Facts make a better argument than opinion and your debates are coming across like one of the believers on the 9/11 threads.

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by CDNBilderberg

 

I'd be interested in checking out the source of the graph you posted.
Have you a link perhaps? Thanks.

HAARP Magnetometer

Just enter the date at the bottom (enter any date you want to see previous HAARP action). That page is a link from HAARP Data page. As it's been stated many times there's many HAARP sites, the only ones I can find that have pages to view realtime data are HAARP and the Norway EISCAT. I check them anytime their is what I would call an ecological balance just to see if they're turned on. Most of the time when the media drops words with environmental issues like "Worst ever" "of the century" or my favourite "biblical proportions" one of these two sites are in action. Whether or not they're the cause or an amp for the damage done, the point remains they're turned on before or during the time of the events.

reply to post by kwakakev

I know how much everyone hates government sources, but this page at the USGS site shows that shallow earthquakes are actually the most common. Assuming this is correct, it pretty much trivializes the claim that "shallow" earthquakes are evidence of being HAARP related.

I'll find a translator to read that page, though.

What I don't get is what is happening to this Earth just now. Because of the influx of 'natural' disasters alot of theories are coming out regarding the possibilty of the 2012 story of the end of the world being true. That the earth is destroying itself. Then of course we are bombarded by BS stories of Global Warming and Climate Change to back these theories up.

Then we have the New World Order and their apparent 'Agenda 21'. The Eugenics and Depopulation program.

If the end of the world is coming why bother with Agenda 21?

If 2012 is just a BS story and the Earth is not destroying itself then HAARP (If it has the power) would be a fact and that the New World Order is using this weapon to make the population believe in 2012 and Global Warming.

That would then make sense of the spate of supposed 'Natural' disasters we are having just now. Make the population believe they are killing their own planet. Impose higher climate change taxes. Destroy parts of the world and structures that could affect the enviroment and human population.

This is just my theory of what's going on and why the subject of HAARP makes sense!!

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by kwakakev

 

and radio transmissions can't couse an earthquake, in any event.

You positive about that? Are you aware of the abilities of RF? More importantly things like the Hutchinson Effect? The reason Benjamin Fulfords video from 2008 is so eerie and is a cause for concern is that he lays it all out (and for anyone familiar with the NWO knows that Eugenics and depopulation is one of their top priorities(Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates, Monsanto, etc...)), it's easier to knock out a chunk of people with a "natural disaster", also causes more money to be created (someone has to pay for the cleanup/rebuild). Doesn't take much looking around the MSM to see all the talks of "food shortages" "water shortages". There's numerous documents on government websites that discuss the weather capabilities of HAARP, nobody jumped up and said "Christchurch was HAARP!" While it was certainly questionable, there wasn't much discussion on it because in all likelihood it wasnt the Alaskan HAARP that caused it. As someone previously said, you sound like a person who believes the "Official Story" for 9/11. Building 7 what?

I posted this before either in this thread or a previous thread, but everyone should read it, it discusses "Event Contracts" such as the privatization and militarization of weather modification.

CFTC Requests public input on possible regulation of "Event Contracts"

reply to post by CDNBilderberg

Ok, thanks. I'm seeing what you're showing me now.

Essentially, what we're seeing here isn't a HAARP signal, although I can easily see the confusion factor. What the graph shows is the temporal variation of the geomagnetic field by use of an induction magnetometer. From the same site:

The induction magnetometer installed at the HAARP site is designed to detect a signal level of a few picoTesla (pT) at 1 Hz. The over all frequency response of the magnetometer is shaped by Faraday's law at frequencies below 1 Hz and by active filters at frequencies above 1 Hz. Below 1 Hz the coil response is proportional to the time derivative of the magnetic field and thereby gives a response proportional to the frequency. Above 1 Hz, signals are suppressed by a low-pass filter with a corner frequency at 2.5 Hz. The filter response diminishes by 24 dB per octave above the corner frequency and thereby eliminates interference from 60 Hz radiation.

page
The reason they record this data can be found on the same page as the graph:

Geomagnetic storminess is usually indicated in oscillatory variations in the earth's magnetic field. Additional detail concerning the nature and severity of the ionospheric disturbance can be found through analysis of the three components of the field.

The induction magnetometer records in the Ultra Low Frequency range (~1hz) The section that I bolded above in the first quote is important in that it shows that signals at 60hz and above are eliminated by the low-pass filter. HAARP transmits in the High Frequency range at 2.8–10Mhz (thus the "H" in HAARP). That's way, way above what the induction magnetometer will even record.

This shows that what we see in the graph isn't HAARP activity at all, just the natural variations of the Earth's magnetic field. Naturally, at the time of an earthquake occurring, the natural magnetic field is going to show wild fluctuations.

Now, obviously, since the graph isn't showing that HAARP is running at the time of these fluctuations, it doesn't prove that it's not running, either. However, when we understand what is actually being shown, we see that it's not contradicting Dr. Papadopoulos's statement in the email I recieved that HAARP hasn't been used over the last month.

As I see no reason for the Dr. to email a lie to me, a nobody, when he could have just as easily not responded at all and not risk being caught in the lie, I choose to believe his statement. You, of course, are free to disbelieve him if you like.

Originally posted by CDNBilderberg
You positive about that?

Pretty dang sure, yes.

Are you aware of the abilities of RF?

Yes. I was a radio technician when I was in the USAF, and was schooled pretty thoroughly in RF radiation.

More importantly things like the Hutchinson Effect?

I'm aware that the Hutchinson Effect has yet to be reproduced by anyone else, and that Hutchinson couldn't even reproduce it with any regularity. Perhaps you're familiar with this quote:

In a posting to the sci.physics.research newsgroup, Marc Millis, who ran the now-defunct Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program for NASA wrote:

This "Hutchison Effect" has been claimed for years, without any independent verification — ever. In fact, its originator can't even replicate it on demand. This has been investigated more than once, been part of documentaries on The Discovery Channel, but still never seems to pass critical muster. This is in the category of folklore. In general, the "American Antigravity" web site caters to such folklore and its enthusiasts

source
It really seems like more bad science to me, but I'm aware that many don't agree with that asessment.

The rest of your post deals with a bunch of NWO stuff, which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Whatever the motivations of these folks may be, they don't affect the fact that HAARP can not cause earthquakes, and thus did not cause the earthquake in Japan.

reply to post by subject x


I don't have a problem with all government sources, just treat with caution when there are conflicts of interest going on. FEMA has some great online resources for disaster preparation, unfortunately the attempts to cover up all the spending and resources associated to their camps does raise some questions, but that is another thread.

From your site there is a link to some Centennial data earthquake.usgs.gov... . Out of 13031 earthquake events between 1900 and 2002 there where 1091 quakes at a depth between 0.1 and 10 km, or a 8.3% chance of a shallow earthquake at this level. I would not call this most common, but possible. Your link looked at the depth between 0 - 70km deep.

There is still a lot that is not known about haarp technology, especially in the public arena. This information by its self does not mean a lot, but combined with the other information presented in this thread and a case does build.

Originally posted by kwakakev
From your site there is a link to some Centennial data earthquake.usgs.gov... . Out of 13031 earthquake events between 1900 and 2002 there where 1091 quakes at a depth between 0.1 and 10 km, or a 8.3% chance of a shallow earthquake at this level. I would not call this most common, but possible. Your link looked at the depth between 0 - 70km deep.

No argument here. Yes, that link does show quakes from 0-70km deep. What I'm not seeing is any connection between quakes at depths of 0-10km and HAARP other than by pure speculation.

There is still a lot that is not known about haarp technology, especially in the public arena. This information by its self does not mean a lot, but combined with the other information presented in this thread and a case does build.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. To me, most of the information presented here shows that HAARP can not, and did not, cause the Japan quake.

Spacequakes? what exactly quakes in a Spacequake?

As an engineer, I don't understand an awful lot of stuff written about HAARP.

We know it's a set of HF radio transmitters operating on two frequencies in the HF band, with an output of ~3.6MW which is fed to a double set (one for each frequency) phased arrray antenna which is flat on the ground, making it's boresight 90 degrees with the surface.

Look up any textbook on RF antenna design. You’ll find that the output from a phased array antenna can be steered. The extent to which it can be steered from the normal (boresight) is about +/- 45 degrees from the normal, at which point the ERP is about 6 dB down. i.e., half the power. Don’t take my word for it, look it up in any decent textbook.


Yes, HAARP has been used for years. Essentially is is chucking 3.6MW electromagnetic radiation at HF (not microwave) upwards, at 90 degrees from the ground, +/- 45 degrees, max. (We just discussed the basic funcamental engineering and you are free to check basic theory yourself)

3.6MW is about half, yes half, the amount of energy that you’d get from , say, a hot air balloon burner. Check out any convenient balloon specialist.

That’s all. Period.

OK, you have 3.6MW available at the transmitter. Assuming it's some kind of a weapon, you have to deliver that energy to a target.

Let’s be really generous and suggest that the HF beam can bounce between the ground and the ionosphere all the way round form the USA to Japan.

Let’s be generous and assume it only diverges by 10 degrees.

Lets be generous and say it looses only 5% of its energy at each reflection.

The ionosphere is 50-90km up. Call it 90km

Distance between USA and Japan is about 9000km

If we steer the beam at 45 degrees, we can get to Japan in about 100 reflections

Ignore the fact that, steered at 45 degrees, the beam power is 6dB down. For fun, say the beam power is 100% at transmission. it will be 95% after the first reflection, 90.25% after the second, 85.7375 after the third, until after the 100th, we have 0.59% of the power. About 21 kW. The same power as two decent electric shower units.

Now, the path length along all those reflections is about is about 13000km. If the beam diverges 10 degrees, it will be spread over a circle 2300km in diameter. That’s over 4 million square km. Or about 0.5milliwatts per square km.

Now you have to deliver that power through a few hundred meters of water, then a few km of rock, to where the fault is which you want to make slip.

How much HF radio wave is losst through a few cm of water, let alone a few hundred meters?

If you really think you can do any kind of damage with milliwatts of RF power, you'd be better advised to stop using your cellphone: you might trigger an earthquake where you are standing.

Take each point I have made and see if you can refute any of them (with supportable references, please).

o.k., mr. x. I have to say that at least you're nice enough to semi-pay attention.
In over 30 years of doing this, the only other guy besides me that sort of looks at the clouds is this guy.
He misses a lot, but he gets some right.
Only pictures 3 and 4 are actual scalar cloud chevrons.
But, at least, he's showing you something close to what I'm talking about.
I don't ever completely support Benjamin Fulford's opinion on anything. He's not the least bit technical. But, I lived in Japan seven years, and in the orient for about 20 years. I know about a lot of things going on over there.
Also, I don't say haarp is doing it. I don't have a scalar detector. Just, again, my natural sense of things.
The scalar waves come from the direction of the haarps, the one in alaska, and the one in napa, california, I see often. I'm only talking about the clouds, nothing else.
I'll try to find better pictures, if I can.
The scalar cloud picture from Japan is a 'grid', you never get that one in the u.s.a.


snardfarker.ning.com...

reply to post by AboveTheTrees

Spacequakes? what exactly quakes in a Spacequake?

A spacequake is a disruption to the magnetic field surrounding the earth. The sun has a part to play, but scalar weapons that use electromagnetic energy can also be used. We are entering a new age in warfare with the technology that is emerging.