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.

 

European Parliament issues warnings on HAARP

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
You may well be right.... If I can, I'll try to find the 'source' of that particular anecdote.



My guess offhand would be - one of Eastlund's patents cites a 190x magazine cover drawing of Wardenclyffe. However, the text of the patent makes clear that the cite is merely to dismiss the concept of microwave rectenna space-to-ground power links as having any similarity to the picture. You do that a lot up front in patent applications - this photo looks/sounds like they're describing my widget but in fact it's not because of bla bla. It's to fend off similarity claims by the patent examiner.

However, Begich in one of his screeds claims that "Eastlund admits the use of Tesla technology in one of his patents! It's even in the cites! ", which is nuts - you cite to deny similarity. Of course, that didn't stop Begich. His big list o' "HAARP patents" includes anything he could find from APTI which had scary titles, whether they had any distant vague possible connection to HAARP or not. But HAARP doesn't really match what Eastlund patented, even if you're kind and sort of trim Begich's screed down to things that might actually be sort of similar.




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Nikola Tesla Died January, 7 1943, and when he died, many of his scientific papers where stolen?I wonder who would do such a thing?

Most namely, he has an idea for a "Particle Beam" or Death-Ray

www.teslasociety.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


The Parliamentary paper was from 13 years ago, but the OP's article is dated March 22, 2011. Was that the totality of your contribution to the discussion?

ADDED ON EDIT FOR CLARITY:

....from the article


Conditioned to accept that ‘all is well’ or, that we are powerless to affect change in a world dis-integrating before our eyes – we conduct our lives until one day it affects us directly – unfortunately by then it’s far too late.

Ask the people of northern Japan how they feel about the last three sentences and the answers they now seek in the aftermath of unimaginable loss and yet another future generation desecrated and ravaged by nuclear radiation.


In light of the rumored capabilities of HAARP this does in fact qualify as a proper forum for this OP in my opinion. If you feel otherwise, you may ask other Mods to override this decision via the complaint forum or via u2u.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by greenfox83
 


HAARP can't create earthquakes. HAARP is a radio antenna array, a high powered one, but that is all it is, nothing mystical o r world changing.
edit on 23-3-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)


yes it can! I'm sure you hard of the butterfly effect... those little scientist know the exact freqs to cause major disasters around the world... of coarse that's my opinion. Do you remember Mythbusters Tesla's little earthquake machine, all they had to do is dial in the right vibrations to shake an entire bridge.
edit on 23-3-2011 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Not that I disagree, but this kind of technology is capable of (at least in theory) "atmospheric loading." Building up a radio wave harmonic charge in the upper atmosphere, altering the dynamics of the system (at least locally, as far as I know.)


Ah, there's no such thing as a radio wave harmonic charge. Radio waves don't carry charge. "Harmonic" in engineering terms merely implies that the frequency used is an integer multiple or even integer fraction in the case of sub-harmonics of some other frequency, which used in this context doesn't seem to apply.



what is important is even if that were so, who would have the will to use it, and why?


Well, to study the ionosphere and lower magnetosphere. And of course, there's lots of communication related military possibilities to learn about. And do. Or prevent from doing. C3I interdiction is your friend, unless you need to establish your own comm links then C3I facilitation is your friend.




I suspect that one of the reasons for the 'security' aspect of HAARP is because of the potential it has for ELF communications... which could be essential for real-time submarine communications.


Navy doesn't use ELF for submarine notification messages any more, hasn't since 2004.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
OP, I may be missing something - the document is from 1998. Is the article suggesting that this was when they issued warnings? Apologies, I'm a bit confused.

If it is referring to the 1998/99 document, it might be best to move this from the 'breaking news' forum?
edit on 23-3-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

I think the point was more along the lines of this:
Would this be considered "Breaking News"?
www.irishcentral.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Here is another dimension to HAARP and HAARP was born out of Ronal Regan's Star Wars bluff to the Soviets.

He convinced the Soviets that we already had and were rapidly developing a space based missile defense system that would render their nuclear arsenal obsolete.

We didn't but the Soviets believed we might and committed billions and resources to quickly trying to develop their own and went bankrupt in the process.

What if though HAARP still doesn't work, that it is still just a bluff, that if they can get other nations to believe it was HAARP that caused the Tsunami or Earthquake or Volcano that naturally occured all on it's.

Wouldn't that terrify nations into believing it.

Who is claiming it could be HAARP? Members of the same Military Aliance, the European Nations that always operate in tandem with the US.

So the right hand is just accusing the left hand of something that it obviously would like everyone else to believe.

Had this come from the Soviets or Chinese I would be more impressed, this is likely a move to convince the Soviets and Chinese that it is HAARP and it's real and it works.

The question is, is it still a bluff? Can HAARP actually do these things, or are they just trying to convince hostile nations that it can do these things by openly accusing the US of it being able to do these things.

I don't see this as a crack in the facade, rather a way to strengthen the position.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Maxmars
Not that I disagree, but this kind of technology is capable of (at least in theory) "atmospheric loading." Building up a radio wave harmonic charge in the upper atmosphere, altering the dynamics of the system (at least locally, as far as I know.)


Ah, there's no such thing as a radio wave harmonic charge. Radio waves don't carry charge. "Harmonic" in engineering terms merely implies that the frequency used is an integer multiple or even integer fraction in the case of sub-harmonics of some other frequency, which used in this context doesn't seem to apply.


The word I was searching for was "effect" rather than charge ... pardon my misuse of the jargon. And yes, you can inject a signal into, and then subsequently release it from, the atmosphere. There's more relating to harmonics and amplification waves, but I think that should clear up the misunderstanding... if that is what it was.




what is important is even if that were so, who would have the will to use it, and why?


Well, to study the ionosphere and lower magnetosphere. And of course, there's lots of communication related military possibilities to learn about. And do. Or prevent from doing. C3I interdiction is your friend, unless you need to establish your own comm links then C3I facilitation is your friend.


Command and Control Communications mania prevailed in the 70's and 80's - especially considering the theater of the 'cold war.' But I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to any notional nefarious use for it.




I suspect that one of the reasons for the 'security' aspect of HAARP is because of the potential it has for ELF communications... which could be essential for real-time submarine communications.


Navy doesn't use ELF for submarine notification messages any more, hasn't since 2004.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)


"has" was a typo for "had," once again, in context of the cold war era.

Better now? I seem to get the impression you are trying to make a point.


edit on 23-3-2011 by Maxmars because: formatting probs



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

The question is, is it still a bluff? Can HAARP actually do these things, or are they just trying to convince hostile nations that it can do these things by openly accusing the US of it being able to do these things.

I don't see this as a crack in the facade, rather a way to strengthen the position.



IIRC, the original document also calls for all nations to convert their military into a sort of green police force.

They bought into Begich's crap, stuck the HAARP stuff into this document which is filled with other wacky Kucinich-like rainbows and unicorns demands as well, and that was pretty much the end of it. You never heard, AFAIK, anything further on it. So I don't see it as being either a "crack in the facade" or a "strengthening of position" but a "wackiness of politicians, who then let it drop after they found out that Begich was a troll rather than seem like idiots to the world any more than they already had".



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Maxmars
 

I think the point was more along the lines of this:
Would this be considered "Breaking News"?
www.irishcentral.com...


Point taken... is this a complaint?



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I don't think these EU committees have much clout anyway. Inasmuch as they are semi-official bodys drawn from participating EU countries. The HAARP business was handed over to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy in the EU. There is another committee dealing with Baxter and the "Tamiflu" controversy. The best to hope for is that these committees petition the likes of WHO until WHO are forced to bring these issues into the public mainstream. In the meantime sovereign EU countries can ignore these issues if they want. Of course, most of the mainstream press operates in the same manner.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Well my friend I wouldn't pretend to know about all that, I just know that all those attenas up there in Alaska aren't for tuning in a Yankees Game.

The Digital Cable Act swept into legislation to balance the budget when HAARP was ready to go fully operational doesn't actually look to Kosher to me, so I have to say that they use HAARP for something, and that I am just not real sure at the moment who precisely to waterboard to find out exactly what.

Thanks for the counter intel!



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaxmarsAnd yes, you can inject a signal into, and then subsequently release it from, the atmosphere. There's more relating to harmonics and amplification waves, but I think that should clear up the misunderstanding... if that is what it was.


Why do you think you can store up a signal in the atmosphere and then release it? Where's that coming from? You can't really, if I'm understanding what you're trying to say.



Command and Control Communications mania prevailed in the 70's and 80's - especially considering the theater of the 'cold war.' But I wasn't referring to that, I was referring to any notional nefarious use for it.


Most of the "unpublished" stuff I know about the facility falls squarely into the C3I arena, with a soupcon of NSA sponsored OTH radio traffic peeking. And some distance ground imaging stuff using mirrors and/or ducts. Maybe they're running earthquake deathbeam stuff too - you generally only get info about the bits you aren't associated with around the cooler or at the bar, and we haven't done anything there for years now. Still, you hear talk on the insider engineering circuit, and most of it's that sort of thing, no mind control, no zombie creation. Keep in mind that Gakona's a research facility. Once you get the basic science down on a topic, it moves...elsewhere.



Better now? I seem to get the impression you are trying to make a point.


Not particularly, other than "I don't think that's true because of 'x'" or "haven't heard that one before, where is that coming from", maybe 'this is the context in which that happened'. You know, discussion.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I get it.... my bad. It's my own fault for trying to do too many things at once and not having enough time to give you the references (which I grant I may have misinterpreted myself
). I would appreciate your opinion on them anyway.

Briefly, the radio signal 'storage' (so to speak) came from a study done quite some time ago (which I now have to commit myself to find for you) if I am wrong about that, or maybe it was published as a theory and not fact, apologies. I will research further an at least u2u you with what I find. I have a rudimentary understanding of radio theory and the basics, but I profess no special wisdom on the subject. In my day we referred to it as C3 and C3CM, but it's clear you know what that's all about. Sorry for the confusion.... it's been a busy day for me...
edit on 23-3-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The Digital Cable Act swept into legislation to balance the budget when HAARP was ready to go fully operational doesn't actually look to Kosher to me...


Another new HAARP story. Cool - I don't get the connection, can you elaborate? I've been trying to figure out how DCA and HAARP might go together before just asking, but I haven't managed to make the connection.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
Briefly, the radio signal 'storage' (so to speak) came from a study done quite some time ago (which I now have to commit myself to find for you) if I am wrong about that, or maybe it was published as a theory and not fact, apologies. I will research further an at least u2u you with what I find.


Beauty. I learn something new every day - a few years ago someone on another forum dropped a paper on me that made a LOT of connections between some dissociated bits and pieces I'd been wondering about - you never know what you'll find.

I've been taking this week off after having "been out of town" at work for a few months, sadly starting tomorrow I have to go back to an off-site job. If you get time, U2U it and I'll get it late next week, they don't like me on the civilian net out there anyway, can't imagine their reaction to finding I was on ATS from their facility.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72

It would very interesting to determine once and for all if HAARP has or can be used to manipulate the weather.


The EP concern is about unintended consequences. There is and never has been any serious suggestion it can manipulate the weather. However some have expressed genuine concerns that it may have unintended consequences. Notwithstanding which, the evidence for such is non existent.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


the benign part of HAARP is the ionaspherical resurch
the "low" power section of harp effects the ionasphere and creates an area where signals can be "bounced" of the ionasphere, its not good to heat one part of the ionosphere as convection will cause a change in the "air currents"
an anology is this if i heat up the center of a stream it will effect the path of water down stream
there are "knock on" effects down stream
now add a secondary signal bouncing of the heated ionasphere and being "refracted" towards the target, the extra energy released is cumulative at the point of refraction
this is how down stream effects are created
air current interacts with the heat and the cooler flow drops in height suddenly and condensates as it does
"rainstorm"

xploder




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join