HAARP waves on $50 bills?

reply to post by Bedlam


I take from your post that you believe that you know everything about HAARP and radio waves because of your profession. You're quite obtuse.

At what time in the video does he mention that HAARP uses a loud speaker? I don't recall him stating this.

Can HAARP capable of utilizing more than just radio waves?????? Please answer this.

Also, please explain how an opera singer can use her voice to shatter glass.

Originally posted by Afterthought
EDIT to add: Do you believe that TPTB have released all information about HAARP?

Well, they do release a LOT of it. The American Geophysical Society pubs are often free, too. It's just a bit technical and hard to follow. Although most of the HAARP research is on some AGS publication or another, some of it is pay-access, and some of that is the more interesting stuff. And some you don't hear about.

Are we sure that it only uses radio waves? What if it also utilizes microwave technology?

Microwaves ARE radio waves. But it doesn't - the IRI couldn't emit a decent microwave if you beat it with a hammer. The antenna setup is so very wrong for that sort of thing.

Do you believe everything that you are told? Do you trust that there's technology being used that you don't completely have all of the information in order to make a true decision on if it's dangerous or not?

No, I don't believe everything I'm told, but even if I didn't know what was what in regards to basic operation of the array, I could look at photos of the antenna array and tell you a LOT about what was going on, especially with some scale references, like people standing next to one of the antenna units. It also helps to know who made the final amps and have a copy of the specs, as well as specs on the exciter, which is where all the fun happens.

After you get past the radio part of the thing, the ionospheric physics is interesting but a bit arcane in places, I can read the papers with some understanding, more for some papers, less for others. FWIW, we bid on parts of the STS test system but didn't get it, they'd pretty much already awarded the thing under the table to the guys that ended up with the satellite contract.

reply to post by Bedlam


Thanks for answering the questions I posed, but I'd still like to be able to understand how an opera singer can shatter glass, but HAARP is unable to disrupt anything physically in your opinion. Also, we know that the human ear cannot detect certain sounds such as the ones a dog whistle produces. What if all the animal deaths occured because they can hear whatever frequency is being produced and it caused them to become disoriented and fall to their deaths while we remain clueless since we cannot hear what they hear?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Bedlam

 

I take from your post that you believe that you know everything about HAARP and radio waves because of your profession. You're quite obtuse.

Does anyone know everything about anything? Do you know everything about, say, your left nostril? Yet it's yours, and you're pretty familiar with it.

We do a lot of fairly advanced radio stuff. I'd say I'm not an amateur. At all.

At what time in the video does he mention that HAARP uses a loud speaker? I don't recall him stating this.

Have you WATCHED the clip? Did you somehow fail to see the subwoofer? Or fail to notice that he's trying to use this as 'proof' that HAARP can do the same thing?

Can HAARP capable of utilizing more than just radio waves?????? Please answer this.

No.

Also, please explain how an opera singer can use her voice to shatter glass.

1) Glass is very elastic - it stores deformation waves such as sound with a fair bit of efficiency, we would say it has a "high Q", in that it does not dissipate a lot of vibrational energy as heat. This is why you don't see opera singers breaking rubber erasers.

2) Glass is also relatively brittle, and lead crystal is especially so. It doesn't take a lot of mechanical stress to shatter it. That's why you don't see operatic singers breaking water balloons, or for that matter, jelly jars.

3) Sound is a mechanical stress wave, whereas radio is not, which is why you don't see people breaking wine glasses with transmitters.

4) The shape of a wine glass has a fairly good resonant peak lengthwise. If it had no well defined mechanical resonance, or if that resonance was, say, across the base, it wouldn't break. That's why you don't see opera singers breaking highball glasses.

5) The long axis of a wine glass has a length that's within the sound wavelength an operatic singer can produce. If it were 3 feet tall, you couldn't do it.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Thanks for answering the questions I posed, but I'd still like to be able to understand how an opera singer can shatter glass, but HAARP is unable to disrupt anything physically in your opinion. Also, we know that the human ear cannot detect certain sounds such as the ones a dog whistle produces. What if all the animal deaths occured because they can hear whatever frequency is being produced and it caused them to become disoriented and fall to their deaths while we remain clueless since we cannot hear what they hear?

Ok. We're back to the core truth - sound is not radio, radio is not sound. They're not alike in any way.

Sound is a longitudinal mechanical stress wave in air. Radio is a transverse wave of electric and magnetic fields.

An opera singer can shatter glass with her voice, because it's a mechanical stress wave she's putting out, and because a wine glass meets the other factors I posted. She couldn't shatter a microscope slide, nor a large window pane.

HAARP emits radio waves. They're not sound. They have no mechanical force to impart. Because they're radio waves. You can't hear them, because your ears hear sound. Sound is not radio. Even if you had a radio wave with a frequency one might associate with sound, you still couldn't hear it. Because radio is not sound. Similarly, I can have a sound wave with a frequency associated with radio, and you can't pick it up on a radio receiver, because sound is not radio.

You can't "hear" HAARP, because HAARP doesn't emit sound. You can't hear radio. It's that simple.

/sidenote to whomever - don't bring up Frey unless you want a lot of info, I've got a lot of the groundwork stuff here in a folder somewhere. Frey depends on heating the cochlear fluid. You hear the expansion of the cochlear fluid, not the radio wave itself. We did some projects on this too, long ago.

reply to post by Bedlam


So, please tell me what HAARP has discovered about our ionosphere?

I'd still be interested to know about your thought regarding sounds the human ear cannot detect, but animals' ears can.

EDIT to add: As HAARP is being used on the ionosphere, is it capable of disrupting the magnetosphere?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Bedlam

 

So, please tell me what HAARP has discovered about our ionosphere?

Have at it - here's a nice starter set. It's by no means a complete listing of available info.

I'd still be interested to know about your thought regarding sounds the human ear cannot detect, but animals' ears can.

Various animals can hear sounds in various ranges - mice and birds hear different ranges than, say, dogs or humans. At any rate, ultrasonics don't propagate all that efficiently in air, you'd have a tough time covering miles of countryside with it. And you couldn't do it with a radio signal.

EDIT to add: As HAARP is being used on the ionosphere, is it capable of disrupting the magnetosphere?

I'd say no, sort of predicated on what you mean by "disrupt". Some of the experiments use the magnetosphere for ducting, and quite a number of them depend on the magnetosphere to work at all. If by "disrupt" you mean the usual Begich stuff about "slicing the lines of the magnetosphere" then no.

reply to post by Bedlam


You stated:

At any rate, ultrasonics don't propagate all that efficiently in air, you'd have a tough time covering miles of countryside with it. And you couldn't do it with a radio signal.

Would it be that difficult if towers were to be strategically placed along the parts where they were to be directed?

Regarding the magnetosphere, the reason I asked is because it's believed that birds can see these magnetic lines in order to travel, migrate, and find the exact tree they nested in the previous year. If radio waves at an extremely high frequency could force the magnetosphere to wobble or be knocked off balance, could this cause birds to become disoriented?

Just to clarify, I'm not asking you about the disorientation of birds, just if the magnetosphere can be affected by ultra strong radio waves.


Nevermind that last question and thanks for the info you gave a link to. The very first line of info is in regards to how HAARP affects the magnetosphere.

It states as follows:

Airglow production at various beam positions relative to the magnetic field was investigated as part of an optics campaign at HAARP in February 2002. Strong emissions up to several hundred Rayleigh at 630.0 nanometers and more than 50 R at 557.7 nanometers were produced in a small spot approximately 6 inches diameter located near the magnetic zenith when the transmitter beam was directed up the magnetic field. This effect was observed hundreds of times over a wide range of frequencies and ionospheric conditions. The spot at HAARP appears on average just equatorward of the nominal magnetic field direction, deflects somewhat toward the beam center when the beam is scanned, and varies slightly in size with transmitter frequency. Red-to-green ratios as low as 3 were observed, with both wavelengths showing significant onset delay. Identifiable enhancements in red-line emission were produced down to 2 MW ERP in a power ramp experiment.

From this, I can certainly be pursuaded to believe that HAARP is a good candidate for mass bird deaths.

More evidence here that states HAARP is more concerned with the magnetosphere than the ionosphere:
www-star.stanford.edu...

It won't allow me to quote the paragraph, but it's in the second column under OBSERVATIONS.
It begins by saying:

When the CLUSTER spacecraft are in the northern hemisphere

After even examining the first page of evidence you directed me to, I am more than positive that it is a weapon which manipulates Earth's fields to create Earth changes. It's similar to how a therapist uses a sonogram to relax one's muscles. You can't feel the waves as they're penetrating your muscles, but there is a very slight bit of heat emitted during the procedure.

I now understand where my thinking was wrong. I was confused by high and low frequencies. The material I mentioned here discusses how LOW frequencies are utilized. Just as you can feel a base beat in your chest, they are using the low frequencies to obtain the results that they want to produce.

Originally posted by Afterthought

From this, I can certainly be pursuaded to believe that HAARP is a good candidate for mass bird deaths.

I can't imagine how. The paper's talking about stimulation of light above the array (in Alaska) by exciting the electrons in the ionosphere over the array. Some of them will move fast enough (statistically speaking) to knock an electron off of a gas molecule, and you'll get an emission of light. You have to have an image intensifier on the telescope to see it. The directions that the electrons go when they get knocked loose depends on the orientation of the magnetic field at that point, so you get "deflection" of the spot from the focus of the beam. Nowhere in the paper does it mention doing something to the magnetosphere, really.

The beam can't swing more than about 15 degrees off of vertical. You can't "target" Arkansas with it.

Originally posted by Afterthought
Just to clarify, I'm not asking you about the disorientation of birds, just if the magnetosphere can be affected by ultra strong radio waves

HAARP's not "ultrastrong" by any stretch of the imagination. You're talking 3.6MW input power to the array, which, after losses, can put out about 3.2MW total radiated power, if you pick the right frequency. It can't do that at every frequency in the operating range, and it can only do that if you're running both polarizations at once, which doesn't happen that often.

Originally posted by Afterthought
After even examining the first page of evidence you directed me to, I am more than positive that it is a weapon which manipulates Earth's fields to create Earth changes. It's similar to how a therapist uses a sonogram to relax one's muscles. You can't feel the waves as they're penetrating your muscles, but there is a very slight bit of heat emitted during the procedure.

Um, they don't use "sonograms", you probably mean an ultrasonic therapy machine. As a comparison, the machine your therapist uses puts out more power in your muscles as heat than HAARP does ELF power in whistler mode.

eta: you can't just peruse these papers looking for scary technical words. You have to read them for understanding. Some of these papers are really thick, technically. If you skip ahead, you'll hit the part where they discuss the intensity of the HAARP signal at the satellites to be 2uV^2/m^2, which is pretty damned minute. Which is also why the satellites had to be within 500km of the HAARP facility to pick up the signal at all.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Thanks! It's a tough world when you try to present something new and discover answers, but you're degraded and insulted.

It's no wonder our earth is suffering and solutions are swept under the rug.

I know, just what will it take?

Maybe it's this:

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Ghandi.

Originally posted by wcitizen

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Ghandi.

It's a Moire pattern. I could have been more tactful, but it's a Moire pattern. Not a "HAARP wave" somehow represented on a $20.

So, what, did you skip out on grade school science? Bedlam

reply to post by Bedlam


You're correct. Sorry that I said sonogram, I meant ultrasound.

Anyways, my question about HAARP being able to manipulate the magnetosphere has been answered. The papers I referenced were from 2003 and 2004. It is now 2011. How much more refined has HAARP become? Nobody knows how much manipulation has to occur in the magnetosphere to disorient birds and I doubt this information would ever be released. As long as HAARP is capable of this, it must be presumed that it is the culprit of the bird deaths.

reply to post by Bedlam


I don't believe magnetosphere falls under the category of

scary technical words

I'm not a fearmongerer. I'm a curious individual who wants to know who and what is trying to play G_d.

interesting video, but i think it's just part of the bill image and an imaging equipment effect.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Bedlam

 

As long as HAARP is capable of this, it must be presumed that it is the culprit of the bird deaths.

I still don't see how you get that from what you read, but I'm glad you enjoyed it.

It really doesn't manipulate the magnetosphere, and the quote you posted doesn't even imply it. Even if it could, it would be a LONG jump to "bird deaths".

Do you have a feel for how much the magnetosphere changes over a 24 hour cycle? The day side magnetic field pattern is radically different from the night side. Obviously, birds can deal with that, or they'd all die every night.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Bedlam

 

I don't believe magnetosphere falls under the category of

scary technical words

I'm not a fearmongerer. I'm a curious individual who wants to know who and what is trying to play G_d.

What I'm referring to are the two paragraphs you were so suddenly convinced by - neither had any description of "altering the magnetosphere", although you saw the word there and seem to have jumped to that conclusion.

reply to post by Bedlam


For the last time, I am concerned with how HAARP affects the magnetic field. There is plenty of information regardin this as well as its heating abilities. Anybody can pick and choose what they read and there is so much information that one can't even begin to have an honest to goodness debate in the short time that I began reading this stuff to now. Go ahead and peruse the list of PDF files you linked to. Almost all of them mention Earth's magnetic field. Yes, the magnetic field naturally fluctuates, but we don't know how HAARP makes the magnetic field look to the animals. You're obviously staunchly opposed to learning about how HAARP can be used to cause death. I'm not afraid to research and try to learn. People like you who are pushy and want me to be able to understand a whole host of information and documents right away, then slam me becasue I pointed out a few that were related to my question will never be open minded enough to believe that HAARP may be able to cause Earth changes. TPTB are manipulating our food and our water, why not our atmosphere, too?