posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 06:20 PM
reply to post by luxordelphi
Wow way to take a post completely out of context.... It's rare to see someone go to that much trouble to avoid addressing the real and valid points
made in the post they are trying to refute.... I especially liked the paranoia part.
So lets examine what I actually said versus what you chose to try to turn what i said into.
I hope I haven't stumbled into a thread that is a fishing expedition to obtain personal information on anti-HAARP factions.
Why would a network dedicated to exposing the dangers of HAARP supply the names and addresses of those manning the sensors which provide the data to
expose this monstrosity for what it is? That sure wouldn't be very smart.
Which has nothing to do at all with anything I said but you try to make it seem so through implications. I did not in any way post that I thought they
should be posting anyone's names and addresses at all nor did I imply anything of the sort.
What I did say was:
Or if you want to ignore the fact that they in no way give any information about the supposed "sensors" they have throughout the US and how they
work. Really for me it's the so called sensors angle that seals the sites status as a crapfest. In any other all volunteer data collection and
distribution network there are freely available plans for the devices they use to take measurements.
Now where in here do I mention that I want any sort of data on existing sensor site locations or names of volunteers upkeeping them? .... I'll give
you a hint I DON"T DO THAT AT ALL!
Heres why: If said sensors are real and actually collecting data it doesn't matter who or what is collecting said data. In addition to this what
REALLY matters is that in any given data collection mission more sensors is ALWAYS a good thing. I'll repeat that MORE SENSORS IS ALWAYS A GOOD
THING! Now this has bearing on the subject at hand because not only do they not specify what sort of sensors they have brought to bare on the issue,
but there is also no in-depth instructions on how to build and or buy sensors of your own to help with the data collection project. As I said before
and I'll say it again here this is a key element present in all other public data collection projects anywhere in the world whether it's measuring
basic weather information or monitoring a population of endangered species more sensors is always better so REAL PROJECTS go out of their way to try
to get said sensors into the hands of people willing to help with their projects.
You also said:
Your post, like the OP's, seems bent on addressing everything except the chart-map-graph itself.
The funny thing is I did in fact address the so called "data" quite blatantly in my post. Just because you don't like what I have to say about
"the data" doesn't make you justified in just ingoring it and pretending like i didn't say anything at all.
Quoting from my own post I said:
Yes if you want to ignore the fact that eXIF data shows that the so called sensor images are pirated and modified weather radar images from un
acknowledged sources the data could maybe be real.
As you can see I used real information gathered by real people to make a claim which you cannot refute so you instead choose to ignore it. Either that
or you just plain don't understand what I'm saying so you've chosen to ignore it.
BUt what that sentence essentially says is this:
The so called HAARP sensor array images are nothing but doctored weather radar images altered in photoshop cs4 or 5 depending on the specific image.
This has been proven by looking at the data attached to the images in question by others so I don't need to show you that information so you can
ignore it again.
Finally back to the sensors you said:
I don't think that HAARP and the Audubon Society can be compared. And so I wouldn't compare their data gathering networks either.
All I have to say to this sentence you just wrote is there's probably no point in arguing with you because you're either irredeemably intellectually
challenged, a true believer who would rather die than admit one of their beliefs was flawed, or you work for or are somehow involved with the site in
question. These are really the only three options I can see at this point. For you to actually try to imply that the difference between genuine
research into haarp and any other subject is so different that the general rules of observation including the cardinal rule that more data is better
is not the case is just ludicrous