Is HAARP feeding SANDY? (The Conspiracy Side)

reply to post by theMediator

Even if it was 1%, shouldn't they try to DECREASE the severity of the storms if they would care about Americans??

Yes. If it were possible to do so. But that's not the point. It was suggested that by heating the ocean a hurricane could intentionally steered.

reply to post by Phage

No. I was addressing your position on the energy requirements.

You seem to be implying that I am stating that the emitters are CREATING the storm, as opposed to just heating it for effect.

Therefore, your presumptions and calculations based upon that premise, as well as the lower order energy requirements are fallacious.

I am not stating, nor implying, what you are arguing against.

Hence, strawman.

But you do seem to have a problem explaining why a hurricane would follow a trail of warm water. You haven't made it plainly obvious. You didn't explain why, if that were the case, a hurricane would ever leave a region of warm water and move into cooler waters.

What is a hurricane made of?

Just to be clear...I don't want you to claim I'm setting up a strawman...are you saying that a cirrus cloud is a storm? Are you saying that a cumulus cloud is a storm? Are you saying that a hurricane is just a cloud formation?

Lol.... that's easy....

What is the difference between a cloud, and a storm?

And furthermore, what is the difference between a storm and a hurricane.


I think answering those questions should allow you to understand my position.

Ah yes. The "agent" defense. Perfect.

Incorrect... technically, it's an attack, not a defense.

And I am under the impression that you are paid too much for your work here.

reply to post by Zaphod58

They currently fly the WC-130J, for the last five or six years.

Very well, I accept your apology.

(second)

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
And furthermore, what is the difference between a storm and a hurricane.

A hurricane is a storm.

However a storm is not necessarily a hurricane as it has a variety of meanings depending on context.

reply to post by delusion

The average temperature of the ionosphere (including ion temperatures which are less than electron temperatures) increases with altitude so depending on the altitude, that "hundreds of degrees" would represent different relative significance. Also depending on the altitude, overall, it can be insignificant when compared to normal diurnal variations.


As far as the "consequences", I assume you would be talking about weather. There is not a lot of evidence that there is any significant downward coupling between the ionosphere and the troposphere.

"Temperature" at the edge of space. That's a good question. The temperature (energy would be a better term) of the particles in the ionosphere is quite high (500º+) but that doesn't really mean it's "hot". Because the density of those particles is so low (it really is the edge of space), there really is not much heat present.

Originally posted by Phage
....
The temperature (energy would be a better term) of the particles in the ionosphere is quite high (500º+) but that doesn't really mean it's "hot". Because the density of those particles is so low (it really is the edge of space), there really is not much heat present.

Thank you.

What units are we talking Fahrenheit or Celisus?

What does 'electron temperature' mean? is it the same as the temperature of normal objects, air or water, or a different scale altogether?

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

You seem to be implying that I am stating that the emitters are CREATING the storm, as opposed to just heating it for effect.

No. I understand that you think a storm can be steered. However, in order to maintain that storm as it is steered (according to your claim) water temperatures would have to remain high enough. That is why I used 1% rather than 100% of the power required.

What is a hurricane made of?

Air and water.

What is the difference between a cloud, and a storm?

A storm is an organized weather system involving pressure differentials. A cloud is a collection of water droplets, or in the case of cirrus and contrails, ice particles.

And furthermore, what is the difference between a storm and a hurricane.

A hurricane is a tropical cyclone with winds of 74mph or greater.

You didn't answer me. Are you saying that a cirrus cloud is a storm? Are you saying that a cumulus cloud is a storm? Are you saying that a hurricane is just a cloud formation?

I think answering those questions should allow you to understand my position.

I understand your position. I do not understand the logic behind it. Why would a hurricane follow a trail of warm water?
You didn't answer me. If hurricanes did so, why would they move into regions of cooler water.

Hurricanes are not steered by water temperatures. They are steered by external weather patterns.

reply to post by delusion

What units are we talking Fahrenheit or Celisus?

Celcius.

What does 'electron temperature' mean? is it the same as the temperature of normal objects, air or water, or a different scale altogether?

It's measure of how fast the electron is moving. The more scientific usage would be eV (electron volts). When converted to temperature it is equivalent to measuring the temperature of "normal" objects.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by theMediator

 

Even if it was 1%, shouldn't they try to DECREASE the severity of the storms if they would care about Americans??

Yes. If it were possible to do so. But that's not the point. It was suggested that by heating the ocean a hurricane could intentionally steered.

Ah k, I was just talking 1% in general.

Indeed, it doesn't really make much sense to heat up the ocean since the amount of energy required to do so is exaggerated and not efficient.

The theories of cloud seeding in conjunction with haarp already sounds more probable compared to heating up the ocean. I would tend to say that ocean currents, do affect weather patterns but, mainly because there's a momentum effect from having streams and currents go mostly in the same direction constantly...just heating it up temporarily wouldn't affect much.

Briebird:

If you don't make extrodinary claims how could you ever find extrodinary proof. If you don't seek you can not find. Your post is well written but the fact is you couldn't possible know what HAARP is capable of unless you have operated it and understand fully its mechanics. Yes you are a denier because you have failed to even realize that truth comes from an openess to ideas.

We don't make extraordinary claims before we have the empirical data to back it up. Our first initial act is to imagine, and then to hope for the possibility of theoretical validation by empirical experimentation.

No, I don't work at Gakoma, and have never operated the HAARP array, but I have a modicum of scientific understanding of what occurs during energy interactions. It is that small knowledge that forbids me to accept any extraordinary claims lacking extraordinary evidence. In that context I am a denier, but certainly not a closed-minded one. Show me the empirical data and I will happily weigh it up, and adapt accordingly if valid.

The Mediator:

...the approach and the phrase structure of Jacob isn't his strong point in this thread, it makes him an easy target.

You know what, I agree. Jacob, my dear fellow, please accept my humble apologies. Although my criticism still stands, I hope my sorrow softens it for you.

The Mediator:

I agree on the idea that HAARP cannot generate the power required to cause large natural events but this could easily be a play on the word "cause". What about amplify? What about triggering? What about just filling the glass with the last drop it needs in order to drip?

An understandable and reasonable thought process, but ommiting the inclusion of the necessary variables that play a part in the 'causation' of large natural events. One would necessarily need to know the 'timing' requirements, and the energy values of each variable that when combined trigger a large natural event, so as to calibrate the input that would act as a final trigger, or last piece of the puzzle. Seeing as how we cannot determine (predict) when an earthquake will occur, or when a volcano will erupt, or when a hurricane will form, really makes the question rather moot. We can only work with probabilities, for instance, we know that when we see continuous harmonic tremors on a seismograph, we can be sure that the volcano is about to blow, but we can't know the exact timing of when it will blow? We can give a probability value to a system of thunder cells off the coast of Africa combining into a hurricane, but we cannot say with certainty...when? It is the point of critical mass we can't be sure of.

...but you aren't an expert [either].

Exceedingly correct. Respects.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Phage

 

No. I was addressing your position on the energy requirements.

You seem to be implying that I am stating that the emitters are CREATING the storm, as opposed to just heating it for effect.

Therefore, your presumptions and calculations based upon that premise, as well as the lower order energy requirements are fallacious.

I am not stating, nor implying, what you are arguing against.



Hence, strawman.

But you do seem to have a problem explaining why a hurricane would follow a trail of warm water. You haven't made it plainly obvious. You didn't explain why, if that were the case, a hurricane would ever leave a region of warm water and move into cooler waters.

What is a hurricane made of?

Just to be clear...I don't want you to claim I'm setting up a strawman...are you saying that a cirrus cloud is a storm? Are you saying that a cumulus cloud is a storm? Are you saying that a hurricane is just a cloud formation?

Lol.... that's easy....

What is the difference between a cloud, and a storm?

And furthermore, what is the difference between a storm and a hurricane.


I think answering those questions should allow you to understand my position.

Ah yes. The "agent" defense. Perfect.

Incorrect... technically, it's an attack, not a defense.

And I am under the impression that you are paid too much for your work here.

Hi,ErtaiNaGia, wow this thread is up to 20 plus pages lol, round and round it goes doesn't it. Thought I would address you though and see what you think, if perhaps you wish to take a brief rest from talking to the blind or those whose career it seems is to sit here and obfuscate and mislead. Yes of course as you say, there are people recruited (military/industry just one source) for the simple purpose of keeping others from finding things out. Just part of the clandestine nature of things.

So heres a few more thoughts. As I said (and many others here have said) I *believe* this storm was weaponized much as the one in New Orleans was but on a much grander scale. So we must ask not just about the technical method but first just how would an entity such as the organized crime element in Nato/gov./U.N. ??? etc. get pilots/others to participate and how do they get pilots etc. to be part of the aerosol/ particulate spreading?

Well obviously there's the tried and true methods cash, blackmail, career advancement, 'you can't fight it might as well join it' type stuff' but I also wonder about this: If I were going to enlist such people and have them sign confidentiality agreements and work for the agenda, I think the easist way might be to convince them they were actually doing something usefull. I might convince them that 'global warming' is a huge huge threat to mankind, going to bring on 'superstorms', and that though they have to keep it secret they are really heroes trying to 'save' the earth. That their missions seeding particulates/aerosols above these storms are to try and reduce the storms rather than increase them and though they gave it their best shot they simply couldn't derail this massive storm. Some of course probably work for cash (Blackwater types) but I have to wonder if there is another element of deceit that is being used.

As to the methods my laymens' intuitive understanding from both the patents and just reading is that both particulate/aerosol spreading and then exciting the mix (and upper atmosphere) through things like HAARP are the key ingredients. One thing that has been brought up on so many many threads over and over, and one I think is absent in the OP title, is that things like ionospheric heaters etc. are not just in Gakona they scattered all over the world, in nuclear subs, ships, and satellites etc, so just to keep this topic narrowly focused on HAARP, I think may be not be giving credit where it is really due. I would think (if you already haven't) about greatly broadening the scope. Like to hear more of your thoughts and from open minded others that realize the potential of what's out there and why. I know the buzzards will be here shortly, I can hear them coming, but again what do YOU think?

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I'm man enough to admit when I am wrong. I was trying to help my other half drive through Sandy in Ohio, and not paying attention as I replied. It was a bit stressful last night. But you were correct on the aircraft type.

reply to post by Tecumte


What is the purpose of all this speculation? The storm moved according to PREDICTION models in accordance with natural conditions. It was in a position where it couldn't move north or east due to high pressure systems in place right? No one has shown any method capable of artificially accomplishing this.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Tecumte

 

What is the purpose of all this speculation? The storm moved according to PREDICTION models in accordance with natural conditions. It was in a position where it couldn't move north or east due to high pressure systems in place right? No one has shown any method capable of artificially accomplishing this.

The purpose of the speculation> Really??? Ok, I'll tell ya, I guess? It's to attempt to look further into your specuation that these were 'natural' conditions. I don't believe they were. And I'm glad to see so many others are questioning it too. I think an article even ran in U.S. News and World Report (if I recall correctly from memory) of course they had to use the corporate press meme of 'conspiracy theorist' lol, as expected. But hey it's a start.

Method??? Well, if I were to venture a simple hypothesis I'd say maybe we'd want to look to see if we could find how the jet stream was shifted as talked about in the Eastlund patent for HAARP (again from memory) which affects high and low pressure. Right? But hey wanna help? What did you learn yourself when you read Eastlund's patent and how has it been modified and enhanced, does your security clearence allow you to have access to such internal workings? Just curious.

reply to post by Tecumte

Well, if I were to venture a simple hypothesis I'd say maybe we'd want to look to see if we could find how the jet stream was shifted as talked about in the Eastlund patent for HAARP (again from memory) which affects high and low pressure.

You have cause and effect reversed. It is the location of highs and lows which affects the location of the jet stream. The the jet stream is produced and affected by what happens below it, not above it.

A jet stream forms high in the upper troposphere between two air masses of very different temperature. The greater the temperature difference between the air masses, the faster the wind blows in the jet stream.

So, the strongest jet stream winds then occur between air masses having the largest temperature differences over the deepest layer of the troposphere.

www.weatherquestions.com...

As usual a Rothschild Guinness advert predicted the HAARP Hurricane just a few weeks earlier

Rothschild Guinness Advert Predicts HAARP Hurricane Sandy
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Tecumte

Well, if I were to venture a simple hypothesis I'd say maybe we'd want to look to see if we could find how the jet stream was shifted as talked about in the Eastlund patent for HAARP (again from memory) which affects high and low pressure.

Thanks for the dillemma. Now I have to decide between what Phage posted and your crazy talk.

I think you'll have to try again.

reply to post by Phage


Hey thanks for that Phage, I knew you'd come, lol, your quite the timely guy aren't you, it's almost like you set there in that chair for weeks on end just lurking. hmmmm...

Anyway in nature that might be true, not sure, but what happens when the Jet Stream is artifically affected and moved unnnaturally? What impact would it have on high and low pressure? Again from memory I seem to recall this storm had an almost? record shattering low barometric pressure associated with it as well. Is that correct and do you recall what the readings were? Thoughts?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Tecumte

 

Well, if I were to venture a simple hypothesis I'd say maybe we'd want to look to see if we could find how the jet stream was shifted as talked about in the Eastlund patent for HAARP (again from memory) which affects high and low pressure.

Thanks for the dillemma. Now I have to decide between what Phage posted and your crazy talk.

I think you'll have to try again.

Hey sorry for your 'dillemma' big guy, didn't mean to stress you out. Anyway I bet even you have something worth reading to offer, if you think of something don't hesitate to post it. In the mean time though cheerleading I guess is ok .

reply to post by Tecumte


It didn't break any records. Hurricane Gladys of 1977 holds the record for low pressure for that area at 27.73 inches. Sandy was at 27.76 inches before landfall.