Is HAARP feeding SANDY? (The Conspiracy Side)

page: 33
34
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 

But..but.

What about weather control? What about knocking down satellites? What about molecular modification of the atmosphere? What about sending a plume of tacky particles to mess up missiles? What about all that other stuff?

What about all that stuff to demonstrate the "usefulness" of the patent? It's there in black and white. It isn't right? How can you get a patent if it isn't all true?




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Bedlam
 

But..but.

What about weather control? What about knocking down satellites? What about molecular modification of the atmosphere? What about sending a plume of tacky particles to mess up missiles? What about all that other stuff?

What about all that stuff to demonstrate the "usefulness" of the patent? It's there in black and white. It isn't right? How can you get a patent if it isn't all true?


Unless it's a perpetual motion machine, they don't require proof of operancy.

I've seen LOTS of patents that were pure fiction. We have a few - it comes of thinking you've found something and patenting it before you find out you were wrong. We generally don't do that anymore, it costs too much. Now you can just do an intent to file for $500 or so, then find you were wrong, and let it lapse.

At any rate, if you had a microwave source THAT strong, you wouldn't need to bring down the satellite, just wave it to death.

Or you can be more "green" and just have your little DART-like space buddy attach a loop to the one you want gone, it'll deorbit in a blink.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
You weren't riveted to the broadcast? Maybe you can show this to your class.


Ugh. Jeanne Manning. She might as well teach Marvel comics to her class as truth.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Wasn't really thinking about content just trying to show some mainstream coverage.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Wasn't really thinking about content just trying to show some mainstream coverage.


Um. I suppose. I don't know of any accurate coverage. For most people, it would be stone boring.

Long ago, I started picking apart Angels Don't Play that HAARP for fun, Manning and Begich cite each other as experts a lot. Also they cite the local TV repair guy and the computer shop guy as electronics experts, and at one point they were ringing in the local unicorns-and-crystal balls head shop guys as experts. One of the head shop guys was running a scam where he tried to pass as a PhD in psychology in order to dupe local housewifes (thus the cite) but ended up getting caught and had to disclose in federal court he'd gone one semester to a local junior college. I gave up when Manning started quoting from a "paper" that, if you tracked it down and read it, was actually a serious discussion of the power crystals of Atlantis. She didn't bother to put that bit in the quote though.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by pianopraze
Here is an example where they are doing more with less on HAARP:

A more effective method of steerable ELF/VLF wave generation with continuous HF heating of the lower ionosphere

link


How does the increase in processing power on CPUs have any effect on his question about the increase of efficiency with HAARP?


Did you bother to read the HAARP example I provided before you went off half cocked?

You really going to try to argue we aren't doing much more with much less power in a broad range of technologies? You really don't see the obvious implications relating to HAARP technologies?

What took many orders of magnitude of electricity in computers when Eastlund made his patent takes a trickle of power in our computers, watches, iphones and ipads which do much more with much less... and it is only getting more and more efficient. Same with lazers, same with HAARP, same with many many technologies.



I just think that the example of CPU processing is rather bad because of the extreme rate at which it improves. You're absolutely correct that many technologies have improved a great deal in the last few decades, but the rate at which processing capacity increases (Moore's Law, anyone?) is incredible, as compared to most technologies.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I was pretty ticked when I put that post together. I didn't watch the clip first. Might not even be from what I watched a few years ago.

Anyway, I already despised Begich, but even more after this
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 


There is one important point you should check-out before suggesting HAARP, its called the South Atlantic Anomoly, and was / kicked into being perhaps a problem, by the actual Core of our Planet.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Ok, my bad. Your other statement makes more sense in that light. On the other hand, it does raise other issues.


Very well then... let's address them.


Why, in your theory, do the nuclear vessel mounted phased antenna arrays need to bounce anything off the atmosphere? I assume you mean ionosphere, since that's what HAARP primarily excites.


Range would be the only logical reason, I would suspect... unless there is some benefit to heating the TOP of the storm, as opposed to the sides.


If you're talking about ionosphere bounce, you're in a world of hurt, because your subs or whatever nuclear vessel you're invoking won't be able to pack around a proper antenna array.


You mean they wouldn't be able to hit the specific frequency and angle necessary to reflect off of the ionosphere?

I find that highly unlikely.


I was saying, if you're saying you can steer hurricanes by increasing the water vapor pressure in front of the storm, you have to heat the ocean, which is a bit harder to do.


Well, it's not the only way to do it.... you could just heat the outer bands of condensation (Cold water descending from the tropopause)


How much heating of water in the projected path will you need to do to steer the storm by raising the water vapor pressure of the ocean? 10 cubic km doesn't seem like that much, if you look at the size of the average hurricane.


Dude.... 10 cubic KILOMETERS of water is:

22,005,532,000,000 pounds...

Which is several orders of magnitude more water by weight than is actually contained in a hurricane.

Hence, it's a ridiculous overestimate.


I wasn't picking on the grammar.


Fair enough....


More "the information of beam steering in the refractive regions of the ionosphere". The beam steering part is straightforward EM physics inherent in how you operate the array.


I was more talking about beam steering as it relates to bouncing the beam off of the ionosphere.

I.E. Ionospheric refraction of radio and microwave signals.


Not that HAARP could reach the Gulf of Mexico anyway - there's a 30 degree limit to the beam sweep.


HAARP is a research program that gathered information in regards to the proper frequency and angles that one would have to project a beam, in order to get that beam to refract off of the ionosphere.

Which is why I said that INFORMATION from HAARP could be used to such effect, as opposed to saying HAARP was being used to such effect.


If you're going to posit submarines doing this, they're actually on scene, a rational scenario would have them doing their own probing.


And they would be using information obtained by the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program for targeting purposes.


Not only can't HAARP reach there


Still wasn't talking about HAARP, buddy.


the data wouldn't be useful at that angle.


Oh?

What angle is that?


if you're going to have a sub do ionospheric bounce, you've got another issue with array size.


Oh, this should be good...

What "Issue" do you refer to?


Also, the amplifier farm at Gakona is...large.


I am aware of this.... how is it relevant?


So..the entire program is doing your scanning? Not just the IRI?


Wow... you went from questioning my grammar, to insinuating a straw-man as my argument.... nice jorb there.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 



No-one has yet answered the obvious question of why anyone would want to spend so much time, money and energy in steering a hurricane to go exactly where it was predicted to go in the first place!


That's not really the point of this discussion, in case you haven't been paying attention.

(Second Line)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by steaming
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 


There is one important point you should check-out before suggesting HAARP, its called the South Atlantic Anomoly, and was / kicked into being perhaps a problem, by the actual Core of our Planet.

You people can keep living in the denial of advanced technology...if you want, i don't care. Call it what you want! Say what you will. I'm standing firm in my belief, based on all of the 'scientific' and 'conspiracy' evidence i have studied. You want to deny the existence of scalar weapons...that's on you.

I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that Hurricane Sandy was the October Surprise...and we have just heard the final nail in the coffin. We were caught...OFF GUARD, the same way we were caught OFF GUARD, on September 11th. The "elite", N.W.O., "illuminati", "Bilderberg", "Zionists", or whatever else you want to label them, have moved forward with their plans. They're only buying time to get the military ready for deployment.

Here's a thread i made yesterday...some of you might enjoy. I guess you could say...it's part 2, of this story. I didnt BELIEVE in ZOMBIES til i met SANDY
I still can't believe how many pages were commented on for my 2nd thread, on ATS. Hey Phage, i see you're still here. Why is it sooooo important that you be on this particular thread? Don't you have better things to do?

Anyway...this is what the world's "busiest" city looked like this afternoon. Day 4 of this disaster and NOTHING is getting better. i know they're working around the clock to get this thing done....but...if this stretches into next week.....which it will.....DECEMBER 21, 2012...will BECOME A REALITY!

Do i believe the world will end? ABSOLUTELY. Do i believe the earth will be destroyed? DON'T BE RIDICULOUS. Why do i think the "world" will end? Well...let's look at the word, "world", in it's PROPER context, shall we?

The corresponding word in Latin is mundus, literally "clean, elegant", itself a loan translation of Greek cosmos "orderly arrangement." While the Germanic word thus reflects a mythological notion of a "domain of Man" (compare Midgard), presumably as opposed to the divine sphere on the one hand and the chthonic sphere of the underworld on the other, the Greco-Latin term expresses a notion of creation as an act of establishing order out of chaos.World
If you people can't see that the "world" is about to end....well...that's your prerogative. i'm not going to force you to believe what you want to believe.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SpittinTruth
 



i'm not going to force you to believe what you want to believe.

Thanks for this "Instant Classic".



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Question:" Does HAARP operate on atmospheric layers below the Ionosphere?"
Answer: "NO"
Question: What Earth layers control the weather?
Answer: The Stratosphere and the Troposphere.
Question: "As HAARP operates only in the Ionosphere, can it induce weather effects in the Stratosphere or Troposphere?"
Answer: "The HAARP facility will not affect the weather. Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that will be used by HAARP is not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere - the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth's weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere."
Question: "What part of this scenario is so hard to understand by most young people?"
Answer "They were text-ing each other about where to hang out after school during the Earth Sciences lecture."



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

If you're talking about ionosphere bounce, you're in a world of hurt, because your subs or whatever nuclear vessel you're invoking won't be able to pack around a proper antenna array.


You mean they wouldn't be able to hit the specific frequency and angle necessary to reflect off of the ionosphere?

I find that highly unlikely.


Your array would need to be far too large to pack around on a sub, or for that matter, an aircraft carrier. The frequency the array uses is related to the size of the individual antennas in the array. You can't have an ionosphere bounce capable array with tiny antenna elements. Further, the overall size of the array compared to the frequencies you're using sets the beam size and deflection angle.

You may find it unlikely, but physics is what it is. Phased array radars operate at very high frequencies, so they have smaller arrays. You can't, however, use those frequencies for ionospheric bounce. This is why HAARP has such a large antenna farm.



Dude.... 10 cubic KILOMETERS of water is:

22,005,532,000,000 pounds...

Which is several orders of magnitude more water by weight than is actually contained in a hurricane.

Hence, it's a ridiculous overestimate.


How much ocean water is contributing the thermal energy to run the storm? THAT's the issue here. Not how hot the hurricane is in itself.



I was more talking about beam steering as it relates to bouncing the beam off of the ionosphere.

I.E. Ionospheric refraction of radio and microwave signals.


You can't refract microwaves off the ionosphere. See also: MUF.



HAARP is a research program that gathered information in regards to the proper frequency and angles that one would have to project a beam, in order to get that beam to refract off of the ionosphere.


No, no, that's not what's studied there. Whether it will refract is straightforward physics, known long before HAARP. That's why I was so puzzled - I had thought you were implying HAARP was actively probing to determine ionosphere structure and height at the time of firing - the ionosphere changes structure constantly as the day wears on and the hurricane itself affects the structure over the storm to some extent.




Oh, this should be good...

What "Issue" do you refer to?


The one where the array is sized proportionally to the frequency used, and the other one called the "MUF", beyond which frequency your beam will pass through the ionosphere instead of bouncing off. Thus small arrays = high frequencies = off into space instead of reflecting.



I am aware of this.... how is it relevant?


A submarine doesn't have a lot of room to house 100 MW of HF transmitter, much less the antenna farm for it.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 



No-one has yet answered the obvious question of why anyone would want to spend so much time, money and energy in steering a hurricane to go exactly where it was predicted to go in the first place!


That's not really the point of this discussion, in case you haven't been paying attention.

(Second Line)

Uuuuuh...who "predicted it"? Paid for and bought by the "elite"...scientists? "Meteorologists"? Pah-lease News people are reading a script. Acting...if you will. I could be a Meterologist. Call me >Dr. SpittinTruth< I got a PhD in TruthOlogy.


The "PREDICTED PATH" wasnt sure what to do?
Note the path in BLUE. And, the 2 in PINK
That's one confused storm.

To me, that seems like a pretty sharp turn, for a hurricane. But, i'm no "meteorologist".


If this debate, were in a court of law...sorry...i'd have to rule in FAVOR of the conspiracy theorists! Based on EVIDENCE! This so-called, "scientific proof", by the nay-sayers of advanced technology, presented in this case, is WEAK!!! As are most of your arguments!

I did make a part 2 of this story...for those of you wanting to debate me on Zombies. I didn't BELIEVE in ZOMBIES til i met SANDY I think it's a pretty good story...and pretty much EVERYTHING that's been discussed, as theories or fiction.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinTruth
I'm standing firm in my belief, based on all of the 'scientific' and 'conspiracy' evidence i have studied. You want to deny the existence of scalar weapons...that's on you.


You do realize that Bearden is a fool, right? That he bought his "PhD" for $400, like Begich did? That the AF eased him out once he wrote that "ZOG" paper? You really have to read that.

And this is the guy that came up with "scalar" weapons. Do you know what a scalar field is? It's quantity without vector. A temperature map is a depiction of a scalar field. But *since* scalar quantities have no vector, they have no direction. You can't have a "scalar beam" because you're saying something without direction with direction. There are no scalar waves for the same reason. Scalar quantities by definition do not form waves.

Believe in it if you like, it's tripe.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by SpittinTruth
I'm standing firm in my belief, based on all of the 'scientific' and 'conspiracy' evidence i have studied. You want to deny the existence of scalar weapons...that's on you.


You do realize that Bearden is a fool, right? That he bought his "PhD" for $400, like Begich did? That the AF eased him out once he wrote that "ZOG" paper? You really have to read that.

And this is the guy that came up with "scalar" weapons. Do you know what a scalar field is? It's quantity without vector. A temperature map is a depiction of a scalar field. But *since* scalar quantities have no vector, they have no direction. You can't have a "scalar beam" because you're saying something without direction with direction. There are no scalar waves for the same reason. Scalar quantities by definition do not form waves.

Believe in it if you like, it's tripe.

Here's the thing....your theories...based on your "facts", mean as much to me; as my theories...based on "facts", mean to you. There is no "win" in this debate...it's all speculation based on perception.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinTruth
Here's the thing....your theories...based on your "facts", mean as much to me; as my theories...based on "facts", mean to you. There is no "win" in this debate...it's all speculation based on perception.


My "facts" produce really neat things people use, like radar setups, JTRS radios, electrooptic targeting systems and the like. They don't run speculatively, they work, no perception needed.

Produce something scalar. I'll wait.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
I might also add I actually know the guy, he lives at the end of Big Cove road in Huntsville. One time he told me he resurrected a dead dog using a phase conjugate delay line attached to a mirrored box that he put the dog into.

He also said that he ran the delay line rig with his "sarcophagus" empty - and a monster formed in it that got loose in the lab. He hints about this stuff in one of his books but doesn't quite come out and say it. He's entertaining to say the least.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 


Love your questions and answers. What I find interesting is that the frequencies that are projected can just stop within a particular layer of the atmosphere. It is like suggesting that when I breathe out what I exhale will not penetrate every layer of air in front of me.

Perhaps a better example would be to suggest that the frequencies emitted by HAARP just instinctively know when to stop and remain in a particular layer of our atmosphere. I would have thought that the frequency would just keep going unless it hit a boundary. It does not make sense to me that a frequency can only penetrate a layer of the atmosphere and just stop there - without hitting a brickwall as it were.

It is the same as the transmission of our mobile phones and television - the frequency keeps going until it hits the intended boundary/receptor. Anyone get what I am trying to describe? Anyone get why I don't believe that HAARP is a safe and scientifically controlled technology?

Much Peace...





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join