Does this microwave satellite imagery prove that Sandy was boosted by HAARP??

reply to post by TheSparrowSings


My problem with HAARP is, when you go to their web-site, you know darn well all the information is going to be positive, in their favor.

They are never ever going to say, "Oh hey, by the way, this little toy of ours is capable of a whole lot more than we state on our web-site".

Nor are they going to admit that it can be used to manipulate the weather or some other scary scenario that one can conjure up.

That being said, I keep an open mind to the possibilities of what "if"....

And I don't pretend to know what HAARP really is.....that's way above my pay grade.
But I do feel like it does more than what they claim on their site......

There are a lot of controversial takes on HAARP and what it's capable of doing....
I just take in every thing I read on it and form my own opinion.

Am I suspicious of it?.........YES

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
CMISS is used to gauge moisture in the atmosphere and its temp.

Notice how the readings seem to hang around the lakes.

Ok, but the point is that it's microwave sensitive, so unusual heat signatures that appear to be directed to the area of an hurricane formation, could be something else.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
From the MIMIC home page

Disclaimer
The individual images that are used as input into this product sometimes contain bad data in the form of missing scanlines or anamalously high or low values that often stretch in an arc across the image. When these areas are incorporated into the MIMIC product they form artifacts that fade in and out, and appear to move with the storm center. However, they have no physical meaning and hopefully they will not obstruct your interpretation of the imagery.
Please read the Product Description for more information about the MIMIC imager creation and morphing process.

MIMIC is not radar - it is an image built from various sources that includes both radar and infra-red radiation. combining the information is not a trivial task and has plenty of room for errors as noted above.

As such the image proves nothing at all - it is just an image.

If there are objects in the image that you suspect may be something suspicious then that is all the image tells you - that there are objects in it. It is up to you to research what those objects are and obtain evidence to support any conclusion yuo come to.

NASA has a whole encyclopedia of technical excuses to explain suspect features in images and live broadcasts, and reduce everything a "glitches", "artifacts" or "optical illusions". Assuming that the US gov't possesses and uses environmental weapons and eventual visual evidences appear in database of atmospheric monitoring agencies, funded by this same gov't, why should I believe in a disclaimer that says that odd atmospheric features are "glitches" and "artifacts"??

Because they said so?

For the most part I stay away from HAARP discussions. I've pretty much made up my mind on it--and it ain't good. Mostly there are things that puzzle me. For instance:

Frequently Asked Questions about HAARP

The research to be conducted at HAARP falls into two broad categories:
1. The study of basic natural processes that occur in the ionosphere under the natural but much stronger influence of solar interaction. This includes studying how the natural ionosphere affects radio signals with the goal of developing techniques that may be available for mitigating these effects to improve the reliability and/or the performance of communication and navigation systems.
2. Development of technology to use effects produced through ionospheric interactions. One example of this is learning how to generate new signals in the ELF range for the real application of subsurface communications.

My question is: For God's sake, how deeply mysterious can the ionosphere be that it has to be continually studied? Seriously--in terms of gathering the above knowledge, couldn't you pretty much learn more than you would ever need to know in about a week?

Conclusion: I DON'T BELIEVE 'EM....

Originally posted by Ex_CT2

My question is: For God's sake, how deeply mysterious can the ionosphere be that it has to be continually studied? Seriously--in terms of gathering the above knowledge, couldn't you pretty much learn more than you would ever need to know in about a week?

And how would you do that??

there's all sorts of stuff going on in the upper atmosphere that we have no real understanding of at all - in many erspects we know moer about eth moon and teh bottom of the ocean than we know about what is happening 100 miles straight up.

Look up sprites jsut to start a journey of discovery into how little we really know.

Conclusion: I DON'T BELIEVE 'EM....

I reckon if you start with the wiki link above, and look around associated topics for a bit you will be hapy to come back and change that conclusion in the week timespan you mention

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


OK, a year.

I'm still not buying....

Then HAARP is pretty weak. This was no "super" storm, the super part never happened. Just some extra high tides mostly.

Admin Note: If you can't be bothered to read the thread, then don't bother to post to it. -- Majic

reply to post by dayve


Hahah! I'm picturing the president with a trident. Someone needs to photoshop that for me!

I guess that would make Nacy Pelosi Queen Ursula?

This is not a political topic. Let's try not to make it one.

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

why should I believe in a disclaimer that says that odd atmospheric features are "glitches" and "artifacts"??

Because they said so?

Why should you think it has anything to do with HAARP? Because you have no idea of what you are looking at?

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

OK, a year.

I'm still not buying....

So you are not actually prepared to look at real evidence at all?

OK - fair enough - your choice....

Looks like hurricane Phage has struck!

Brought the thunder and tore the OP's beliefs asunder!

Originally posted by 1AnunnakiBastard
I'm gonna use this actual material provided by MIMIC (Morphed Integrated Microwave Imagery) and ask the opinion of ATSers about what is seen in these images.

Fair enough, as far as it goes. However, it's been my observation that if you want to believe, then scientific explanations that cover the thing you're seeing are discarded as opinion or disinfo, and nothing short of "IT'S HAAAAARP!!!" will do.

There's a database of animated gifs built between Oct. 18 and 31, available on MIMIC website, but I saved some specific frames of Oct. 19 and 27 with some very peculiar patterns and odd features suggesting perhaps the action of a non natural source of energy acting straight on Sandy.

Notice the clear ringed shockwave-like pattern in the atmospheric mass on Oct. 19 by the dawn:

Well, my first question would be...exactly WHY is your first assumption that anything you see in an image of this sort is "a non-natural source of energy"? This would seem to me to indicate that you've already made up your mind in the matter. As an occasional user of this sort of data (not this one in particular), if I saw an odd yet peculiarly systematic artifact in data of this type, I'd dismiss it as a tiling glitch or corrupted data. If it looked ubiquitous, I'd pull out the data sheets or specification overview for the imager and processing software to see why I'm getting that. You might consider it as well - that sort of thing happens in any mosaic image processing system. NEXRAD would be another example.

That said, let's address your first observation. "Notice the clear ringed shockwave-like pattern in the atmospheric mass".

You look at it and see death rays. I look at it, and see data collected by a spin imager, especially since this is a microwave imagery satellite. Of course, in my case it's cheating because comm theory is my job, mostly, and I've not only used this sort of data, I've designed this sort of imager once or twice. So, from a layman's point of view, how to start with this?

As Marcus Aurelius once said, "Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?" Instead of assuming that the image actually depicts what's happening, having seen a pervasive pattern like this, you should have asked "What IS a microwave imager? How do they work? Why use one instead of a camera? How is it different from a camera?" That is where you should have started on your search for information.

And, starting on what I assume is the site where you got your image data, let's look at this page. At the top, you will see this:

The MIMIC product is a synthetic blend of tropical cyclone imagery from five low-Earth orbiting satellite instruments: the DMSP-13/14/15 SSM/I (85 GHz channel), the TRMM TMI (89 GHz channel) and the Aqua AMSR-E (85 GHz (A) channel). The signal from these channels is strongly attenuated from hydrometeors generated by deep convection, and therefore the imagery is often used as a proxy for the distribution of precipitation. In the observation of tropical cyclones, the microwave signal can penetrate through obstructing cloud tops and uniquely reveal the structure of the eyewall.

Ok, that tells you a LOT. That means something. It's not filler to occupy the screen whilst you download the gif files. First, they're using data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, that tells you where to go for a description of what the imager does. They tell you it's the SSM/I data channel - that tells you WHICH imager on the bird is being used. And they tell you why - that frequency range penetrates cloud cover without significant degradation, but is strongly attenuated by falling water drops (hydrometeors!). They don't mention a missing bit of data here:

(sidebar)
The entire imaging process they're going to be using is called microwave radiometry. Things that are warm will "glow" in microwave and IR. In this case, what's "glowing" is the water surface. The seawater is emitting microwaves, the way it emits IR. Just not at a very high output. So, in this case, they've picked a sensor suite on the satellite that images in a frequency range emitted by the ocean and to some extent the land below. The ground in effect is a glowing backlight. And in this range, falling water drops absorb (strongly attenuate) the 85GHz "glow" of the surface below. So, where you've got falling water (rain), the surface will look darker, where you don't, brighter. And this range isn't absorbed by vapor (clouds) so you can actually see this darker/lighter thing from the bird. Make sense? Ok, back to the analysis.
(/sidebar)

(part II is next!)

(part II)

Ok, back to this great paragraph from the website. There is another key phrase here - the data is a synthetic blend from five satellites. That's telling you that they're tiling the data, and manipulating it. In other places here they'll tell you that they're actually morphing the image shapes, and that always causes some distortion as well. But any tiled mosaic from multiple image sources has a propensity for dropped tiles or edge mismatch. The software will try to compensate for it. But you're stitching together a lot of images taken from different perspectives. And this will always provide a possibility for an entire droppped tile. I'll get back to that.

Now, to continue on with "why are there these spiral shapes". What have we learned already? It's a microwave radiometry imager. It's a DMSP SSM/I channel. And it's a synthetic image composed of shape morphed swaths of data from five satellites. The data comes from looking at variations in the background microwave glow from the surface, caused by falling water.

Next step, how do you make a microwave radiometry imager, in particular, how does the DMSP SSM/I channel do this? Well, a radiometer is typically made from a very very sensitive microwave receiver. It pretty obviously can't be a camera - glass lenses don't have much effect on microwaves, so that's out. Nope, you start with a very sensitive microwave receiver. It's not the sort of thing that makes an image, though. It only looks at one place, a spot. One spot. It can look at one spot and tell you what the microwave level at that frequency is, at that one spot. And then only through some hard work - the level of radiation is so low, you have to use a lot of tricks to get the data out of the noise. One thing you do is that almost all microwave radiometers use some sort of chopping technique, constantly comparing the target to a black body calibration source. Chopping is an old way of getting better performance out of crap signal, but that's another dissertation.

"But, Tom," you might ask, "if it only looks at one small spot, how do I get a picture out of that?". Easy! I'd reply. You get it by scanning. Just like an old CRT display - you scan across the scene below with your radiometry antenna, looking at one spot after another in a systematic way, then you put the image together in computer memory. Sweet, eh? Now, how do you go about that. Well, if you had a really mechanically agile antenna, you could do this on a Cartesian scan - left to right, top to bottom, moving the receiving antenna in a rectangular grid. This causes issues in that big motions like this will also move the satellite around its COG a lot. And it takes a lot of motion, which is power use, and it wears out your bearings/servos in an environment that you can't maintain.

What's another way, one might ask. Well, that other way is to use the motion of the satellite. Remember, a lot of these things spin. If the spin axis of the satellite is oriented vertically, whoopee! you just got most of your work done for free. If not, you can contrive to have your scanner spin, which adds issues with satellite orientation due to gyroscopic force, but that's another dissertation. Let's assume the bird has a vertical spin axis. So, your satellite is spinning around an imaginary line pointing straight down towards the ground. You can now get an image just by looking off to one side at the outside of your image, and slowly bring your antenna down until you're pointing straight down. As the craft spins, you'll scan a spiral image, much like a tone arm on an old LP player scanned the record, outside to in (or inside to out...samey same), with no motion other than canting the antenna down slowly. This, too, moves the COG, but not as much, as the spin of the craft will stabilize against this in that axis. Two more birds for one stone!

But what you get is an image with spiral artifacts in it. With a cartesian scan, you'd have gotten rectilinear artifacts. What could make this worse, you might ask, if you're thinking about some scans looking more spirally than others. Well, that's an old issue called interlace artifacts, which we'll address in part III.

(part III)

Ok, what the heck is an interlace artifact?

Well, it's the sort of thing you can see in any scanned image. You see it more in older TV camera types like image orthicons or whatnot, where you pick up the image over time, and not at all in CCDs that capture the image as a whole and then scan the captured image out in raster lines.

The problem is this: if you scan an image over some discrete time, and put it together as a sort of mosaic of spots you've measured, it's all well and good if the image was totally static. If I take an old scanning camera and take an image of a bowl of oranges, no artifacts! The scene is static. So nothing in the image will move as I look tediously at one spot after another, left to right, top to bottom. When I get done, the image will have no artifacts.

But if I'm trying to record a moving, dynamic scene with a spot imager like that, the image is changing WHILE I'm scanning it. So, a hummingbird that moves a significant distance while I'm building up a raster or spiral scan with my spot imaging camera will appear to break up,or stretch, or distort when it's moving fast, and not when it's not. And the image will always show artifacts that tell you how the image was scanned. If it's a spiral scan, you'll see exaggerations of the spiral used to scan the image - between the time it got THIS circle of the image and the time it got the NEXT circle of the image, the object being imaged moved - this causes a disjoin between one scan line and the next. Motion artifacts are in the class of things called aliasing artifacts. So, when you see spiral disjoins on a scanned image like this, it tells you it was spin scanned, primarily, and that the object being imaged was moving at a speed that was significant compared to the scan time.

Now. How do you KNOW that this is a spin scanned image, other than to look at it and immediately know it because you're familiar with that technique? Well, what I would do is look up the technical data for the bird and see what it's doing. In this case, it being a DOD bird, I'd likely go to a source you don't have access to, not having the right credentials. So, what's in the civilian world about this satellite? A bit of searching shows us this! And here you have all you need to know.

Key Variables

The SSM/I is a seven-channel, four-frequency, orthogonally polarized, passive microwave radiometric system that measures atmospheric, ocean and terrain microwave brightness temperatures at 19.35, 22.2, 37.0, and 85.5 GHz.

Tada! Yep, it's a microwave radiometer. So all that part of my explanation is right. And, they say it outright, it's measuring ocean and terrain microwave brightness. You now know what that means because of the sidebar in part I. What else...?

Scanning or Data Collections Concept/Principles of Operation

The SSM/I rotates continuously about an axis parallel to the local spacecraft vertical and measures the upwelling scene brightness temperatures. The absolute brightness temperature of the scene incident upon the antenna is received and spatially filtered by the antenna to produce an effective input signal or antenna temperature at the input of the feed horn antenna.

And there you have it...the key phrase here is "rotates continuously about an axis parallel to the local vertical". It's a spin imager, alrighty. The other bit about "spatially filtered" means we're looking at a spot. And they're measuring the input brightness and antenna temperature - that's going to show up in the "chopping" bit of doing radiometry. You have to measure the antenna/system brightness to remove that from the scene-below-brightness. After all, the antenna and sensor aren't at absolute zero either, so to keep your image from being washed out by "warmth glare" (it's the optical sensor equivalent to "veiling glare" in a telescope) you have to constantly measure the feedhorn temp and subtract it from the image data, that's where the chopping part happens.

More in IV!

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Vitruvian
Hurricane Sandy was named after the notorious pedophile Gerald Sandusky whose nickname was always "Sandy".............they (the perps) have a very morbid sense about them - they are all of sick minds exactly the same as Sandusky................

This occurred to me right away but this is my first mention of it. And I have seen no mention of this anywhere else, but that doesn't mean others haven't had similar thoughts on it.

BTW - Take note of the "Perfect Designer (Sandy) Storm"



PS - "third mention"

(part IV)

Sensor Description

The SSM/I instrument consists of an offset parabolic reflector of dimensions 24 x 26 inches, fed by a corrugated, broad-band, seven-port horn antenna. The reflector and feed are mounted on a drum that contains the radiometers, digital data subsystem, mechanical scanning subsystem, and power subsystem. The reflector-feed-drum assembly is rotated about the axis of the drum by a coaxially mounted bearing and power transfer assembly (BAPTA). All data, commands, timing and telemetry signals, and power pass through the BAPTA on slip ring connectors to the rotating assembly.

A small mirror and a hot reference absorber are mounted on the BAPTA and do not rotate with the drum assembly. They are positioned off axis such that they pass between the feed horn and the parabolic reflector, occulting the feed once each scan. The mirror reflects cold sky radiation into the feed, thus serving, along with the hot reference absorber, as calibration references for the SSM/I. This scheme provides an overall absolute calibration that includes the feed horn.

And here you see the rest - the thing is a spiral scanner, with the feedhorn on a slipring setup. They're chopping once per spin, each spin is 1.9 seconds. They don't say how many scan lines per image so I don't know the total imaging time, but with a 2 second per line rate, it's probably several minutes. Also, the satellite moves 12km per scan line, so you've also got motion artifacts from the bird.

And that, as they say, is the explanation for that. It's not spiral HAARP microwave shock lines, it's a motion artifact inherent to the imaging technique used by the satellites providing the data. Now, onto "that's not a microwave death beam making that swath you see".

Let's look at this one, which doesn't seem to bother you (sorry if I can't get the link to appear inline):




You'll see a number of disjoins and glitch artifacts here, where data is missing (looks sort of like white triangles) or not stitched together properly. That's because the software is putting together spiral scans and trying to match them up to make it look right, but it's not that simple.

They also outright tell you this:

Because motion in the vicinity of the eyewall is typically faster than the temporal availability of the 85GHz imagery (cells/signals frequently accomplish a full rotation between overpasses), the MIMIC algorithm makes a simple time-weighted interpolation between bounded images, with no advection, within a radius of 55 km (0.5 great circle degrees) from the rotational center. This assumption is valid only under continuous "regeneration" of signal between two "real" images at a fixed location with respect to the rotational center. Although this method does not represent every condition, it was found to be the most effective in general. A more robust morphing method for the eyewall is currently being investigated.

What are they saying here? They don't get new images from the DMSP satellites fast enough, so they have to "guess" how the eyewall has moved and morph the scans they DO get to fit what they think is a reasonable motion, so that they can stitch the images together.

Elsewhere on the site, they'll tell you:

As stated above, this technique is highly sensitive to biases between the different satellite instruments' calibration and/or retrievals of TPW. Even slight differences between retrievals can create two easily discernable artifacts in the animation: 1) The appearance of data swath edges throughout the image domain, and 2) The apparent "pulsing" of various high-TPW areas, especially in areas of precipitation.

and this whole page...

A dark red patch (or streak) suddenly appeared on the image, and it seems to repeatedly flash every hour, moving with the storm. Is this real?
It is not real. As we say in the disclaimer on the main page, the individual images that are used as input into this product sometimes contain bad data in the form of missing scanlines or anamalously high or low values that often stretch in an arc across the image. When these areas are incorporated into the MIMIC product they form artifacts that fade in and out, and appear to move with the storm center. However, they have no physical meaning and hopefully they will not obstruct your interpretation of the imagery.

So, that's that one too. Any time you are assembling mosaic images from various satellites, especially with "gappy" data where you're having to interpolate what might have happened between data sets, you're going to end up with the occasional artifact. That's what happens here, and with NEXRAD, and any other synthetically compiled image of this sort.

Other reasons it's not a "HAARP microwave death beam" in part V!

reply to post by Vitruvian


Sandy is on a list of names that are repeated every few years at least until one is so notoriously bad that he name is replaced.

miami.about.com...

What is your source for your claim?