HAARP Unleashes Tesla Death Ray

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Comparing haarp to my neighbors CB RADIO??????Really?

Why not - both are radios.

The ability to create liquid mirrors in upper atmosphere

HAARP creates liquid mirrors??

My oh my ......the nonsense gets even stupider!

By the way 7.5 quake in Alaska Saturday.

About time HAARP got that right - they've been going for 10+ years now.....or perhaps it is also a time machine and caused the 9.2 on in 1964??



Let's see - Alaska earthquakes - here's the location of damaging earthquakes in Alaska since 1750 - I think it has something to do with Alaska BEING IN AN EARTHQUAKE PRONE ZONE:



from USGS - the smallest quake shown is M6 - and oh, look, 9 of the 10 biggest earthquakes in the USA occurred in Alaska - and only 1 of those since HAARP has operated!

The runaway scenario agnew was talking about is when the atmosphere begins to radiate particles from broken molecular bonds these collide with surrounding atoms causing a cascade effect or domino effect.That is what he referred to "turn the atmosphere into pure energy release'.

That is also the definition of a nuclear reaction - and we are 100% sure that it isn't going to happen in the earth's atmosphere because the gasses are simply not able to sustain it. His thinking is exactly the same as the people who feared that Trinity, the 1st nuclear bomb, would be uncontrolled and destroy the world.

But at least they had the excuse of not knowing much about nuclear reactions. To repeat this nonsense these days is scaremongering of the worst kind because he knows it is rubbish s- so it is a deliberate lie!

The earth resonates at around 7 hertz (also a KEY BRAIN FREQ) ,pounding on it at these low frequencies IS JUST FINE AND DANDY IN YOU'RE WORLD BUT NOT MINE.

Apparently it is fine in yours too because it is happening and causing nothing as a result.

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Comparing haarp to my neighbors CB RADIO??????Really?

It's true that CB radio is 27MHz, and HAARP tops out at 10, but they're in the same ballpark. If "RADIO CARRIER WAVES!!!11!!" destroyed air, you'd have seen it by now.

The ability to create liquid mirrors in upper atmosphere in a parabolic shape and reflecting all of haarps energy to it would cause a further amplification of the array of very large magnitude when the focal point is directed back to the surface, By the way 7.5 quake in Alaska Saturday.

Inverse...square. Know it, live it. You can't "reflect all of HAARP's energy", because the huge bulk of it won't arrive on target at your mirror. And, no, mirrors don't amplify. Do you comprendez "microwatts per square meter"? You couldn't heat a fly with it by the time it gets back to the ground. By the way, the human head weighs about eight pounds.

The runaway scenario agnew was talking about is when the atmosphere begins to radiate particles from broken molecular bonds these collide with surrounding atoms causing a cascade effect or domino effect.That is what he referred to "turn the atmosphere into pure energy release'.

He commits about a half dozen very key technical errors in that brief statement. I'm not sure if he's actually that stupid or if it's supposed to be a shaggy dog story. You reiterated a few of them. See if you can spot one.

The earth resonates at around 7 hertz (also a KEY BRAIN FREQ) ,pounding on it at these low frequencies IS JUST FINE AND DANDY IN YOU'RE WORLD BUT NOT MINE.

Ah, not the earth then, you mean (if you understood what you were blathering about) the E-I waveguide resonance. It gets "pounded on" with every stroke of lightning. And it's also about the speed of hummingbird wings, and it's just as relevant with that as with "brain waves". Do you know what a frequency is?

edit to add: Oh, btw, HAARP doesn't put out 7Hz, couldn't if it wanted to. It can very inefficiently induce the auroral electrojet to emit ELF, you might get 30W output on a good day. That's not a lot. I'd have to say "pounding on it" doesn't apply to 30W.

Heard any thing from you're contacting haarp? didn't think so.

edit on 9-1-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)

Haven't really pushed it because I'm also doing a lot of "homework" at the concrete block hovel I temporarily call home out here, this stuff won't analyze itself, so I'm ATSing in the cracks between simulations. As of yet, no, but I haven't called the second time. Why don't you?

reply to post by Bedlam

Mathematically it is possible to stack antennae in a precise manner to effectively amplify signals to THOUSANDS OF ITS ORIGINAL SOURCE.
The typical amplification of a parabolic reflector (like I used to install in the 80's) is around 10,000 times.
Add all of these together and the inverse square laws go out the window.


Any transmitter can put out multiple frequencies ,DO YOU KNOW WHAT MULTIPLEXING IS?

Any transmitter can have multiple carriers ,DO YOU KNOW WHAT ENVELOPE MODULATION IS?

Any transmitter can use time variant properties.DO YOU KNOW WHAT CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE IS?

The plain and simple fact is that the risk of scorching every organic molecule off of several states in a few moments, for the sake of EXPERIMENTING with a new weapon,is unacceptable for the world.
THE EXCITEMENT AND ZEAL OF THESE MILITARY CHILDREN IS NOT CHECKED BY THE WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE OF ANY CIVILIAN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.THERE EXPERIMENTS ARE BEING CONDUCTED AND FUNDED IN SECRET.

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Mathematically it is possible to stack antennae in a precise manner to effectively amplify signals to THOUSANDS OF ITS ORIGINAL SOURCE.
The typical amplification of a parabolic reflector (like I used to install in the 80's) is around 10,000 times.
Add all of these together and the inverse square laws go out the window.


Any transmitter can put out multiple frequencies ,DO YOU KNOW WHAT MULTIPLEXING IS?

Any transmitter can have multiple carriers ,DO YOU KNOW WHAT ENVELOPE MODULATION IS?

Any transmitter can use time variant properties.DO YOU KNOW WHAT CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE IS?

The plain and simple fact is that the risk of scorching every organic molecule off of several states in a few moments, for the sake of EXPERIMENTING with a new weapon,is unacceptable for the world.
THE EXCITEMENT AND ZEAL OF THESE MILITARY CHILDREN IS NOT CHECKED BY THE WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE OF ANY CIVILIAN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.THERE EXPERIMENTS ARE BEING CONDUCTED AND FUNDED IN SECRET.

If we're ignorant of the science behind it, then educate us. You've still not provided any sort of number crunching or research that indicates this is possible. Even if it was, there's also nothing to indicate that HAARP would even be remotely capable of inducing it.

Every time you are called out on the technological missteps you post, you revert back to the same kind of thing - oh noes, its secret, they're doing it, blah blah blah.

Show me ONE bit of evidence that HAARP can make this happen. Just one. Please. Enlighten me.

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Mathematically it is possible to stack antennae in a precise manner to effectively amplify signals to THOUSANDS OF ITS ORIGINAL SOURCE.

That is not true.

What it does is concentrate what power there is into a smaller area, so that IN THAT SMALL AREA it is the EQUIVALENT of a broadcast that is much more powerful but which is radiated equally in every direction.

For transmitting antenna this is called "directive gain", and is expressed in decibels.

The typical amplification of a parabolic reflector (like I used to install in the 80's) is around 10,000 times.
Add all of these together and the inverse square laws go out the window

There are parabolic antenna - they are not secret - but HAARP is not one, and it is nothing at all like a parabolic mirror.

THERE EXPERIMENTS ARE BEING CONDUCTED AND FUNDED IN SECRET.

And if they are so secret how do you know they are happening at all?

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Mathematically it is possible to stack antennae in a precise manner to effectively amplify signals to THOUSANDS OF ITS ORIGINAL SOURCE.
The typical amplification of a parabolic reflector (like I used to install in the 80's) is around 10,000 times.
Add all of these together and the inverse square laws go out the window.

Not at all. HAARP is a phased array - each component dipole contributes something to the total output, but they don't "amplify" each other, "amplify" means that more power comes out than was provided by your input.

A parabolic reflector, for instance, doesn't "amplify". It raises the power density by reducing the target area. This is called "focusing". But it doesn't add power to the signal that wasn't there to begin with. And the inverse square law NEVER goes out the window.

Any transmitter can put out multiple frequencies ,DO YOU KNOW WHAT MULTIPLEXING IS?

Sure it can. That's a non-sequitur, and possibly a strawman, since this hasn't come up yet.

Any transmitter can have multiple carriers ,DO YOU KNOW WHAT ENVELOPE MODULATION IS?

You're confusing carrier with modulation.

Any transmitter can use time variant properties.DO YOU KNOW WHAT CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE IS?

If it didn't have time-variant properties, it'd be a battery. And yes, I could show you the math for it, you are, as we say back home, trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs here.

The plain and simple fact is that the risk of scorching every organic molecule off of several states in a few moments, for the sake of EXPERIMENTING with a new weapon,is unacceptable for the world.
THE EXCITEMENT AND ZEAL OF THESE MILITARY CHILDREN IS NOT CHECKED BY THE WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE OF ANY CIVILIAN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.THERE EXPERIMENTS ARE BEING CONDUCTED AND FUNDED IN SECRET.

I see you haven't yet understood where Brooks' lie/error/incompetence (s) are. Go back and reconsider his point, and look for the mistakes/lies.

reply to post by Bedlam


I guess any one that does not agree with you is called an idiot ,con man, or any name you can think of to discredit there information.

You should be FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT to protect what was given to you like a very fragile atmosphere.
Here is a couple wise people you should listen to instead of lying down and giving you're planet to military minds.

Dr Robert becker "THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT STILL BELIEVES THAT THE SURVIVAL OF THE MILITARY ORGANISM IS WORTH THE SACRIFICE OF THE LIVES AND HEALTH OF LARGE SEGMENTS OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION"

Dan winter, "Particularly now, with earths orbital pole doing radical EXCURTIONS OUT OF TILT-WITH THE LUNER ORBIT DESTABILIZING - AND WITH THE ABILITY TO HOLD ATMOSPHERE AND OZONE WEAKENING,THE PLANET IS VERY SENSITIVE TO BOUNCING THE ATMOSPHERE IN AND OUT FOR SCIENTIST'S GIGAWATT 'PROBES'!!

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Bedlam

 

I guess any one that does not agree with you is called an idiot ,con man, or any name you can think of to discredit there information.

Only when they ARE. And Brooks Agnew is either incompetent or lying. I'm personally going with the latter, because it's obvious in other Agnew presentations that he's trying to be deceptive or confusing.

Still haven't spotted the mistakes, eh?

Dr Robert becker "THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT STILL BELIEVES THAT THE SURVIVAL OF THE MILITARY ORGANISM IS WORTH THE SACRIFICE OF THE LIVES AND HEALTH OF LARGE SEGMENTS OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION"

Becker also thought he could give people ESP and telekinetic powers with the right application of electricity. He was into woo, which sort of drops him to a low level of trustworthiness to me. YMMV.

Dan winter, "Particularly now, with earths orbital pole doing radical EXCURTIONS OUT OF TILT-WITH THE LUNER ORBIT DESTABILIZING - AND WITH THE ABILITY TO HOLD ATMOSPHERE AND OZONE WEAKENING,THE PLANET IS VERY SENSITIVE TO BOUNCING THE ATMOSPHERE IN AND OUT FOR SCIENTIST'S GIGAWATT 'PROBES'!!

OMFG. Dan Winter? Really? Nothing of what you put in that paragraph is true at all.

reply to post by Bedlam


Yea I spot the mistakes, YOURS. here is the systems I was telling you about that you say don't exist.
CAN YOU SAY POWER BEAMING OR DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN HOW THAT WORKS
HAARP IS NOT A WEAK SIGNAL AT THE TARGET AND IS NOT A 5 WATT CB.

I am beginning to think this thread is a bunch of 16 year old kids claiming to be engineers that can only sling sarcasm and derailing remarks.

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Yea I spot the mistakes, YOURS. here is the systems I was telling you about that you say don't exist.
CAN YOU SAY POWER BEAMING OR DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN HOW THAT WORKS
HAARP IS NOT A WEAK SIGNAL AT THE TARGET AND IS NOT A 5 WATT CB.

I am beginning to think this thread is a bunch of 16 year old kids claiming to be engineers that can only sling sarcasm and derailing remarks.

Not really sure what you're trying to get at with the second picture, unless you're talking about the line about what they think that ELF can do to migration and such ... this picture describes one of the stated purposes of HAARP.

As far as the first one goes, it shows a graphical representation of at least part of something that has been patented. I dont see a mention of HAARP here, and I dont recall seeing anyone bring this up as being impossible.

What exactly do you think you've actually accomplished by posting these pictures?

Originally posted by supergravity
Yea I spot the mistakes, YOURS.

I'll take that as a "no" then. There are so many - where to begin? And the issue is, if you can't spot 'em yourself in a second or two, then I'll have to do a lot of 'splainin, which you won't listen to anyway. Oh, well, maybe someone else will get something out of it. I don't have time right now, I'm in the lab for three days solid, I get a 24 hour break Monday. I'll dissect it then. In the meantime, you might want to google the K-12 chemistry websites for "exothermic reactions" and "endothermic reactions" and which sort need energy input to happen, which sort release energy when they happen. Some things "breaking down" require energy input, and do not release any energy at all when they occur. Breaking N2 and O2 apart would be two, same with H2O and CO2. These are all at minimal energy states. To get them apart takes a lot of energy, and when you do, all they want to do is fall back together. It's a bit like saying "Look, here's a burnt match, if I supply enough activation energy, it'll turn back into an unlit match with a WAVE OF DEADLY FORCE". Not gonna happen. But you need to understand "activation energy" and which sorts of reactions release energy, and which require energy input to occur. I know you're fuzzy on this or you wouldn't be harping on Agnew's bullcrap.

here is the systems I was telling you about that you say don't exist.
CAN YOU SAY POWER BEAMING OR DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN HOW THAT WORKS
HAARP IS NOT A WEAK SIGNAL AT THE TARGET AND IS NOT A 5 WATT CB.

The "power beaming" thing is from a patent describing something else entirely. Here's you another challenge you won't rise to, or can't: what are the differences between this and HAARP?

PS: that ELF diagram? HAARP's biggest yield yet is about 30W. Not kilowatts, not megawatts, not gigawatts. Watts. Less than 1/3 of a 100W lightbulb's power consumption. Watts.

Edit to add: here's you some more homework you won't do: discover the difference between ERP and radiated power. I posted a really nice explanation on this about two years ago on ATS.

reply to post by Bedlam


I would agree with every thing you said in last post but wish to correct you're understanding of parabolic dish ant.
You stated they have no AMPLIFICATION,so here is the definition of the GAIN .AND YES THEY ARE DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO EACH OTHER.

The diagram I showed with the power beaming patent IS A DEATH RAY ,and uses a similar liquid mirror (because plasma has fluid dynamic qualities) when this mirror is generated in a parabolic shape and converging signals are propagated to it in precise timing efficiency can be increased beyond traditional teachings.
When combined with a maser this power beaming capability is one of the most dangerous weapons ever made.
No need for drones , or any other weapons and could be hidden as a multi-use RESEARCH PROJECT.


I am not anti government or anti military ...BUT
THERE ARE THINGS WE SHOULD NOT KNOW BECAUSE THESE PLANITARY SYSTEMS ARE TO COMPLEX FOR MEN TO REGULATE AND TO POWERFULL FOR THE GOVERMENT TO MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICES ON OUR BEHALF.

reply to post by supergravity

You stated they have no AMPLIFICATION,so here is the definition of the GAIN

What you have posted is about the gain of an amplifier circuit, not an antenna.

The diagram I showed with the power beaming patent IS A DEATH RAY ,and uses a similar liquid mirror (because plasma has fluid dynamic qualities) when this mirror is generated in a parabolic shape and converging signals are propagated to it in precise timing efficiency can be increased beyond traditional teachings.

The diagram you showed is for a membrane reflector supported with an inflatable frame, in orbit.
www.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

When combined with a maser this power beaming capability is one of the most dangerous weapons ever made.

So now you're claiming that HAARP is a maser? But you understand that a laser carriers far more power than a maser, right? Why use a maser? You know that microwaves are absorbed by oxygen and water vapor, right? That's why masers do not make very good long range weapons (nor do lasers for that matter).

reply to post by Phage


Phage , do you also believe a parabolic reflector has no gain or amplification?

That is the reason for using a dish ant, to amplify weak signals.

I covered my old 10 ft dish ant with mirrors and when I put card board at the focal point IT BURST INTO FLAMES IN 1/16 OF A SECOND.
WHEN I PLACED A 5 INCH BY 5 INCH SOLAR PANNEL AT THE FOCAL POINT I HAD A POWER GAIN (AMPLIFICATION) OF 10 TIMES.

According to you to genesis this is impossible????

reply to post by supergravity

Phage , do you also believe a parabolic reflector has no gain or amplification?

An antenna of any sort has gain. That is not the same as amplification and I don't see it described as amplification in your external quote.

WHEN I PLACED A 5 INCH BY 5 INCH SOLAR PANNEL AT THE FOCAL POINT I HAD A POWER GAIN (AMPLIFICATION) OF 10 TIMES.

No amplification. You took the power which was falling on 78 square feet of dish (about 1,100 watts or so) and concentrated it on a much smaller area. That is not amplification. That is exactly what people have been trying to explain to you.

According to you to genesis this is impossible????

What does genesis have to do with it? And there is no need to shout.

Originally posted by Phage

According to you to genesis this is impossible????

What does genesis have to do with it?

I believe that is the "alternative" spelling of "geniuses", lol.

Ugh. Had Monday off, got this crap that's going around the base. Sort of bronchitis on steroids. They swear it's not flu. Slept all day. I get another 24 hour break Friday, will address the many errors of Mr Agnew then.

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by Phage

 

Phage , do you also believe a parabolic reflector has no gain or amplification?

That is the reason for using a dish ant, to amplify weak signals.

I covered my old 10 ft dish ant with mirrors and when I put card board at the focal point IT BURST INTO FLAMES IN 1/16 OF A SECOND.
WHEN I PLACED A 5 INCH BY 5 INCH SOLAR PANNEL AT THE FOCAL POINT I HAD A POWER GAIN (AMPLIFICATION) OF 10 TIMES.

According to you to genesis this is impossible????

Your dish did essentially the same thing that a magnifying glass does. Neither of them AMPLIFY anything whatsoever; they both FOCUSED the existing energy to a much smaller point. How on Earth does this become "amplification" in your eyes?

reply to post by Phage


So you are saying if a weak signal is put into an electronic amp and boosted it is amplified but a weak signal boosted by other means is not amplified but has gain. I never realized I would be arguing over such simple words but fine I will let it go but when I got my degree in electronic eng gain and amplification were synonymous and interchangeable.

phage, thanks for pointing out that my diagram was of a physical mirror and not a plasma one, but it is conceptually similar.I guess the only difference would be the efficiency of a plasma reflector.
As for a maser or laser could never make it through water vapor etc,,,NEVER SAY NEVER IN ELECTRONICS.
There is always something that no one has thought of.Example when they first tried lasing steel plate to cut it, molten metal would fall into the beam and slow the process ,but after pondering they found that pulsing the laser would blow the hole clear of molten metal and would cut much faster.

reply to post by Bedlam


You mentioned it so I will respond to it, after much research I found the commercial soaps lower you're immune system ,the more you wash you're hands the sicker you will be.use organic soap and take Immune booster such as WELLNESS FORMULA .
JUST THESE TWO THINGS AND I HAVE NOT HAD COLD OR FLU IN 18 YEARS.