It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Radar Bursts, Chemtrails and Other Anomalies

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Between HAARP and chemtrails being sprayed into our atmosphere, sometimes we have to wonder exactly what our government is doing to our precious Earth. With the increasingly devastating weather patterns that seem to become more uncommon with each year that passes and polar ice caps melting, our world is becoming one, very interesting, potentially dangerous place. Are we just experiencing Climate Change, that happens regularly every so often? Or is this happening because of us? The debate rages on to this day between people who are certain that we are causing "Global Warming" and other people who assert that the earth is just going through a cylce.

Now, I'm going to discuss HAARP first, and, being on an alternative news website, i'm sure that most of you, nearly all of you know of this program centered in Alaska. For those of you who do not know of what the HAARP is, here is a link to a pretty well described article describing it's possible functions and loads of other information.

HAARP

I grew up in a family of conspiracy theorists. My father had me into chemtrails and 9/11 info and HAARP and all of that good stuff by the time that I was in 5th grade. I was actively researching these things for quite some time and was honestly, just purely interested in the subjects.

Back to the subject,

My father has been monitoring weather radars now for quite some time and has come to record some pretty amazing footage of the strange happenings on the weather radars.

Here are a few videos.









Some of these videos seem to look like they are energizing the area, as though they are stirring up the particles in the air to make it more likely that a storm will form in that region.

As for Chemtrails, me and my father have found quite a few strange anomalies throughout our area. On heavy spray days, we will notice alot of these things.





We have gone over the whole spiderweb argument before, there isn't any conclusive evidence that suggests that this is spider web, the texture of it as well as the way it looks. It doesn't look like any kind of spiderweb I or people the samples have been shown to have ever seen before in their lives. I believe my dad still has a lot of the samples inside of a plastic box that he has in the garage, he's been waiting to take them to a university, or professor to have them tested and see what they are actually comprised of.

I hope everyone has some interesting feedback and some potential explanations for these phenomenon.

Thanks for reading




posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 


There are no chemtrails.

HAARP couldn't make a radar display that if it was set on fire. You actually have to have some understanding of how radar works beyond what you read on 'dutchsinse'.

There are all sorts of things that will confuse a weather radar, or radar in general. On top of that, weather radar maps are often compilations of several sets of inputs from various radar facilities in the area. The software that stitches the returns together has stereotypical failure modes that leave rings and squares, as well as "red outs" where the gains are not matched properly between areas and the scaling's off. It isn't as bad as it used to be, but still, these aren't being vetted by humans, it's a piece of automated software looking at a lot of discrete radar maps, converting from radial to raster and then trying to match them up. It doesn't always work.

HAARP is a high frequency transmitter with a phased array antenna farm. It's a long way away from anywhere except Alaska. HF transmissions are not received on NEXRAD. At all. Ever. In addition, the output of HAARP can't be directed willy-nilly over the US. You can swing the beam 15 degrees from vertical. Period. There's also a pesky ol' square of the distance law that means if they COULD beam the output to Bumfark Kansas Weather Radar, the power density would be in the nanowatts per square meter. On top of all that, the frequencies they can output aren't ionizing, so you won't be "energizing particles" either.
edit on 5-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Okay, aside from the point then, if it is not haarp, then what is it? Instead of just flat out ending it, maybe discuss it. Obviously this is something, whether it is haarp or not.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I can't comment on the radar anomalies or HAARP, but the web stuff looks like the webs caterpillars will weave in the trees around here (NC mountains). They kinda look like cotton candy.

When you touch the web, is it sticky, or fluffy?



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 


There are any number of things that give you radar returns, or cause false displays on radar. None of them are HAARP.

Most NEXRAD stations run in the 10cm range, or about 2.7-3GHz. HAARP's output is between 2.5 and 10 MHz. That's a three orders of magnitude difference. You couldn't receive HAARP transmissions with a radar any more than you'd pick up an AM radio station with a pair of binoculars. It ain't happening.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 


Well, you say you've been 'researching' this since the fifth grade. Here's you a brand NEW set of information to go gather and study.

1) How does radar actually work (preferably at least with basic algebra - the classic radar equation isn't calculus)?
2) What causes common radar anomalous echoes, false returns and clutter?
3) If you wanted to jam a radar, how do you go about it and what does that look like?
4) What is doppler radar and how does THAT work, preferably with math?
5) What fools doppler radar? What does it look like on the display when that happens?
6) How does NEXRAD work?
7) How does the NEXRAD system assemble an aggregate display from a lot of different radar sites?
8) What are common ways that NEXRAD, or any other mosaic assembly program, fail?
9) What does it look like on the display when that happens?

That ought to be about a year's worth of research right there. Avoid any source that isn't scholarly, if it has the words "Tesla", "vibration", "scalar" or "HAARP" on there, skip it and go to the next.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
This covers at least a few of the things I'm seeing in your posts. I'll look for more explanations of some of the others as I get time.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Look, I didn't say I was an expert. I was just presenting information. I haven't been researching this stuff since 5th grade. My dad just introduced it to me, and just more recently i've been looking into it. I'm just presenting this stuff because it looks and seems interesting. I never once said that any of this was factual, I was just look for people to comment and maybe give some good explanations on what this might be. I wasn't looking to get torn up by people insinuating that I don't know anything and that I should do actual research.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erich94
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Look, I didn't say I was an expert. I was just presenting information. I haven't been researching this stuff since 5th grade. My dad just introduced it to me, and just more recently i've been looking into it. I'm just presenting this stuff because it looks and seems interesting. I never once said that any of this was factual, I was just look for people to comment and maybe give some good explanations on what this might be. I wasn't looking to get torn up by people insinuating that I don't know anything and that I should do actual research.



Well, its not HAARP, and its not chemtrails. So what would you like to discuss? Toss out some other ideas here, we're more than happy to listen and discuss.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erich94
I haven't been researching this stuff since 5th grade. My dad just introduced it to me, and just more recently i've been looking into it. I'm just presenting this stuff because it looks and seems interesting.


Oh - in the OP you said your Dad had gotten you into it before the 5th grade and you'd been researching it a long time, I had thought those went together. It seems interesting because it IS interesting, at least to me the physics parts of all those things - meteorology, radio, radar, explosives are a life's study, and some of that is the work of parts of my lifetime. Well, maybe not the meteorology. But the other three are. The REAL parts of these things are fascinating and would take you from one end of physics to the other, with lots of fun hardware between to screw with. Or blow up.



I never once said that any of this was factual, I was just look for people to comment and maybe give some good explanations on what this might be. I wasn't looking to get torn up by people insinuating that I don't know anything and that I should do actual research.


I wasn't trying to tear you up - but I DON'T think you know a lot about radar or NEXRAD, and I DO think you should do some actual research. By 'research' I don't mean what you get from sincedutch, bibliotecleyapades, educate-yourself or that whack weatherguy who fellates Bearden and blames every rain storm on 'scalar weaponry'. I mean actually get in there and figure out how this stuff works. Read some beginner stuff on radio and radar, then a bit tougher stuff, then read stuff hard enough to make you go "what?", then stop and backtrack and figure out what you don't know and go after it. THAT'S research. If this topic is really interesting to you, you owe it to yourself to at least understand the background of how the thing you're wondering about actually does the magic.

When you start looking at equations people are putting in their scholarly papers and you can say "I actually see how you derived that", you will have arrived.

A place to start might be here, it's a history of how radar got started, nice and chatty, some requirement for you to think but no math.
edit on 5-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by Erich94
 


There are no chemtrails.

HAARP couldn't make a radar display that if it was set on fire. You actually have to have some understanding of how radar works beyond what you read on 'dutchsinse'.

There are all sorts of things that will confuse a weather radar, or radar in general. On top of that, weather radar maps are often compilations of several sets of inputs from various radar facilities in the area. The software that stitches the returns together has stereotypical failure modes that leave rings and squares, as well as "red outs" where the gains are not matched properly between areas and the scaling's off. It isn't as bad as it used to be, but still, these aren't being vetted by humans, it's a piece of automated software looking at a lot of discrete radar maps, converting from radial to raster and then trying to match them up. It doesn't always work.

HAARP is a high frequency transmitter with a phased array antenna farm. It's a long way away from anywhere except Alaska. HF transmissions are not received on NEXRAD. At all. Ever. In addition, the output of HAARP can't be directed willy-nilly over the US. You can swing the beam 15 degrees from vertical. Period. There's also a pesky ol' square of the distance law that means if they COULD beam the output to Bumfark Kansas Weather Radar, the power density would be in the nanowatts per square meter. On top of all that, the frequencies they can output aren't ionizing, so you won't be "energizing particles" either.
edit on 5-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)


the navy research lab says different
nrl-scientists-p roduce-densest-artificial-ionospheric-plasma-clouds-using-haarp

but please keep bringing your "sanity" to the "debate"



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMagus
the navy research lab says different
nrl-scientists-p roduce-densest-artificial-ionospheric-plasma-clouds-using-haarp

but please keep bringing your "sanity" to the "debate"


You really ought to read the paper. Have you tried it, past keyword searching?

No, didn't think so.

Ok, I'll explain it to you. In the focus of the array, which is right over the array, no more than a 15 degree deflection, and in the lower ionosphere or just below it, the beam power density, which is in the milliwatts per square meter at that point, is nonetheless enough to mobilize free ionospheric electrons. The Gaussian peak of the electron temperature curve isn't enough to cause any effects. But in the fast tail of the Gaussian curve you have enough outliers that are moving fast enough to smack electrons off of unionized gas atoms. This creates what we call "plasma", and they emit light when they recapture free electrons and stop being plasma.

The output of the array can neither directly ionize gas, nor is the energy density enough to raise electron temps directly to the level that you need in the fat part of the Gaussian distribution. But there enough outliers that you can make enough plasma to just be visible.

This isn't true over Huntsville, or really, anywhere other than right over the station, because you can't target it from Gakona, and if you did, as I said, the energy density wouldn't be enough to do even that by an order of magnitude or two.

Keyword searches just don't convey the full impact of knowing what they're doing and why it works that way.
edit on 5-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 

when i told you to continue to bring "sanity" to the "debate"
it was sarcasm
do learn to read between the lines.

i come from a science background
and what you've posted, to put it nicely is so much gobbledygook
or to use a whovian term techno-gubbins


you must be a "sane" relative of Zelig, no doubt


and are denying something
just not Ignorance
edit on 5-6-2013 by TheMagus because: added edit



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMagus
when i told you to continue to bring "sanity" to the "debate"
it was sarcasm
do learn to read between the lines.


Oh, I understood, alright. I was just being nice in my reply.



i come from a science background
and what you've posted, to put it nicely is so much gobbledygook
or to use a whovian term techno-gubbins


Not at all, it's exactly what happens, and if you can actually read that cite you posted you will see I am right. Although I recommend going upstream to the original paper and not the journalistic dumbed down version you linked to. Please, though, try to point out what's gobbledygook. I'll wait.

edit on 5-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by Erich94
 





HAARP is a high frequency transmitter with a phased array antenna farm. It's a long way away from anywhere except Alaska. HF transmissions are not received on NEXRAD. At all. Ever. In addition, the output of HAARP can't be directed willy-nilly over the US.can output aren't ionizing, so you won't be "energizing particles" either.
edit on 5-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)


I'm not sure where you are going with that, I thought that one of the purposes of HAARP was to create the conduit or rather, the reflector where other radio frequencies could be directed to a great distance,

"Heating regions of the lower and upper ionosphere to form virtual "lenses" and "mirrors" that can reflect a broad range of radio frequencies far over the horizon to detect stealthy cruise missiles and aircraft."



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Erich94
 




I grew up in a family of conspiracy theorists. My father had me into chemtrails and 9/11 info and HAARP and all of that good stuff by the time that I was in 5th grade.


I take it you were in the 5th grade in the mid nineties?

Because you understand the chemtrail hoax started in 1996 and I just want to be clear when you were in the 5th grade.



As for Chemtrails, me and my father have found quite a few strange anomalies throughout our area. On heavy spray days, we will notice alot of these things.


So what is considered a heavy spray day, and what exactly are they spraying?




We have gone over the whole spiderweb argument before, there isn't any conclusive evidence that suggests that this is spider web, the texture of it as well as the way it looks.


And you say you did the spider web thing, well does this look familiar?



Before you think chemtrail in the future when you see this remember this, what your seeing didn't come from chemtrails.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
I can't comment on the radar anomalies or HAARP, but the web stuff looks like the webs caterpillars will weave in the trees around here (NC mountains). They kinda look like cotton candy.

When you touch the web, is it sticky, or fluffy?


It is also possible that they could be polymers formed from jet engine chermical reactions and exhausting of same into the atmosphere, so fine perhaps that even the spiders could join in the fun.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
I'm not sure where you are going with that, I thought that one of the purposes of HAARP was to create the conduit or rather, the reflector where other radio frequencies could be directed to a great distance,

"Heating regions of the lower and upper ionosphere to form virtual "lenses" and "mirrors" that can reflect a broad range of radio frequencies far over the horizon to detect stealthy cruise missiles and aircraft."



OP made a comment that something he saw on a NEXRAD looked like: "Some of these videos seem to look like they are energizing the area, as though they are stirring up the particles in the air to make it more likely that a storm will form in that region." I'm not exactly sure what "energizing the area" means, or looks like on a NEXRAD, but in order to make something show up on radar you could produce mass ionization and that would do it.


What YOU are talking about is heating the ionosphere over the array. That's done by exciting free electrons in the ionosphere until you raise their plasma temperature to equal (more or less) the plasma frequency you'd like to reflect. At that point, you can bounce a signal off of it you wouldn't normally be able to. For example, if you had a 10cm radar, it would normally go right through the ionosphere. There's a relationship between the plasma frequency and the electron temperature, you heat the little buggers up with the array until your plasma frequency reaches the frequency of the radar or radio signal you'd like to bounce and Bob's your uncle.

You can do that over the array, typically at night. The beam can only be deflected 15 degrees from the vertical, and the power output of the array is such that you can pull that off to some degree right over the site, but the incident power on the ionosphere even over the array is not that high. If you shoot straight up at 10MHz with both polarizations blowing, you can get about .34 microwatts per square cm. That's 3.4mW per square meter. Not a huge mind-numbing power density. That's hitting the ionosphere at night 350km up with the array on tight focus, too.

The bounce power, if it was all reflected right back down instead of heating the ionosphere (that's the point, eh?) would hit the ground at about 0.8mW per square meter. That's firing the thing up to max, at its best frequency, aiming straight up, reflecting right back down, with no loss in heating the ionosphere. That's not huge either, but it's only a 700km path. Now, imagine what the flight distance is from Gakona to Huntsville or whereever, losing power as the square of the distance.

And according to the OP's surmise, the beam, when it finally gets to where it's going, has to have enough power to create mass ionization of ground-level air so that it shows on a NEXRAD as "energized particles".

Nuh-uh.

So, can HAARP draw big weird looking returns on some weather radar some 8000km away in Alabama by producing atmospheric ions at or near ground level to the point at which it'll show up on NEXRAD, no, not at all. That doesn't even happen over the array at point-blank range.
edit on 5-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I was at Skyder Alert website last night and someone had "HAARP" clouds...or what you and I would call altostratus undulatus. It's kind of annoying.

Today I was looking at some very nice, very large cirrostratus undulatus, and it got me thinking about the transfer of energy. To move clouds, this far away from the array, (if it was possible) would take a tremendous amount of energy. Combine that with all the pictures daily of "HAARP clouds" and you have too freaking much energy to send anywhere from any mere antenna array.

IOW, what you said, by an Indiana housewife.

Thanks for confirming my musings. I had never considered it as a debunking point before.



posted on Jun, 5 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k

Thanks for confirming my musings. I had never considered it as a debunking point before.


I almost always start with the energy budget on something like that. If you tell me that HAARP can heat a hurricane 6000km away, you have to see what the power on target is. It's not a lot. There's no way to cause wholesale heating of ground level targets. There's a lot of water mass in a hurricane.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join