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.

 

HAARP for DUMMIES

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 

A five letter word. 40 bits. 3 bits per minute. 13 minutes to send one word.
But now you've gone back to VLF to get three bits/min and so reduced the depth of penetration.


"Ideal"? Hardly. Like I said, maybe send a "wake up" call to deploy the satellite receiver so you can really communicate. But you don't need HAARP for that.




posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kashai
 

A single ASCII letter has 8 bits. Eight minutes to send one letter?

Let me ask you this. With all the research being done at HAARP. How would they find the time to send paragraph to a submarine? And remember, the conditions have to be right to get a signal out of the ionosphere at all. A very low powered signal which requires sensitive equipment to detect. Communications systems need to be reliable. That one would not be.
edit on 6/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


So what you are saying is that the Detector/Receiver would have to really sophisticated?

Ok....

Look in reality HAARP would be able to transmit information much deeper that 100 ft. So what makes you think our government does not have the technology to receive as well as transmit such information to a vessel say 350 ft underwater?

Take this example "Go to 100 feet at these “coordinates” for further instructions"

Any problem with that?

Any thoughts?

edit on 9-6-2013 by Kashai because: Modified and added content



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


So what makes you think our government does not have the technology to receive such a transmition say 350 ft underwater?
Nothing. I didn't say that did I? But when you bring the problematic nature of creating the signal into the picture, along with the low power of that signal when it can be successfully creating, add it to the problem of noise, add it to the fact that HAARP is used as a research facility on an ongoing basis, add it to the fact that the ionospheric heater is actually used very seldom. You end up with a very implausible theory for HAARP being used as a submarine communication device.

Research toward such an end. Sure. Why not?
HAARP itself being used. No. It doesn't add up.

Kashai, I have to go now so if you want the last word for now, it's yours. I will say that this discussion has been enjoyable for me (even though it was completely off topic). Thank you.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Kashai
 


So what makes you think our government does not have the technology to receive such a transmition say 350 ft underwater?
Nothing. I didn't say that did I? But when you bring the problematic nature of creating the signal into the picture, along with the low power of that signal when it can be successfully creating, add it to the problem of noise, add it to the fact that HAARP is used as a research facility on an ongoing basis, add it to the fact that the ionospheric heater is actually used very seldom. You end up with a very implausible theory for HAARP being used as a submarine communication device.

Research toward such an end. Sure. Why not?
HAARP itself being used. No. It doesn't add up.

Kashai, I have to go now so if you want the last word for now, it's yours. I will say that this discussion has been enjoyable for me (even though it was completely off topic). Thank you.



Creating a picture in relation to sending a sentence or even a a letter of the alphabet that is a code for surface at these coordinates, would make HAARP ideal for communicating with submarines.

Nothing you have said changes that.

I also really enjoyed a chance to discuss with you



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by WonderBoi
It takes 10 people to debunk 1 OP? That's pretty sad.


Lmao, no mate, your OP was debunked on page 1. Seriously.

This is pretty much seeing how much rubbish you will spout and how far you're willing to go to keep your stance.

*THAT* unfortunately, is the sad thing.

By the way, what about that sun? Heating the sky all the time.. All the time.. ALL. The time.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 



Let me lay it out simply for you:

1) Sound waves are completely different to electromagnetic waves, of any frequency, modulation or wavelength.

2) Electromagnetic waves, of any frequency have no direct motive effect on matter

3) HAARP produces electromagnetic waves, not sound waves

4) The ionosphere is so far up, and so close to vacuum that it can have no possible effect on weather in the troposphere.

5) HAARP antennae point more or less straight up and cannot be "targeted" to any location other than upwards

6) There are no "military documents" that prove HAARP can be used as a weather weapon, otherwise you would have posted them

7) Youtube and history channel videos from quacks do not constitute proof of anything you have been saying. In fact some of the videos have been so far removed from your very arguments to be funny.

8) You have shown a severe lack of understanding of even basic scientific principles

9) Every call for evidence or explanation in YOUR OWN WORDS has gone unanswered, other than the typical "do your own research, im not going to spoon feed you" response commonly employed by people with no evidence themselves

10) Unless you can post a video of you going to the HAARP control centre, pushing some buttons and creating a weather event in a predetermined location nothing you can say proves your theory to be correct.


Its time to put this to bed. Learn some science. Learn how debate and burden of proof works. Stop making a fool of yourself.




edit on 9-6-2013 by siliconpsychosis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai

It seems apparent that what we are addressing here is a more efficient way to send and perhaps even receive information from not only submarines.

Any thoughts?


Anyone who has used a CB radio or HAM radio, knows about a thing called Skip. It's where, under the right conditions, the radio signal will travel a far greater distance as it bounces off the ionosphere. Effectively, you could talk to someone on the other side of the planet under the right conditions, something you could not usually do with these radios. It would occur in warmer conditions.

That is what HAARP was intended for. To create these conditions in the ionosphere so that shortwave radio frequency communication could be utilised with subs.

But since then, they've turned it into a bomb that causes hurricanes and sinks islands. Quantum physics and frequencies. I know, I saw it on a youtube.

And if you don't believe that, then climb a tree and await further instructions. !!! I aint here to convince you with my haarp for dummies thread. lol



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


You are forgetting about the pink unicorn military leaders who have documented proof on magical scrolls only available to the initiated and disappear as soon as they hit the internets



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Well I was a dummy, and I'm still a dummy.
Had to give up reading because of all the arguing.
I know as much as I did before, which is Haarp must do something or else it wouldn't exist. I believe it to be potentially dangerous, but I knew that before.
But I do know that the jet stream effects the weather.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatzshaken
Obviously you did not bother to check its applications in Life


From your own cite:



Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by tazdeill2
 


Of course HAARP does something - look it up - it heats the ionosphere in order for that part of the atmosphere to be studied - the wiki article sums it up reasonably well.

Why? Because the ionosphere is important for radio communications and radar surveillance.

Is it dangerous? Only if you stood right in the path of the beam - in the same way any powerful electromagnetic wave is dangerous - a colleague of mine got "zapped" by an aircraft weather radar that was momentarily turned on while the a/c was parked - caused all sorts of angst, but AFAIK, 20 yeas later he is still fine...

Or if you stood under one of the dipoles and it broke and fell on you - then it would be dangerous too.

Anything other than that is fantasy.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by WonderBoi

Not when military documents prove otherwise. Maybe, i'm just waaaaaay over your . with this stuff. Try to learn something on the quantum level. Let it sink in, then comment. Learn more about the planet and it's properties. The principles work on all levels of life.


Ah, jeez. "From the beginning of 'The Secret'." Suddenly, I understand it's total bs, because the entire premise of "The Secret" is lackbrained. New Agey pap pseudo-mysticism, mixed with a lot of crappily stated pop physics.




Note to add: Even our THOUGHTS are frequencies.


No, they're not.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by WonderBoi
You're supposed to be the wise one of the group. You explain it. I shouldn't be required to spoon-feed you. I've given you videos from Professors at Cornell University as well as Quantum Pysicists. If that's not good enough, keep seeking til you find your answers. If you still need help....watch this video, til it sinks in.


Have you tried to understand what's actually going on in the video? At all?

The guy's shaking a hose with a speaker. And then syncing the camera shutter to the audio. What you're seeing is an optical illusion caused by something we call aliasing.




These experiments were done using sine waves. It doesn't matter what you call those frequencies: Sound, ELF, ULF, they still operate on the same principles. If a sine wave can do that to matter, you telling me, ELF or ULF waves have no affect? I beg to differ!


sound isn't a frequency. Sound has a frequency.

ELF and ULF can denote frequency ranges, but until you say 'frequency of what' it's meaningless.

Nothing's happening to the matter in the video. It's jelly bean aliasing. Also called 'the stroboscopic effect'.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by WonderBoi
Seeds are seeds, no matter what type of tree they produce.


The sky is sometimes blue. Cars are sometimes blue. This does not prove that cars contain skyness, nor that the sky has carness, or that sky and car are co-identical at some level.

In the same way, any occurrence has a frequency. That means nothing except that something occurred.

Frequency = occurrences/unit time. And that's all. That's the entire thing right there.

Frequency is a description of an attribute. It's not a thing. Saying "frequencies do things" is like saying "12s do things".



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by WonderBoi


Every piece of matter has a resonance frequency or series of frequencies because all matter is made up of atoms. Atoms are formed by electromagnetic waves that have a specific frequency. When these atoms form a larger piece of matter, the frequency of the electromagnetic waves is the frequency of that matter.



Another execrable piece of dreck, wrong in each and every statement.

Every piece of matter does NOT have a resonant frequency. Pure new age balderdash. It may have a mechanical resonance, it may not. Or it may have several, some well defined and others not. It depends on a lot of things. But a mechanical resonance is not the same as an electromagnetic one.

Atoms are NOT formed of electromagnetic waves, either..

Now, you get down to molecules, you can have quantum mechanical resonances. Spinning, rocking, scissoring and so on. That's how IR spectroscopy was born. But as you assemble those molecules into structures, no, the resonances don't carry over into some super resonance for the whole structure.
edit on 9-6-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
It seems apparent that what we are addressing here is a more efficient way to send and perhaps even receive information from not only submarines.

Any thoughts?


ELF is most certainly not efficient in any way.

And HAARP isn't much of a receiver. They've got receivers on the site. Even a nice VLF one. But the array doesn't receive.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
As my first article explains VLF can transmit at standard operating depths but HAARP would allow for transmitting much deeper.


The Navy had two ELF transmitters before HAARP. HAARP's ability to induce ELF was viewed as an interesting experiment in providing a third transmitter as a backup, but it was too capricious. And it's out in the open, easy to take out. ELF was abandoned several years ago, the ELF transmitters were disassembled. They no longer exist. Subs no longer use ELF for communication. These days it's VLF or a satellite based comm system that works another way.



I remember when HAARP began is was offered as better way to communicate with our submarines, this is when animal rights organizations began protesting about it.

This is in relation to its potential harm to marine life. the US government did not then give up enough information and some considered to be based upon micro-wave emissions. One way of looking at it is that the modern submarine operates well below what they are capable of doing based on declassified data.

HAARP operates to deliver information at those depths.

Any thoughts?


You can't communicate at depth with microwaves, ever. The power output from the two Navy transmitters or HAARP is so low that it can't be considered a potential harm to sea life, except by the usual whackjobs. HAARP can muster up 30W output on a good day.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I don't think it matters what anybody says to the OP. He has been brainwashed into thinking that every scientific endeavour he is incapable of understanding is evil and out to get him.

No matter what any of us post, whether we are trying to correct, educate or debate, he is always going to refer to some pseudo sciency new age rubbish on Youtube / GLP / Poleshift / Whatever and prefer that lie over the actual truth. Regardless if he understands the content or not, if it contains keywords he is looking for it will be posted.

Its kinda sad - and at this point im not sure if we are being trolled or the OP really does think the (US) government is out to get him and everyone else.
edit on 9-6-2013 by siliconpsychosis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by tazdeill2
 


Of course HAARP does something - look it up - it heats the ionosphere in order for that part of the atmosphere to be studied - the wiki article sums it up reasonably well.

Why? Because the ionosphere is important for radio communications and radar surveillance.

Is it dangerous? Only if you stood right in the path of the beam - in the same way any powerful electromagnetic wave is dangerous - a colleague of mine got "zapped" by an aircraft weather radar that was momentarily turned on while the a/c was parked - caused all sorts of angst, but AFAIK, 20 yeas later he is still fine...

Or if you stood under one of the dipoles and it broke and fell on you - then it would be dangerous too.

Anything other than that is fantasy.


You don't get understatement, do you?
I don't see why there are so many people on this thread who are contributing little to the point of the thread, but are just locking horns in order to score points....



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by siliconpsychosis

I don't think it matters what anybody says to the OP. He has been brainwashed into thinking that every scientific endeavour he is incapable of understanding is evil and out to get him.


You know, there are a lot of people like that, though.

I see something like HAARP and think, wow, that would be fun to subcontract on, let's call BAE and see if we can get some of that. Although EISCAT-3D would be even MORE fun. I'd like to get my hands on a piece of that action too.

I love working on things like this. It's one of the benefits of being a member of the military-industrial complex.




top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join