posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 12:40 AM
Papadopoulos, for example, says he wants to do another round of subterranean surveillance experiments. "Personally, I believe it can reach 1,000
kilometers. It can't reach Iran, if that's your question," he laughs. "But if I put Haarp on a ship, or on an oil platform, who knows?" Not that
he has concrete plans for such tests in Alaska, let alone in the Persian Gulf—though he does mention a facility in Puerto Rico as a
That's the sole quote all you guys are going by, and extrapolating towards infinity. He hasn't done it, though.
That interview is from 2009 (the same year of the bullseye story) and I would hope that we've all gotten on.
You're back to linking shapes as having meaning but not looking at why the shapes and why they're not related.
It's like looking for keywords but not reading the text.
I'm thinking two things here after reading your explanation of why HAARP can't be miniaturized. (Well, actually, three things.)
1. Popadopoulos outranks you.
2. Everything technological (and I mean everything) was big once.
3. For all the people that think something can't be done, there's always someone who'll do it.
Perhaps he outranks phased array math, and can manage a lambda/50 spacing and still get a beam. Or he can drop a 10kW output amp in his pocketses, or
make a 10MHz dipole the size of an umbrella despite it being a heinously inefficient mismatch.
There are other means to get the minimal geomagnetic disturbance you need to do magnetotelluric imaging, which is what they're talking about. You
might be able to take a really big craft like an aircraft carrier and put a small linear array on it. But nothing like HAARP per se.
I hope the wink was to let me know that what you just said was nonsense because, Slim, Papa said he'd put HAARP on a ship.
No, it was more to let you know you didn't even know what magnetotelluric scans or phased arrays were until I mentioned them. But yeah, you know
more about it than I do. Perhaps you can tell me what HAARP's role is in such a thing from your vast wealth of background knowledge against which you
are judging nonsense vs sense. I'll wait.
Now we're getting somewhere.
But the thread was about the circles/spirals/arcs appearing on weather imaging.
Yet, you keep moving the goal posts. Back to that then, are you speaking of the Blue Marble screwup, or the weather radar donuts? They're totally
Here's the bullseye story:
And here are the incredibly poor and fuzzy images of the recent (November of last year) plasma spheres the HAARP ionospheric heating created.
Those images, after seeing the Norway spiral, are just disgusting. Who all do they think they're kidding?
Happy turkey day and back to you.
If you see a blue car and a blue sky, do they seem co-identical, or somehow mystically entwined to you? You seem fixated on shapes that have
similarities, but are caused by different things and have no connection in any way.