Military History Ch. has an interesting Weather War show running

I thought i would come share this for the benefit of those interested in the topic. The show's name is "That's Impossible!" and the segment this is from is "Weather Warfare".

This is an older recording of it but I went through it and it appears to be the same one I've watched. (It's replaying on Military History at 2pm Central today, as a matter of fact)

It proposes a few different things regarding both HAARP (Now being shut down, following statements that they can achieve what it did using other methods) and the possibility of Chemtrail use in coordination with other things happening at the same time, to combine in forming a result that no single stage of the effort could produce by itself.

It's among those theories I've kept in the back of my mind. Parts of a whole, never forming a whole in themselves, to the things we may sometimes see. It's the stuff of discussion anyway!


As many know, I'm not fully committed either way. I do keep an open mind to the topic though, in line with the purpose and goals of the forum here. So in that spirit, feel free to jump in!

A part of me really wants to believe that they can control weather and climate.

If we can, for real. Then maybe there is hope.

Otherwise we may go the way of past earth life mass-extinctions. Sooner than anyone may assume.

IMO

a reply to: ausername

I hear ya and I know what you mean. Literally, as it probably happens in this case.

I think there are two schools of thought on weather modification, if it's happened in real world ways, and to what the impact might be.

1- Hope: Man can reverse what nature is taking us into on a gradually evolving trend line that just isn't very compatible with Man's burning desire for low elevation beach front properties.

2- Horror: Real world tests or programs have already run in weather modification beyond the local/regional efforts and the trends we see are accelerated by that, not mitigated from it. (Deliberate or accidental won't matter when SWIM! is the order of the day, eh?)

Hmm.. Given recent years back a decade or more, general cosmic karma and Mankind's record as a species? If there is any truth to the ideas ...Which way do you figure fate will turn for us on this one?

Wait.. Nvm... Some questions are probably better left unasked.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

If you can develop the technology and ability to control weather on demand, that is one thing. Controlling climate, I am sure will forever remain beyond the reach of humanity.

To control weather would require real world tests, where when how and why?

What were the results?

We would never know, how could any government admit such a thing when weather systems can be inherently dangerous to begin with. If they caused storms that caused damage, injury and perhaps death, wouldn't they be liable?

As for your last question. Indeed, some things are better left unanswered.

IMO

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
The Agnew segments are priceless. Very funny. Subwoofer LOL.

Bedlam has some good comments on this vid, here's one

Was that that piece of garbage Jonathan Frakes was narrating? Nothing on that episode was real.

There are no 'mini ELF transmitters'. Only maxi ones. The physics precludes it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Yup.. For what it's worth, I saw a few sites with numerated talking points specific to attacking this show episode and what it presents.

I posted it knowing all that, but it's worth putting out there for others to see all sides!

originally posted by: ausername
A part of me really wants to believe that they can control weather and climate.

If we can, for real. Then maybe there is hope.

Otherwise we may go the way of past earth life mass-extinctions. Sooner than anyone may assume.

IMO

Maybe they can control weather.

Why else would they make treaties ?


Environmental Modification Convention


UN 1976 Weather Weapon Treaty

a reply to: xuenchen

That is a very interesting one... I may just write my own thread about it at some point.

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

That's another link to it and I picked up about a dozen or so links relating to it from the UN servers and others over the last week. It was really interesting to read the specifics of the proceedings as the nations hashed out the details that formed a part of a larger effort with.

Nations kept coming back to it for different points and specifics to clarify or make changes with, which sure suggested to me the basis it was written for was of more than a mere passing or 'some day maybe they'll figure it out' level of interest.

I also want to find the minutes of the Article VIII meetings that I find clear record did take place. Might be nothing..but more depth wouldn't be complete without running that down.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

It proposes a few different things regarding both HAARP (Now being shut down, following statements that they can achieve what it did using other methods) and the possibility of Chemtrail use in coordination with other things happening at the same time, to combine in forming a result that no single stage of the effort could produce by itself. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just wondering if you have ever checked the background of some these so called experts?

I ask because they are using a known fraud in Mr. Nick Begich, as you may know he received his so called degree from a diploma mill so how can anything he say be taken serious?

One of the most vocal critics of HAARP is Nick Begich, son of the late Alaskan congressman of the same name. He writes as Dr. Nick Begich, but his Ph.D. is in traditional medicine and was purchased via mail from the unaccredited Open International University in India, and included no coursework or curriculum.

tribes.tribe.net...

just a backup in case that isn't good...

www.metabunk.org...

Now as for Mr. Agnew...I think this may help with him.

www.metabunk.org...

Hard to believe anything they have to say.

I place this here so that anyone that thinks this is credible only needs to see the truth about two of the so called experts.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I may just write my own thread about it at some point. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Something like this one...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No, actually, nothing like that one.

He kinda tossed it out as a curiosity, where if I do it, it'll likely be a couple full pages of OP, quotes, and supporting material for what the member nations were refining in specifics as well as how the Article VIII meetings went. Those are somewhat critical by the very definition of what they were and, technically, still should be now for that matter.

Preliminary research with just an hour or so to throw into it hadn't found the minutes to those meetings, but then that isn't much time to have spent either.. I'm a ways off saying they aren't available, but as noted, I wouldn't run a thread without such important ongoing stuff covered.

** No Offense to JRC.. He wasn't attempting to make a comprehensive thread, either.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Your contribution to the thread and your side of the issue is appreciated.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Well, the emphasis in the given statement/s in the shutdown of HAARP was that it would be dismantled.
That of course remains to be seen, and also there are the other similar but not 'as powerful' facilities as yet not known to be closing down. There is also the diesel power story, and the running costs remarks, all just baldy statements, no 'de facto' reason given for the shutdown. It does tend toward HAARP having outlived it use/s. Ambiguity is always about what you don't say.

a reply to: smurfy

I thought you might be interested in this, as well as everyone else of course.

This is the original HAARP story that I saw posted here and elsewhere. There were others, but running much the same levels of detail.

NBC HAARP Shutdown story

This is a local news bit about it. It mentions a few fascinating details.

McCoy says there are only three facilities like it in the world.

“One in Norway and one in Russia. But HAARP is much more flexible. It’s got a wider frequency range, it can go something like less than three up to ten megahertz, and has quite a bit more power.”

Source

Indeed.. I'm not sure I'd personally say it's news..(Although I hadn't known Norway, I'll admit. Russia? Absolutely, yes.) Still, Local news is great compared to MSM, isn't it?

The local guy there from the Fairbanks Geo-Institute also goes into quite a bit of detail as to why Gakona as a specific location was important for this facility. Again, not earth shattering or hot off the presses new, but I wanted to share the article carrying so much in one spot.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: smurfy


Indeed.. I'm not sure I'd personally say it's news although I hadn't known Norway, I'll admit. Russia? Absolutely, yes. Still, Local news is great compared to MSM, isn't it?

The local guy there from the Fairbanks Geo-Institute also goes into quite a bit of detail as to why Gakona as a specific location was important for this facility. Again, not earth shattering or hot off the presses new, but I wanted to share the article carrying so much in one spot.

The Norway facility is Tromsø, (I don't make any specific connection to the spiral there, since Russia said it was their missile) but there may also be another in Norway. You could say the facility/s are European, but if there are NATO bases around abouts somewhere it all gets a little muddled. BTW that NBC take on things is dodgy, one example being that European sources wanting to have a bash at the Gakona facility..because of the equipment there, why? if (1) it's going to be dismantled, (2) the put-puts need an upgrade, and (3) it costs too much anyway.
If the USA can't afford it, how can a bunch of onion sellers afford it? Makes no sense.
However the USS Ronny Raygun, ($7.64M per day) does seem to be affordable, and sensible even though it costs more per fecking day to run than HAARP, in a month whatever. Meh! maybe I exaggerate?

a reply to: smurfy

Well, everyone does seem to describe HAARP as a world class facility for what it does. The local news item I linked above also goes into the fact they are inventorying everything in, around and presumably under the place for parting out to the highest bidder with need and clearance, depending on what it is. So it makes sense there are labs around the world perking up at the possibility of a fire sale on some very high value equipment.

The video in the OP does cover the Russian one, or at least one variation believed by some to be weather related as a transmitter array. It's nothing like HAARP in appearance, but then neither is another I stumbled across on satellite. Siberia is an odd land for things in the middle of nowhere.

a reply to: smurfy

And when you're a military service told to cut X amount out of the annual budget, which makes more sense? Stop flying planes, which is your primary reason for existing, or getting rid of a research type facility in the middle of nowhere?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy

And when you're a military service told to cut X amount out of the annual budget, which makes more sense? Stop flying planes, which is your primary reason for existing, or getting rid of a research type facility in the middle of nowhere?

Oh yes, I see what you mean...the USS Ronny Raygun, that's the Navy isn't it? So you mean the Navy is the winner..I'm so fecking stoopid, forgive me, I'm such a ponce.

a reply to: smurfy

No, I mean that the Navy has a separate budget than the Air Force, who runs the facility. Their budget has NOTHING to do with HAARP. The Air Force was told to cut their budget, along with all the services. They can either stop flying, which would defeat the purpose of HAVING an Air Force, and keep HAARP going, or, they can eliminate it, and save a few hundred million a year from that alone.

Your sarcasm aside, closing it down makes more sense than keeping the planes from flying. But even if the Navy ran the facility, it would be the same thing. They'd keep the carrier going instead of the HAARP facility because it doesn't do them a damn bit of good, where a carrier actually performs the mission that is the reason for their existence.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: smurfy

The Air Force was told to cut their budget, along with all the services. They can either stop flying, which would defeat the purpose of HAVING an Air Force, and keep HAARP going, or, they can eliminate it, and save a few hundred million a year from that alone.

My reply to Wrab, about the expense of HAARP, and whom I believe to be an upfront person, was tongue in cheek, in fact HAARP is not at all expensive relatively speaking. Start-up and running costs around 2009 were $250million, since 1993, say $500 million to date for a nice round figure, and presumably the Air Force were not mug enough to shoulder all the costs in a DARPA, Navy and Air Force project. One unit of aircraft in funny money? say $150million.