It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Possibe HAARP use on Columbia?

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 5 2003 @ 11:03 PM
Possible use of HAARP (by US or external powers)?


1. An astronomer in San Francisco reports photographing electrical discharge arcs along the skin of the columbia and throughout its contrail (want to see those pics, if anyone has seen them, please let me know)

2. It is widely reported that observers on the ground "Heard a loud boom, sonic boom, that shook the houses, then saw the explosion in the sky as it streaked by":
The breakup occurred at 200K feet altitude (40 miles) at 12500 MPH (Mach 18):
At that altitude, atmospheric pressure is just a step above hard vacuum.... last I heard, sound doesnt propogate in vacuum.... at least not 40 miles down through an increasing pressure gradient (getting through the increasingly thick layers of the atmosphere). Also:
at Mach 18, at 40 miles alt, if the explosion occurred immediately over the observer, the vehical would be over the horizon before you heard the explosion, assuming that you could hear it on the ground.

3. Due to the above reasons, the reported explosions could not have originated with the vehical, but is easily attributable to a ground originating electrical arc (similar to a thunderbolt)

4. There are currently low level earthquake swarms (richter 3.5 and lower) ongoing in the San Andreas, originating on 2/1/03. Seismic activity is a known side effect of HAARP use.

5. Other countries known to posses HAARP type technology include: the US, Russia, China, England, Australia, Isreal, Japan, South Africa and possibly North Korea.

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 07:11 AM
1- Re-entering space craft build up a lot of static electricity (friction).

2- Shockwave, not sonic boom.

3- My, you believe that technology exists which is at least 4x more accurate/reliable than our best missle defense technology which as a 20:80 success rate.

4- Seismic activity in known areas of seismic activity... must be a conspiracy!

5- Chuckle.

Apparent impossibilities of your scenario aside... to what possible purpose do you believe destroying one of four shuttles would serve?

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 07:25 PM
Hello Winston Smith, one of my all time favorite fictional (but soon to be realized) characters.

Please allow me to respond to your criticisms:

1. The shuttle (and all aircraft) do absolutely build up large amounts of static electricity. However, all aircraft, just like all charged electrodes, cannot discharge in a visible arc without a dipole in physical contact (or close proximity). Besides, there are to my knowledge, no existant photographs of similar electrical arcs associated with any reentering spacecraft or aircraft (if I am wrong, would very much like to see any photographs).

2. Call it a shockwave, soundwave, explosion or sonic boom, as you like. It is still what it is, a compression wave moving through a medium (gas, liquid, or solid). The fact remains that at 40 miles altitude it is a virtual vacuum, and I STILL dont know of ANY compressive wave that can propogate through a vacuum.

(No criticism directed at the fact that the vehical would be over the horizon before the observer would hear the sound?)

3. The 20:80 numbers you quote are most likely from the effectiveness of the Patriot anti-aircraft (not as popularly believed anti-missle) missle. This is far from being our most effective air defence system. (The actual Patriot system used in the gulf war has been obsoleted, and the current replacment just went through live fire exercises in Isreal this week.) In any event, the effectiveness or lack thereof does not lie with the detection and tracking of targets (we have the ability to detect and track a skydiver over the horizon, such as HAARP has been publicly admitted to be capable), but with the physical ability of a missle or other physical launch system to travel to and make contact with the target. Admittedly, no missle currently exists that could intercept at that speed and altitude, but then, we're not talking about a missle system, are we? We are talking about a directed energy weapon that doesnt have to worry about differential velocities, or approach angles. Besides, the reentry heat signature would make the shuttle VERY easy to track, either from ground based or satelite based detectors.

4. Seismic activity is a known sideeffect of HAARP deployment. No, I dont know the exact mechanism that causes this, but, being a geologist by trade, I do know what makes an earthquake happen. Rock units build up flexure tension until it reaches the tensile, compressive, or shear strength limit of the rock unit. When this strain exceeds the strength of the rock, it breaks, releasing the stored energy in kinetic form (an earthquake). The rock units making up the San Andreas fault line are capable of storing well over 4x the energy released in the current swarm quakes. (Yes, small tremors are common, but not in swarms. Explaining quake swarms will take an entire different post). In short, I dont understand why the San Andreas rocks are releasing energy at this low level, when they are capable (and would normally) store energy to a much higher level before releasing it. The only explaination I can offer is that an outside influence is affecting it, and it is a strange coincidence that it happens at the same time as all of the above noted items.

As to the possible motive for taking down a shuttle, I would prefer to refrain from commenting publicly.

I look forward to reading your next response.

posted on Feb, 7 2003 @ 10:53 AM
I agree that there is something quite "fishy" about the entire Columbia tragedy. First of all, we are in the middle of an electronic war- I don't doubt the fact that HAARP is currently being used. Why? Because it was originally developed for deep-sea submarine communication as well as to aid in the development of Earth-Penetrating Tomography. Could the shuttle have stumbled into a HAARP-heated portion of the ionosphere? It is certainly POSSIBLE and because of that it should be ruled out as a plausible explanation.

Whether there are sinister motives involved or not, the point is that something caused Columbia to erupt into a series of fireballs, and we've had alot of news lately about NASA admitting that the "Foam explanation" wouldn't normally cause such an event & they are searching for other explanations.

With regard to HAARP technology and earthquakes, we all are aware that the HAARP project developed out of Nikola Tesla's monumental work with electricity. For a more detailed discussion of how HAARP & Tesla technology can affect the ground, see:

Smith, J.E. (1998). HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy. Kempton, IL: Adventures Unlimited Press.

Smith has done his homework, from both a historical and scientific standpoint.

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 08:20 PM
Hello again Mr. dragonrider...

I think we can agree that many side effects of natural events can appear to be what HAARP technology is theorized to be capable of. So at best, we can examine the facts and find our solutions there.

Here is one representation of the facts as we know them now:

Given the sequence of events recorded by third parties and confirmed by NASA, we can draw the conclusion that fantastic external sources of electronic distruption is unlikely. This is because mission controllers experienced a gradual failure of systems, not an immediate failure of all systems. What we believe to know about current HAARP capabilities and lack of finese, leads us to conclude that if focused on the shuttle, there would be a sudden system-wide failure of electronics.

Since this was not the case... then your theory may need to be revisited.

This is not to say that HAARP technologies cannot do what you say, only that it is highly unlikely there is any involvement here.

posted on Mar, 16 2003 @ 03:25 AM
I am new here. And I am wondering what is HAARP? I heard about it alot, but I dont know what it is. Can someone tell me.

posted on Mar, 16 2003 @ 04:15 AM
Jim, welcome to the board, I`m sure dragonrider has stacks of stuff on this and could give you a better explanation than I but there is plenty of stuff on this board about it

and as usual a search on Google is your best friend

posted on Mar, 16 2003 @ 04:31 AM
Thanks alot for the links cassini.

posted on Mar, 19 2003 @ 02:17 PM

Those who might remember me from this Board of two years ago will remember that one of my "pet" theories was/is the HAARP Project.

In the same style of Winston Smith & Dragonrider I would like to offer my thoughts concerning the POSIBILITY of the HAARP Project having some bearing on the tragic loss of the Columbia.

1) That the HAARP was/is a Defensive Weapon designed to create a "force-field" over a given area by projecting an electronic curtain extending as high as the ionosphere.

2) That the HAARP was being employed at the time of the Columbia's desent from orbit.

3) That the HAARP was being employed for either;
A) For routine testing-tuning of equipment. (Or)
b) For a defensive curtain between the desending Columbia and a possible interception by NK missile.

While this may at first thought sound far-fetched, we must remember the the NK's are trying to impress and intimidate the world with their power and technology.
The NK Government had also publicly sided with the Iraqis and had threatened a "two-front war" .

To have been able to have intercepted and/or destroyed one of the U.S. Shuttle Fleet, especially one carrying an Israeli astronaut would have been a mighty show of power for the UK Military.

I too do feel that somehow the loss of the Columbia was more, much more, that a "piece of foam striking the left wing". And I also feel that the HAARP might have had a part of in it. Either as an intended defense that failed, OR as an attempt to deflect a NK missile, again with tragic consequence.

Just my opinion, I will look forward to your (members)
follow-up Posts.


posted on Mar, 23 2003 @ 07:17 PM
HAARP (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is a high-powered radio transmission research facility jointly operated by the US Navy, Air Force and several universities. Because of the high secrecy surrounding the government HAARP project, many theories have risen trying to explain what HAARP is and does. Most of them are simply wild speculations, based on fears about what "they are doing up there." It is the purpose of this article to provide sufficient technical expertise to dispel the mystery.
The above HAARP signal was monitored on 3.39 MHZ and recorded in San Jose, California, about 5,000 miles from the transmitter in Gakona, eastern central Alaska. At that distance and frequency, the signal can only be heard during the night after two F-layer ionospheric skips. Some short-term signal fading over the signal path may be the cause for the variations in the smooth roll-off in the amplitude from 1 sec to the end of the pulse at 6.25 secs. These loud 6 second pulses are usually repeated with a quiet 15 or 30 second pause between pulses.

1. HAARP and ULF (Ultra Low Frequency) Waves

The HAARP sound recording may seem full of static. It is not. The rushing roaring sound of a blow torch is the HAARP signal itself, as shown by the silence or background noise of the receiver at the end of the pulse, and by the clarity of the tones at the beginning. If you wanted to see or hear the ULF (ultra low frequency) waves sent out by the HAARP transmitter, you will be disappointed here.

My receiver is not equipped to record ULF waves in the region of 1 to 10 Hz, and has an audio roll-off in the range of about 30 Hz. And besides, you can't hear or see a 0.9 or 1 Hz signal anyway. It is way below the range of normal human hearing. You need instruments to sense it. A powerful 1 Hz sound would probably be "sensed" as a slow rolling earthquake or a slight rocking motion as on the ocean. Nonetheless, a major component and purpose of the HAARP signal is an audio modulation at the frequency of about 0.9 Hz. And what is that purpose? I'll get to that in a moment.

2. HAARP Interaction with the Atmosphere

The HAARP pulse is primarily divided into two components. The first part is the sections marked A and B on the chart and is the powerful "pre-heat" megawatt pulse aimed upward at the ionosphere just above the HAARP facility. As the radio waves travel up through the atmosphere they have no effect until they reach the ionosphere about 200 kilometers above the earth, which is far above the atmosphere. At that point the waves interact with the ions, which may be electrons, protons or ionized parts of atoms like oxygen, ozone or nitrogen.

Normally the particles in the near vacuum of outer-space in the region of the ionosphere are simply moving randomly in all directions. Some particles may hit each other and re-combine into normal atoms of oxygen and nitrogen, thus simply becoming a part of the atmosphere. Other particles may drift off into space and others may move downward into the thicker atmosphere where they re-combine. Then along comes the HAARP signal.

For about a quarter second during the part A and B of the pulse, the randomly moving ions are now forced to madly race back and forth in the direction of the radio waves at the speed of light or 300,000 kilometers per second, which is real fast. Many of them strike atoms in the upper atmosphere and cause the atoms to also become ionized. Thus the number of ions is suddenly increased. Since the neutral atoms in the atmosphere do not react to the radio waves, they remain more or less stationary, and become "sitting ducks" just waiting to be hit by one of the billions of racing ions all rushing back and forth in response to the HAARP waves.

Even if the neutral atoms don't become ionized, many of them are struck by the fast ions and soon most of the atmospheric atoms high above the HAARP transmitter are also rushing in all directions but not back and forth as are the ions. This sudden increase in the motion of both the atoms and ions in the upper atmosphere is called "ionospheric heating." In fact, the HAARP facility, along with several similar research instruments in Europe and Russia, are in the category of Ionospheric Heaters. But its what HAARP does next during the part C of the pulse which makes HAARP unique.

3. Components of the HAARP Pulse

In portion A of the pulse, identifier tones are sent at frequencies of 360, 1000 and 1700 Hz, with some harmonics at higher frequencies visible on the graph. In part B the tones are 650 Hz with a harmonic at 1300 Hz. On the chart the yellow color indicates a very strong signal, the green indicates a medium strength signal and the blue shows a weak signal.

In part C of the signal there is a continuous tone at 2100 Hz which remains during the whole pulse and sometimes several seconds afterward. There is also a much weaker tone around 2500 Hz during all of the pulse. And then there is all that green/yellow stuff at the bottom, sloping upward to the right during all of part C. What the heck is that? To explain that we need to look at the HAARP antenna itself.

fig 2. HAARP Antenna Arrary.
Showing the crossed beams of the circularly polarized antennas. The HAARP "antenna farm" consists of 48 towers, soon to be 180, about 25 meters tall and each is topped with a pair of crossed beams in a north-south and east-west direction. The actual radiating parts of the antenna include those wires dangling from the ends of the beams.
By sloping the wires and hooking all the antennas together they act as one large single antenna covering 33 acres which can transmit in the north-south or east-west direction.

4. HAARP Circular Polarization

If HAARP only used the north-south beams then the electrons and protons in the ionosphere would race madly in the north-south direction. And likewise if the radio waves move in the east-west direction, so would the ions. What HAARP does is on each portion of the transmitter cycle it switches from the east-west to the north-south beams and back again.

If you could see the radio waves rising from the antenna they would appear to be spiraling or "cork-screwing" upward. This is called "circular polarization" of the radio signal. This is not uncommon, since all commercial FM stations use circular polarization to send horizontal signals to home roof antennas and vertical signals to automobile antennas.

But HAARP is not broadcasting to homes or autos, nor is it switching on each cycle. No, the HAARP signal is corkscrewing upward at a rate of, TADA!, about 0.9 Hz. And why is that? By corkscrewing the signal, the ions in the upper atmosphere do not just race madly back and forth, instead they move in BIG circles. And you can get the most ions running around the "race course" just above HAARP if you make them have a "lap time" of about once per second.

5. Optimizing the HAARP Rotation

What determines the optimum "lap time" is something called the plasma density and is related to the temperature, number of ions, number of neutral atoms in the ionosphere, and some other factors I won't mention here. (Note: For more information on plasma density consult any of the many graduate texts on plasma physics. Also, I have oversimplified the relation between the 0.9 Hz signal and the "lap time." It is not my purpose here to provide a complete description of ionospheric cyclotronic interactions.)

By making the ions, both electrons and protons, move in big circles they each become little electromagnets with a north and south pole. At the latitude of HAARP in Gakona, Alaska the earth's magnetic field lines are nearly vertical. So if the HAARP circular polarization is either clockwise or counter-clockwise you can make the ions racing around at 0.9 Hz either be attracted to the earth's magnetic north pole or repelled. If the circling ions are attracted, then they would simply spiral downward toward the earth's north pole and run into the denser atmosphere and might produce a very weak aurora, hence the name High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. That's all very interesting but its not exactly the real purpose of HAARP.

6. HAARP as a "Particle Gun"

If the HAARP signal rotates so the ions circle around with their north poles pointing downward, then they are repelled by the earth's magnetic north pole and are shot out into the vacuum of space at nearly the speed of light. Wow, you mean HAARP is a particle gun? You betcha! The largest one around, sorta.

But its not really a "gun" because you can't aim it at anything. The particles simply shoot off into space. But they are still spiraling and are magnetic, and as a result they follow along the earth's magnetic field. In less than half a second they arrive at the earth's south pole. There, they don't even touch the atmosphere but are caused to spiral more tightly by the earth's converging magnetic field lines, until they are made to flip over and are shot right back to the north pole, all in less than a second. Thus HAARP is really a particle injector which fires billions of ions into the "magnetic bottle" of the earth's magnetosphere, where they remain trapped for a long time.

7. Uses of the HAARP Particle Injection Device

So what can you do with a particle injector like HAARP? According to the original patent design, this device could be used to produce a thick blanket of fast particles in the region of the magnetosphere which would knock out any electronic controls on, or possibly completely destroy, any space vehicle which flew through it. This was most interesting in the 1980's when the patent was filed and even in 1990 when the US government decided to build HAARP. At that time the main nuclear threat was the USSR and any missile from Russia aimed at the US would need to pass through the magnetosphere over the north pole.

By deploying the HAARP system, no missiles from Russia would reach the US. None. Zero. And that is pretty effective! Most people think of an ICBM as a kind of big rock or arrow. You just lob it from here and it sorta lands on the target over there. Not so. An ICBM is a space vehicle. It must take off using a large booster rocket, travel at near orbital speed in the vacuum of space until it is over the target then it must re-enter the atmosphere.

To survive re-entry the missile must use one of several schemes, like retro rockets, or deploying an ablative heat shield to protect the warhead from simply burning up in the atmosphere. If the missile's computer controls are destroyed when passing through the magnetosphere then the missile will not survive re-entry and will simply burn up like a piece of space junk or a meteor. There's a good chance the missile's control systems are destroyed even before the second stage separates from the booster, thus the missile never even arrives over the target.

8. The HAARP Shield and the "Cold War"

In the 1980's and '90's a number of Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or "Star Wars") programs were developed. All of them, which relied on shooting particle beams, lasers or anti-ballistic missiles at the target were made obsolete and useless in the early 1980's. I know, since I worked on a number of them. They all relied on knowing where the target was and then shooting something at the target. The development of non-radar-reflective paint and surfaces, or stealth technology, meant you can't tell where the target is. If you don't know where it is, how can you shoot at it? The only effective defensive shield concept was and is HAARP.

My suspicion is, the decision to build HAARP in 1990 was one of the major reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Since ALL soviet missiles would be destroyed before re-entering the atmosphere, the USSR had neither an offensive nor defensive missile weapons system, other than nuclear submarines. The US could turn on and off the HAARP shield at will, so it was almost like putting the "shields" up or down on Captain Kirk's Enterprise on the "real" Star Wars. You put the shields down to fire weapons, then put the shields back up to defend against any incoming missiles. The USSR was no longer a nuclear threat nor even a nuclear power as soon as the HAARP system was built. Bye, Bye USSR.

9. Where the HAARP Shield Fails

Unfortunately, the HAARP system is not exactly like the shields on the Enterprise. The shield follows along the lines of the earth's magnetic field. Near the north and south poles the magnetosphere reaches down to almost touch the atmosphere. But near the equator the magnetosphere is several thousand miles out in space.

A missile from Russia going over the polar region must pass through the magnetosphere. But a missile from China can deploy a second stage, reach orbit and deploy for re-entry all below an altitude of several hundred miles and never come anywhere near the magnetosphere. Thus HAARP is no defense against Chinese nuclear weapons. A new technology is needed. And it was found.

10. New Methods for the HAARP Shield

About 1995 a number of ionospheric research physicists studying particles coming from the sun, noticed the height of the particles above the earth's surface bouncing back and forth from pole to pole was dependent on their velocity. By slowing the particles down the racing electrons and protons in the magnetosphere would drop down from several thousand miles to almost the top of the atmosphere about 20 to 50 miles above the surface. Could HAARP be used to make that happen? Yes. By changing the frequency at which ions race "around the track" above HAARP just before they are shot out into space, you can determine the height at which they travel.

11. The Pulse Graph Shows New HAARP Technology

Simply by changing the frequency of the circular polarization during the HAARP pulse a vertical curtain of extremely fast particles can be made to drop down from the magnetosphere to just above the top of the atmosphere along the direction which the HAARP signal is sent. In the graph of fig.1 the sloping lines of the green/yellow color are caused by the base frequency of 0.9 to 1 Hz being shifted slightly during the pulse.

What is seen in the graph is the higher frequency harmonics of the square wave pulses which heat the ions but it is the ULF component which fires them into space. And it is the slow shifting of the ULF component during the pulse which produces the vertical curtain shield. I have seen and heard many pulses with the sound seeming to be falling. In this sample the sound is slightly rising. Sounding something like the rising roar of a jet engine during take-off.

12. What Else You Can Learn About HAARP

Well, that is a thumbnail sketch of what you can discover by looking at the graph and listening to the sound of the HAARP transmitter. Of course, none of this is part of the "official" story you can get by rummaging through the web pages at the "official" HAARP website . You might learn about the number of university programs which are performing research on the ionosphere. But even in the "cover story" of ionospheric research, they hardly mention the study of Alfven Waves at the ultra low frequency (ULF) of 0.9 Hz. HAARP is supposed to be an HF or High-Frequency facility.

They do mention some of the students are doing studies on ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) waves. But the only way you might find out HAARP is primarily a ULF facility, despite its name, is by looking at the technical specifications of the instrumentation. Especially, the Induction Magnetometer instrument which was made and tuned for HAARP to detect the pc1 Alfven waves in the magnetic field with a ULF frequency of 0.9 Hz.

You can find out about the Navy's ELF Systems for communicating to nuclear submarines from antennas in Wisconsin and Michigan operating at 76 Hz. You will find nothing about how the US Navy has been using HAARP's ULF signal to transmit much deeper in the ocean. Other countries can communicate to deep subs with transmitters and antennas which can go down to about 7 Hz. But HAARP operates at about 1 Hz. The lower the frequency the deeper the signal penetrates the ocean. To find out about the Navy's "Official" explanation of what they are doing at HAARP, check out the Navy HAARP Fact Sheet .

At the HAARP website you might learn the third member of the triumvirate which operates the facility is the US Air Force. And that's about all you learn. Nothing is said about any Air Force activity at HAARP. Until you read this article you would never have guessed, the part of the Air Force which operates the HAARP facility is the Space Vehicles Directorate , whose primary task is planning and engaging in space warfare. Check out the "Official" Space Vehicles Directorate AF HAARP Fact Sheet to see what they want you to know. Now, why would the Space Vehicles Directorate be interested in playing with some radios in Alaska? Doh. Well, now you know.

To find out about the primary purpose of HAARP you can take a look at the patent filed by Dr. Eastlund in 1985. The patent is filled with a lot of those strange "chicken scratchings" of higher calculus used by plasma physicists and theoretical radio scientists. Just ignore those. Thats only the stuff you put in patents to fool the patent inspectors into thinking you know what you're talking about before you actually build a device to prove you are right. But the patent does have some nice pictures of how the "corkscrewing" waves from the transmitter interact with the ions in the ionosphere to shoot them out into space. Along with the patent bibliography there is a clear description of how a "HAARP" type device can be used. Taken together they give a rather dry, but chilling description of the future of warfare in space.

If you have trouble downloading the images of the Eastlund Patent from either the US Pat Office or the IBM womplex websites, I have made a copy of the text version without the pictures. There are two items which you will see of prime importance; (1) the patent has been assigned to APTI Inc, (APTI is a small subdivision of oil company ARCO, the prime defense contractor which built HAARP) and (2) the Patent Office Classifications for the Eastlund patent are 89/1.11 and 376/100-123. And what do those classifications mean? Here's what the US Pat Off says about those Classifications. (Note: I added the emphasis so you can easily see what is meant)

posted on Mar, 24 2003 @ 07:06 PM
A question for all y'all HAARPies - actually, questions:

Anybody have an amateur radio license?




[Edited on 25-3-2003 by Researcher]

new topics

top topics


log in