Fake Aurora's produced by HAARP

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: NoviceStoic4

I think for cloud seeding to work you need clouds?

Yes that’s correct. Africa has had plenty of clouds over the years?

a reply to: NoviceStoic4

Yeah. I have been to the Sahara. Bloody cloudy and overcast every day. Not.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Apparently it's theoretically possible.

The problem being that even though there are clouds present above certain parts of the Sahara.

They dont necessarily contain sufficient moisture to produce precipitation.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: andy06shake

These things don't happen in clear skies, they take even small cloud cover to "seed", moisture in the air. There are ways to create this moisture artificially, but this is a difficult and more involved process.

Localized weather manipulation will become a thing in our lifetimes. There is no doubt about that, BUT, things like atmospheric research will NOT be the things which bring these conditions about. Only local activities will. Whether those 'local' activities are ethical or not, is a whole other question, but they are not a result of experiment such as noted here.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Makes sense as it's pretty hard to seed clouds....without clouds.

As to the artificial generation of moisture that's going to be rather expensive.

And if there are humidifiers or misting systems involved I'm apt to ponder how many would be required to make a significant impact in the atmosphere.

Could they make the Sahara green again, I'm apt to think its possible but not exactly cost-effective.

a reply to: andy06shake

The biggest technical challenge is dew point, and in order to affect this (in hot climates at least) it requires significant quantities of ice, lots of ice. Many times this ice is stored in the form of gaseous frozen liquid like CO2, but there are other methods. Either way, it takes massive amounts of ice to change the dew point of the local atmospheric conditions.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The biggest technical challenge is dew point, and in order to affect this (in hot climates at least) it requires significant quantities of ice, lots of ice.

Im thinking the resources required to perform such an immense task over such a large area would be rather extreme.

Same with energy consumption, where again its simply not cost-effective.

Nevermind the other unforeseen circumstances and consequences that may arise regarding altering the dew point of atmospheric conditions.

Come on people, stop gulping up the disinformation bs.

HAARP itself has been dismantled, since before 2015.
Not implying the capability is not being done elsewhere.

Air Force has already rendered HAARP reversibly inoperable through the removal or relocation of critical diagnostic instruments, instrument shelters, office furniture, and even tubes for the multiple transmitters.

HAARP is dead, long live HAARP

You want peer reviews?
Do a search and see for yourself, as a facility, it doesn't exist.

quote]originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: kwaka

Though one of the main HAARP facilities was shut down a few years ago now. As for the technology, it just was militarized and now part of the 5G phased antenna array.

As for being able to produce Aurora effects, sure. It ain't fake when gigawatts of power is getting pumped in, it has to turn up somewhere.

Scientific evidence for those claims??

a reply to: AllisVibration

Yes, there is definately more phenomena in our skies than previously, I'm convinced the Scientists have been playing around with Fire or playing GOD.

As for the rest of the posters... I have read them and thanks for your contributions.

originally posted by: ADVISOR
Come on people, stop gulping up the disinformation bs.

HAARP itself has been dismantled, since before 2015.
Not implying the capability is not being done elsewhere.

Air Force has already rendered HAARP reversibly inoperable through the removal or relocation of critical diagnostic instruments, instrument shelters, office furniture, and even tubes for the multiple transmitters.

HAARP is dead, long live HAARP

You want peer reviews?
Do a search and see for yourself, as a facility, it doesn't exist.

quote]originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: kwaka

Though one of the main HAARP facilities was shut down a few years ago now. As for the technology, it just was militarized and now part of the 5G phased antenna array.

As for being able to produce Aurora effects, sure. It ain't fake when gigawatts of power is getting pumped in, it has to turn up somewhere.

Scientific evidence for those claims??

Evidence ? How about an Official Notice

May 8-10, 2024 Transmission Notice

Date: May 2, 2024
To: Amateur Radio & Radio Astronomy Communities
From: HAARP Program Office
Subject: Notice of Transmission


The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) will be conducting a research campaign May 8-10 UTC, with operating times specified in the table below. Operating frequencies will vary, but all HAARP transmissions will be between 2.8 MHz and 10 MHz. Actual transmit days and times are highly variable based on real-time ionospheric and/or geomagnetic conditions. All information is subject to change.

a reply to: xWorldxGonexMadx

Scientists would not have gotten very far without playing around with fire xWorldxGonexMadx.

After all it's one of the fundamental tools in the progression of the human race.

And i think It's a safe bet that without experimenting with fire, our scientific and technological progress would have been severely hindered.

As to playing God, is that not what organised religious practice, in all it many guises, has been doing since day dot?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Makes sense as it's pretty hard to seed clouds....without clouds.

As to the artificial generation of moisture that's going to be rather expensive.

And if there are humidifiers or misting systems involved I'm apt to ponder how many would be required to make a significant impact in the atmosphere.

Could they make the Sahara green again, I'm apt to think its possible but not exactly cost-effective.

Wouldn’t you also need a sufficient temperature drop? Add all the moisture you want. But if you don’t get a corresponding temperature drop to squeeze the moisture out, no meaningful rain.

Be better off piping the water in to a giant sprinkler system, or a subsurface wetting system.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: andy06shake

The biggest technical challenge is dew point, and in order to affect this (in hot climates at least) it requires significant quantities of ice, lots of ice. Many times this ice is stored in the form of gaseous frozen liquid like CO2, but there are other methods. Either way, it takes massive amounts of ice to change the dew point of the local atmospheric conditions.

Oh. You got to it. Never mind…

a reply to: Lazy88

Wouldn’t you also need a sufficient temperature drop? Add all the moisture you want. But if you don’t get a corresponding temperature drop to squeeze the moisture out, no meaningful rain.

If so it would certainly tick the unforeseen circumstances box.

Be better off piping the water in to a giant sprinkler system, or a subsurface wetting system.

Some kind of gigantic hydroponics system is also apt to produce quite a lot of moisture i suppose.

a reply to: andy06shake

It's temperature differential and moisture density which causes cloud formation. The idea behind cloud seeding, which is a very real thing BTW, is to initiate or 'seed' the cloud to start forming. Once the cloud structure begins to form it draws moisture from the surrounding air into it and increases its size. But the whole process has to be performed on days when the conditions are right at the threshold of cloud formation because of moisture and temperature. If the conditions aren't just perfect you're wasting your time and resources. And, nature being unpredictable, even during ideal conditions seeding efforts fail more often than succeed. So, it is by no means a sure thing.

originally posted by: MrsPixie
Not you, and only in part Ive just lost interrest in engaging in the topic here. I thought this site was created for questioning the narrative, apparently only if you still tow the narrative when they done with you. Deny ignorance .. in silence please, don't rock the boat.

There's nothing wrong with questioning the narrative, in fact most ATSers will probably tell you they don't trust mainstream media, which tends to distort things or sometimes distribute propaganda.

But that doesn't mean the narrative is always wrong. In science topics like this, often the science writers get things wrong because they don't understand the science, so in those cases if you can read the papers by the actual scientists who wrote them, the information will be more accurate. They are not a part of mainstream media so the scientific papers tend to be more accurate (not including medical topics pushed by big pharma here, or politically charged topics like climate change).

So you questioned the narrative which is fine to question it, but when provided with answers that in this case the narrative looks like it's likely to be correct you don't seem very receptive to the answer.

originally posted by: MrsPixie
It's currently winter here in SA, which means we a currently furthest from the sun, So this flare would have to be powerful enough to envelope the planet at midnight in winter so the I can stand on the beach and observe it clearly, everything was bathed in red, it was freaky to say the least ...

That does sound like an interesting experience but your statement "It's currently winter here in SA, which means we a currently furthest from the sun" suggests you have a misunderstanding about the seasons, which are not correlated with distance from the sun.

What causes the seasons?

The seasons have nothing to do with how far the Earth is from the Sun. If this were the case, it would be hotter in the northern hemisphere during January as opposed to July. Instead, the seasons are caused by the Earth being tilted on its axis by an average of 23.5 degrees (Earth's tilt on its axis actually varies from near 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees).

originally posted by: MetalThunder
"Scientific evidence for those claims??"

Evidence ? How about an Official Notice

May 8-10, 2024 Transmission Notice

Great rebuttal!

I was wondering what happened to HAARP about a month ago and remembered it had been closed as Advisor said, but then found it was still being used for specific projects. HAARP seems to have a lot of power on human scales, but compared to the power of the sun, it's not much so solar activity dominates the ionosphere and HAARP is just a small input in comparison. You can look up all this yourself and even run the calculations yourself, you don't have to take anybody's word for it. So again it's fine to question the narrative, but the math shows, that's the answer. Do the calculations if you don't believe it.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: NoviceStoic4

Yeah. I have been to the Sahara. Bloody cloudy and overcast every day. Not.

Oh my you’re digging your hole deeper and deeper 😂

1 - I didn’t mention the Sahara Desert, I said Africa.
2 - I go to Zimbabwe and South Africa every year for a month and see them daily, ergo..

There areplenty of clouds in Africa.

So your original sarcastic comment of “you need clouds to do clouds seeding” ref: Africa, just doesn’t work I’m afraid.

Good day

Dbl

a reply to: NoviceStoic4

Matey, you mentioned Africa. The Sahara is in Africa.

My comment was not sarcastic.

It was factual.

We were talking about drought zones.

At least, us adults were.

a reply to: NoviceStoic4

Not digging any hole.

Good day to you Sir or Madam. Good day to you.