Air Force Bombshell: Admits they can control weather

a reply to: MarlinGrace>>> I was thinking about this. We seem to have beaten the global warmers into a corner by simply refusing to acknowledge that man made global warming is real. The evidence is at best sketchy and debatable, at worst it just isn't there. So now they've gone to alarmist doom casting, again without real proof any of it is going to happen.
So we have an invented crisis that we're supposed to panic over. Okay.... then what? Maybe its just to gouge taxpayers, get people to live more spartan lives, force us to give more power to the government as they attempt to find a solution. Some people will no doubt get rich. Others will get even richer... the ones behind the scam.
But what if suddenly a " savior" appears and promises to save us from ourselves? A group appears and promises to put the climate back on track, to clean up the environment, cure us of our ills( most of which have suddenly begun appearing like autism and metabolic disorders) . Would we welcome them and turn over the reigns of the planet to them? I'm talking about aliens showing up to " save" us. Are we being prepared for this, is this global warming scare just part of the plan?
Hmmm, no wonder they want to ban guns and prevent people from having bullets. Aliens could probably reign supreme in space ships and with superior weapons, but they'd have to wipe out half the planet to eradicate and subjugate mankind. And if they didn't openly be hostile, they'd still be vulnerable walking around with scared people eager to take potshots at them.
Just a thought.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

What's that called when you attempt to discredit the source and don't even bother to address the information presented?

I'm sorry, but is this the first thread on ATS to say this?

Because the source is a known liar and his site is known for lies why exactly should I trust anything that this man puts on that site?

The site discredits itself without any help from anybody.

And it's called Denying Ignorance.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Dane Wigington and Geoengineeringwatch.com is not a place to go for the truth. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Care to prove it?

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE


What's that called when you attempt to discredit the source and don't even bother to address the information presented?

Oh ya, its the classic "ad hominem" logical fallacy.

Well,since the OP isn't actually about anyone admitting to controlling weather, I'd say the whole thread is a logical fallacy. It's a HOAX.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Care to prove it?

Can you show me anything that is on that site that is the truth?

Here you go...



Fake snow...Really?

Would you like more...



Your turn time to show us what is the truth on that site, but that is if you can find one.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: MarlinGrace

Heya OP.. I don't know about some of the more interesting and wild claims about HAARP or what it was ever intended to do, but the graphic the source story used is accurate enough.

Wrabbit, I am curious as to your take on the thread. Do you feel that graphic describes HAARP in any way, shape, or form? Do you feel as if the Article in the OP was truthful?

a reply to: network dude

As I noted earlier when I posted that graphic from the source article, I have no idea what the purpose of control over the Ionosphere is about.

I know their stated purpose and researched HAARP for a website project I did a couple years ago. That didn't answer it all.

Nor have they ever explained all aspects of what they were researching with the HAARP array. They sure didn't have very long to do it, given how recently the final elements came online to bring the facility to full power. It'd been limping on partial output for most of it's lifespan, after all.

Frankly, I have no idea, nor will I pretend that I do. It's a bit of an eye opener to read them state that what took the sprawling facility of HAARP now has alternate means to the same end result ..again..whatever precisely that end result is for operational use.

a reply to: Phage

Oh great. A third hand quote.

Bernard Eastlund interview with Omni Magazine March 1988:

Rediscovering Tesla

“You can,” says Eastlund, “virtually lift part of the upper atmosphere. You can make it move, do things to it.”

Raising a selected region of plasma is not affecting the height of the ionosphere.

What kind of nit-picking is this? The ionosphere IS a plasma region. Hence, auroras. That's why HAARP was able to create artificial auroras. Because it was stimulating a plasma region. Not only did they create auroras but they created artificial ionosphere areas and got them to persist for as long as the power was on.

In fact, their claimed last hurrah at this facility this past winter was to see just how long they could get these fake ionosphere areas to persist.

You're trying to say that if the whole enchilada doesn't get lifted all at once then nothing happened. And if it doesn't remain lifted eternally then nothing happened. That's not how it is. If you're talking about displacement (the second part of the Eastlund quote: "...make it move, do things to it...") then you also have to talk about the backlash in the stratosphere.

So what impact does lifting, raising, bubbling, boiling, displacing sections of the ionosphere have? We don't know but we are willing to experiment globally in order to find out. Further, we're willing to convince a global population that the disaster our weather has become is perfectly normal. Even further, the sun burns our atmosphere from the outside but that's not enough for us - we have to burn it up from the inside as well.

And what is the point of contrasting 10 nuclear power plants with 5 diesel generators when ionospheric reactions are non-linear? Which is why the Eastlund article says:

As he did his computations, he realized the amount of energy he was dealing with was enormous. He calculated that once the waves reached the ionosphere, they would interact powerfully with the charged particles trapped there.

The position of the jet stream is controlled by the atmosphere below it.

The world does not begin and end in the troposphere. Weather, as we see it, manifests there. (That's if you're talking about atmosphere closer to earth as opposed to closer to space rather than latitude. Which 'below' do you mean?)

The whole HAARP thing just kills me really - a military cosmic joke. Nuclear bombs were detonated in the atmosphere in order to propagate radiation along magnetic field lines. That was a weapon. HAARP attempts to relocate radiation from the Van Allen's onto magnetic field lines. That's improving communication. Go figure.

Ya but these guys say that planes directly injecting exhaust at high altitudes has no effect on anything, really.

And they also contend that playing with the ionosphere does nothing to it, at ALL.

They do not believe anything has any effect, in a negative light, they believe everything claimed by sources that would never lie to them, scientists that are free to speak out on any topic!

I postulate that these people unknowingly or not, are the opposite of those who try and find out anything for themselves.

a reply to: luxordelphi

So what impact does lifting, raising, bubbling, boiling, displacing sections of the ionosphere have?

How much lifting could HAARP do? Got any data on that? Boiling, that's a pretty silly word to use.

Heating a bit of the ionosphere for a few hours a few nights a year? Compared to what the Sun does every day? No real effect. Compared to what happens during an electromagnetic storm? No real effect.

And what is the point of contrasting 10 nuclear power plants with 5 diesel generators when ionospheric reactions are non-linear?

Because that is the amount of power required by the system described in the patent.

The world does not begin and end in the troposphere. Weather, as we see it, manifests there.

And the location of jet streams is determined by what happens in the troposphere. Jet streams are not steered from above, altering the ionosphere does not affect the the location of jet streams. Jet streams do not cause weather.

A jet stream forms high in the upper troposphere between two air masses of very different temperature. The greater the temperature difference between the air masses, the faster the wind blows in the jet stream.

Contrary to popular belief, the jet stream does not "cause" weather conditions of a certain type to occur. Its existence is instead the result of certain weather conditions (a large temperature contrast between two air masses).

www.weatherquestions.com...

Among the more fascinating features of upper-air circulations are discontinuous bands of relatively strong winds (usually in excess of 30 metres per second) called jet streams. As with other wind fields that increase with increasing height, jet streams can be explained as an application of the thermal-wind equation. They are located above areas of particularly strong temperature gradients--e.g., frontal zones.

abyss.uoregon.edu...

Eastlund was wrong in his claims about modifying weather by using the ionosphere to alter jet streams.

a reply to: ParasuvO

You can go rent the facility for a year. You just have to let them know quick, as they are going to tear it down if nobody offers to fund it.

Now if anyone could pay money and run the facility, do you think it could do anything catastrophic?

Common sense says no.

a reply to: Phage

The jet stream has been doing some funny stuff. And its' misbehavior is co-incidental with HAARP's final ramp-up in 2007/2008.

There's some measuring going on to try and figure out why that's happening. Researchers are looking at global warming, climate change, the sun's lack of activity, even the advent of a mini-ice age.

During the data gathering process some surprising links between the troposphere (weather) and the jet stream and the ionosphere (auroras) are coming to light.

96 in Alaska? Weather extremes tied to jet stream

"I've been doing meteorology for 30 years and the jet stream the last three years has done stuff I've never seen," said Jeff Masters, meteorology director at the private service Weather Underground. "The fact that the jet stream is unusual could be an indicator of something. I'm not saying we know what it is."

Why has the Sun gone to sleep?

Excerpt from an upcoming book on Earth Changes by SOTT.net Editor Pierre Lescaudron:

"Solar activity induces a compression in the ionosphere, which is more prominent at the level of the equator. This equatorial compression of the positively charged ionosphere ‘pushes’ the positively charged polar jet stream towards the north. Conversely, weak solar activity ‘decompresses’ the ionosphere at the level of the equator and allows the jet stream to move south, towards the decompressed equator.

Acoustic Gravity Waves and Traveling Ionospheric Disturbances

High-Speed Solar Wind, Auroral Electrojets And Atmospheric Gravity Waves: A Link to the Earth's Atmosphere

The results of a superposed epoch analysis of high-level cloud cover
point to a link between the solar wind, the auroral ionosphere and
tropospheric weather.

Ionospheric modification from under-dense heating by high-power HF transmitter

In the nighttime, the ionosphere was lifted by 30 to 50 km through continuously upward expansion, resulting in the drop of the electron density in the bottomside of the ionosphere in time.

Eastlund was spot on with his assessment of ionospheric heating capabilities i.e. altering the jet stream; lifting the ionosphere; modifying and creating weather.

a reply to: luxordelphi

The jet stream has been doing some funny stuff.

Yes. Because the troposphere has been doing so.

The Arctic is generally colder than mid-latitudes, and it is this difference in temperature that propels the west-to-east river of fast moving air known as the jet stream. This atmospheric feature tends to follow a wavy path as it flows around the northern hemisphere between about 30ºN and 60ºN, (at an a altitude where jets fly, hence the name). As high latitudes warm more than mid latitudes, however, this north-south temperature difference weakens, which has two impacts on the jet stream.

marine.rutgers.edu...

During the data gathering process some surprising links between the troposphere (weather) and the jet stream and the ionosphere (auroras) are coming to light.

There is a definite link between jet streams the the troposphere. Conditions in the troposphere determine the location (and intensity) of jet streams.

Do you have a credible source for a connection between the ionosphere and jet streams? "Positively charged polar jet stream?" Seriously?

The article about atmospheric gravity waves being propagated downward through the stratosphere and affecting cloud formation is interesting though somewhat speculative. It's the only example of research indicating a downward coupling that I've run across. There is a lot which indicates the reverse, that gravity waves originating in the lower atmosphere propagate upward. I wonder if the authors of the article you provided considered that may have been what they were observing.

Thank you for the article about thermal lifting of a region of the ionosphere heated by HAARP.

Eastlund was spot on with his assessment of ionospheric heating capabilities i.e. altering the jet stream; lifting the ionosphere; modifying and creating weather.

No. He wasn't.

originally posted by: luxordelphi
Eastlund was spot on with his assessment of ionospheric heating capabilities i.e. altering the jet stream; lifting the ionosphere; modifying and creating weather.

Wait, I looked at your links. I must have missed the one that explains how HAARP modified the weather.
Unless you have to "extrapolate" some hidden meaning from each article.

(please pay attention to the way you wrote that sentence. It's almost like you wanted to display it as a fact or something.)

a reply to: Phage

In your opinion, is the following statement saying that gravity waves create the conditions necessary for storm clouds?

The satellite infrared (IR) images of clouds are used to identify mesoscale band cloud structure that is indicative of gravity waves.

High-Speed Solar Wind, Auroral Electrojets And Atmospheric Gravity Waves: A Link to the Earth's Atmosphere

The article about atmospheric gravity waves being propagated downward through the stratosphere and affecting cloud formation is interesting though somewhat speculative. It's the only example of research indicating a downward coupling that I've run across.

I think the papers are out there - just cloaked. For instance, this statement (even as it tries for some vague link to cosmic rays or...):

The ray tracing results (not shown) of the downward energy flux of AGWs with a period of 40 min indicate that AGWs with a horizontal wavelength ~150 km would reach the troposphere at a horizontal distance ~1000 km from an ionospheric source about 5 hours after being launched. This is approximately consistent with the band separation, horizontal distance from the suggested AGW source over central Alaska, and the time of appearance of cloud bands A-C over the Gulf of Alaska, respectively. It is noted that the cloud bands formed in the region of an opposing (cyclonic upper-level wind (cimss.ssec.wisc.edu...) of a magnitude comparable with the ray-traced gravity wave phase velocity. Once formed, the bands progressed poleward and were distorted by the counter-clockwise winds of the
vortex.

Seems to be pointing a finger at HAARP. Particularly where a paragraph or so earlier they say:

It is suggested that the triplet of bands A-C was formed by gravity waves launched by the ionospheric convection pulses.

It it were so, imo, it would explain a lot because the current dearth of cosmic rays/solar activity is not useful in explaining the sudden (by device) (because they were there to measure it) Alaska/Yukon (Gakona area) pulse generating area.

Your comment i.e. "somewhat speculative" is very valid. In uncloaked circumstances, I, myself, would go even further and say wildly speculative. In this case though the researchers seem to have inside info of cause in order to catalog effect.

What do you say?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: luxordelphi
Eastlund was spot on with his assessment of ionospheric heating capabilities i.e. altering the jet stream; lifting the ionosphere; modifying and creating weather.

Wait, I looked at your links. I must have missed the one that explains how HAARP modified the weather.
Unless you have to "extrapolate" some hidden meaning from each article.

(please pay attention to the way you wrote that sentence. It's almost like you wanted to display it as a fact or something.)

Please see my post just previous. And the one previous to that. In the recent past, less powerful acoustic gravity waves (AGWs) have been shown to propogate from the troposphere to the ionosphere. This paper is trying to show that the more powerful AGWs propogate from the ionosphere to the troposphere. This while their motion is horizontal.

And, while Eastlund rocks, he was not a friend to humanity. If he had been he would have kept his discoveries out of military hands.

a reply to: luxordelphi

This paper is trying to show that the more powerful AGWs propogate from the ionosphere to the troposphere. This while their motion is horizontal.

You do understand they are talking about solar winds and nothing to do with HAARP.

Might I also add this is just a theory, but again what does this have to do with HAARP and controlling the weather?

Unless you are trying to say we can control the sun and it's solar winds.

a reply to: luxordelphi

In your opinion, is the following statement saying that gravity waves create the conditions necessary for storm clouds?

No. Rising warm air is what forms storm clouds. It is saying that cloud bands indicate the presence of gravity waves. Like this:
eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Here's a ground view of cloud bands formed by gravity waves:
tamutimes.tamu.edu...

I think the papers are out there - just cloaked. For instance, this statement (even as it tries for some vague link to cosmic rays or...):

There is nothing in there about cosmic rays. Oh, I see, you think ray-tracing has to do with cosmic rays. No, it's a mathematical method of analyzing waveform propagation.

Seems to be pointing a finger at HAARP. Particularly where a paragraph or so earlier they say:

Then why does it spend so much time talking about the high speed solar wind and making no mention of HAARP?

What do you say?

I say, that as usual, you use your lack of understanding to twist the actual science to fit your world view. You should try a different approach, taking the time and making the effort to understand what the science actually says. Then you can take the next step.

a reply to: luxordelphi

And the one previous to that. In the recent past, less powerful acoustic gravity waves (AGWs) have been shown to propogate from the troposphere to the ionosphere. This paper is trying to show that the more powerful AGWs propogate from the ionosphere to the troposphere.

To verify your understanding, please explain the difference between acoustic gravity waves and atmospheric gravity waves.

BTW, both are talking about atmospheric gravity waves.