Military History Ch. has an interesting Weather War show running

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

(Power went off and I lost my entire post to you. Will try to reconstruct.)

Here is a link that lists the various ERP's and powers of ionospheric heaters.

Global Map of HF Heaters like HAARP

HAARP is the runaway most powerful by far. Eiscat3D will punk HAARP but it's not up yet so far as I know.

HAARP has 5.1 GW ERP with 3.6 MW transmission. Sura has 190 MW ERP with 750 kW transmission.

A more official site puts HAARP at 4 GW ERP (same transmission.)

HAARP IRI Operations/Summary/Page 32

• High radiated power (3.6 MW transmitted, up to 4 GW ERP)

Sura, from what was admitted or boasted, was able to modify clouds. HIPAS was able to produce scintillation. HAARP produced artificial auroras and artificial ionosphere areas.

As far as sharing the blame around for damage to the ionosphere: starting with atmospheric nuclear testing and moving on into ionospheric heating - lots of potential damage there by a number of players.

a reply to: luxordelphi

HAARP produced artificial auroras and artificial ionosphere areas.

Ok but where? At what altitudes?

Have you watched the video in the OP? Aside from guiding lightning by a conductor I don't see much in it of any value. If you've seen it, are there any particular parts that seem true to you? If so, what parts?

BTW, those questions are for anyone else of course. You know, public forum and all that.

originally posted by: luxordelphi
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Here is a link that lists the various ERP's and powers of ionospheric heaters.

Global Map of HF Heaters like HAARP

Scaremongering - rezn8 has a long history of conflating all sorts of things that "look alike" to make his site more impressive - eg this map includes phased array radars as well as ionospheric heaters - while both use radio waves you might as well include commercial broadcast radio stations in such a lit too....

the inchorent scatter radar from many of these sites dose not act like an ionospheric heater.

the heater at Aricebo was destroyed by a Hurricane in 1998, and is only recently being (has been?) rebuilt over the main dish.

For those who are interested, I have another document to add to the overall discussion. This was a report submitted to the United States Air Force in August of 1996 under the title of:

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

It's located in reference at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). The table of contents is interesting alone and it's a good idea of what is inside.

Weather manipulation/modification is real we have treaties on it. Look it up. There are United nations treaties on it.

UN 1967

Nm.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

This was a report submitted to the United States Air Force in August of 1996 under the title of:

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

Did you happen to see this straight from the manual itself...



And you can even read that manual here...

csat.au.af.mil...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Sure did.... Check the Bibliography page for what I personally found most valuable. Thanks for the time taken to actually read the material though. It was the fact I was seeing citations in an Air Force report of that nature that made me think..Hmm..wait a sec... there is far more than what the report itself contains...

..and indeed. I'd say the report is on par and similar to the IPCC report I've written a thread on. In fact, I had this bookmarked from that effort in going back over things. I just hadn't thought to look at what all was being cited. That outweighs the report itself, or very close to it.

It'll give me some more reading for some time to come, anyway.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I'd say the report is on par and similar to the IPCC report I've written a thread on.

How are you coming to the conclusion this is some kind of report?

It tells you in the disclaimer it is a fictional representation of future situations/scenarios in other words not real.

So if this fictional paper is in par with your ICPP report, then what does it say about that report?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Can we focus on what I just told the thread is most valuable? I am well aware of the fact it's a hypothetical exercise paper. I'm very well aware of the fact that stands alone as a statement on the lines directly below the title of the first page. In that, it was assumed anyone would definitely find that line and understand what followed was a military hypothetical.

Hypotheticals are usually BASED ON real data and REAL information within a fiction backdrop. However, in this case....

Bibliography Page

They kinda went overboard on their citations and God Bless 'em for it. That's as much or more outside of conspiracy materials and from people who are writing very seriously about it as I've seen in one spot. Hence...very well worth sharing, IMO.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Do you actually believe you can deny everything till the end of time ?

10+ posts later and after accusing people of looking at patents, you use the same exact logic to claim nothing is going on.

In your world, no evil exists, everything is above board, and you are for surely telling the truth at all times.

Pretty much par for the course for every thread.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Do you actually believe you can deny everything till the end of time ?

Until you can show evidence otherwise then yes.

10+ posts later and after accusing people of looking at patents, you use the same exact logic to claim nothing is going on.

And do you think this is the first time this conversation has been had about the same old patents that have been shown that have nothing to do with HAARP?

In your world, no evil exists, everything is above board, and you are for surely telling the truth at all times.

Care to show me where I am not telling the truth?

Pretty much par for the course for every thread.

Yes, they call it Denying Ignorance...Care to try it sometime?

Now other than trying to worry about what I post do you have anything that contributes to the thread, because my posting is not the topic of this thread?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Can we focus on what I just told the thread is most valuable?

And showing that your using a fictional piece of writing as proof that the Air Force is trying to own the weather is just as valuable.

The problem is that you don't want someone to show you are wrong and you want everybody to agree with you and that isn't happening.

You can throw as much BS as you want, but trying to tell me you were using that paper which you called a report just for the bibliography just doesn't work.

I have shown you that the two main people in your OP video are more than questionable as they have both been shown to be liars, now you try to trot out a fiction as proof when does the madness end?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I think a couple things would help to point out.

I didn't say anything about anyone owning the weather. I quoted the specific tile of an official US Air Force report, which is actually just one chapter of a much larger study ordered under Clinton.

Now that I've had a few hours to read that start to finish and get into some of the sourcing, I'll be writing quite a bit more on it. Just not before getting some sleep.

You're misunderstanding what the word fiction means in the context the Air Force officers are using it here though, and the technology, methods or feasibility of what is talked about isn't part of the fiction. That is also very specifically laid out a bit further into the report.

---

If we're all interested in the truth of what has been looked at, what has been seriously considered and in a couple cases cited there for reference in the report, what has already been done? I'd recommend reading the full report they wrote. At least the segment linked above. That's Chapter 15 of the overall AF Study.

As something ordered by the Air Force in 1996, and given the expected curve of technological development by how everything else has developed in similar time (not to mention the charts within it, predicting time frames, if pursued), I'd say it's possible more than a bit of that could have been developed by now..

There is extensive description as well as explanation with citation for the Ionsphere, how it fits in and why it's very critical in some ways. It took reading it all to fully appreciate the value of what I've had sitting in an archive directory for months, but the overall study it's a part of has other parts worthy of threads of their own as well.

---

As far as the OP video... Contact the History Channel with any further issues on it. I presented it as speculative, I still stand by it as speculative, and I've now said that more than once. Nothing has changed. Your opinion of it is something I'm now very aware of for the number of times you've expressed it. Thanks.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

There is extensive description as well as explanation with citation for the Ionsphere, how it fits in and why it's very critical in some ways.

I've read that. I don't see what you apparently do. For the benefit of mankind, please tell us "How it fits in".

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

As far as the OP video... Contact the History Channel with any further issues on it.

You're telling us to NOT ask the OP or anyone else questions about the video ... aka ... THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD?

Or has the History Channel replaced you as the OP?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I'm sorry, you can yell more if you'd like. It won't bring more response from me. I'm not here for your enjoyment or to answer your demands for anything.

If we'd like to chat and discuss the topic? Sounds good.. I've done about all the responding to 1 liners and condescending nonsense that I'm going to respond to, with a few different people in here.

I told you who produced that video. I didn't make it. History Channel did. In a speculative topic, I don't demand court room level proof ..nor will I...nor will I ever.

Hence, the OP video is satisfactory under the circumstances, to my standards. If you and a couple others here have a problem with the video? Let me know what the History channel tells you. I don't have such a problem, so I won't be putting any further effort into defending something I didn't create, but shared to chat about. Not fight over or take ownership of as if it were my own.

Enough...

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I'm sorry, you can yell more if you'd like.

That little bit of caps is for emphasis not yelling.

I'm not here for your enjoyment or to answer your demands for anything.

Demands? That's funny. Questions on the topic are now "demands". Awesome.

If we'd like to chat and discuss the topic? Sounds good..

Color me confused. The video is the topic. I have commented on the video, I have asked questions about the video and this is your response? I don't get this.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Color me confused. The video is the topic. I have commented on the video, I have asked questions about the video and this is your response? I don't get this.

You've come back at me and other people by making their reaction to your attacks 'their problem' a time more than I'm going to entertain. You can't sit there and attack attack attack across threads and time ...and then say "Whooo...me???" when someone has finally had their fill of it.

I can't even understand what you're actually asking anymore, as the video has been attacked, defended and addressed more than once on this thread (and another it had appeared in earlier year at ATS..). I get it..you don't agree with it.

I get that some folks would do anything to see the forum here closed. Outright said, in those words, and once even demanded of us within the past few months in the BBQ forum.

Point taken. Answer Given. Video Addressed. All the answer I intend to give on this detail, of this topic, within this thread. I hate repeating the same thing page after page.

I hope I've communicated that clearly at this point. I'm tired of trying to chat about something with folks who have 0 respect for anything related to it.

It's not chatting at all. It's defending attacks...and that shouldn't BE something any member at ATS has to do for mere opinions of a controversial topic.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I hope I've communicated that clearly at this point. I'm tired of trying to chat about something with folks who have 0 respect for anything related to it.

So please show me anywhere I was disrepectful?

Well if you can post anything related that hasn't been discussed many times before, that would probably help.