what is HAARP?? is it a weapon, intel listening, weather control or whatever device

a reply to: pfishy

Also as the ionosphere is upwards of 200 miles above us and all our weather is within a few miles of the earth's surface,it stands as much chance of being able to manipulate the weather as King Canute did of sitting in his throne on the beach and telling the sea to turn back.

a reply to: Seed76

I believe haarp has also been known for resonance frequency harassment, in other words lethal psycho weaponry;

originally posted by: tony9802
a reply to: Seed76

I believe haarp has also been known for resonance frequency harassment, in other words lethal psycho weaponry;

Resonating what? What sort of frequency?

You don't have any resonances for 2 to 10 MHz EM. Or shortwave stations and HAM license holders would have "resonated" everyone to death by now.

a reply to: tony9802

Accused of, maybe. But not actually known for. Even if it were capable of doing this, it is a seriously subpar method. That is something that the user would want fine control over. The HAARP array being utilized to cause this effect is akin to firebombing your neighborhood to kill a spider in your lavatory.

a reply to: Bedlam

On a certain level, your comment resonates with me. Though I can't quite pin down why..

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Bedlam



On a certain level, your comment resonates with me. Though I can't quite pin down why..

No doubt it's my magnetic personality.

a reply to: Bedlam

You are certainly one of the folks I always love to see contributing to a thread. You always have a wonderful (ahem) array of information to share, and you're always happy to field follow-up questions.
Back on topic, do you think HAARP actually has any viability as a component of a missle-defense system?

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Bedlam

Back on topic, do you think HAARP actually has any viability as a component of a missle-defense system?

Hmm. I suppose it depends on how you construe it.

Can you zap a missile with it, no. By design, it's not good over most of its frequency range for going through the ionosphere. You want the ionosphere to ABSORB it. So its operating range is mostly where that happens. But *some* gets through - they did EME with the array at around 7MHz in 2008, but they had to pick the right day/time to manage it.

Also, at ionospheric height, you're talking 4 microWatts/cm^2 - the beam's only so tight. Few missiles would be fazed by that.

a reply to: blobby

Text Here is a link that can help you on your way..

www.earthpulse.com...


also google "Dr. Nick Begich" he is the foremost expert , and lecturer on the subject of Haarp and was even acquainted with the man who held the patents and developed the technology .

originally posted by: seeknoevil

also google "Dr. Nick Begich" he is the foremost expert , and lecturer on the subject of Haarp and was even acquainted with the man who held the patents and developed the technology .

Nick Begich is a buffoon. And no, Eastlund didn't "hold the patents" nor develop the technology.

eta: BTW, can you guess what Begich's "doctorate" is in, and how he came by it?

a reply to: Bedlam

Please correct the information I gave out that was incorrect. Thank You. Dr. Nick Begich imo is not a buffoon , and his lectures are where I got more information than anywhere else. Anyways, Peace.

a reply to: seeknoevil

Please correct the information I gave out that was incorrect. Thank You. Dr. Nick Begich imo is not a buffoon , and his lectures are where I got more information than anywhere else. Anyways, Peace.

Here you may or may not want to check this out about Mr. Begich...who btw is well known around these parts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.metabunk.org...

Not a good source when it comes to HAARP.

a reply to: seeknoevil

. Thank You. Dr. Nick Begich imo is not a buffoon ,

And he's not a doctor either.

a reply to: Bedlam

Not by directly 'zapping' an incoming projectile, but by energizing the ionosphere itself to scramble the guidance package of the weapon. I'm not convinced that it could, but that's one of the less-radical ideas I've seen put forth as to a covert use for it.

originally posted by: seeknoevil
a reply to: Bedlam

Please correct the information I gave out that was incorrect.

Well, to start with, his "doctorate" was purchased for $400, and it's in homeopathy.

That ought to give you pause, right there.

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: Bedlam

Not by directly 'zapping' an incoming projectile, but by energizing the ionosphere itself to scramble the guidance package of the weapon. I'm not convinced that it could, but that's one of the less-radical ideas I've seen put forth as to a covert use for it.

Well, it can only energize it with the energy you've got on hand. Now, you can tap into the electrojet, sometimes, but it's a big unwieldy weapon, not always available, slow to respond and not really useful for doing much to a guidance package, either.

There are, however, a lot of really interesting things you can do that lend themselves to investigation with the array, which is part of why the USAF and Navy and others were interested in the research.

But most of them are in C3I interdiction, or assurance.

originally posted by: seeknoevil
...and his lectures are where I got more information than anywhere else.

Well, you got more SOMETHING from them, but I'm not sure I'd call it information.

If you've ever read his screed, where he's not quoting himself, he's quoting 'experts' from the local head shop, his TV repairman and a fake psychiatrist that got his butt sued off for claiming he had an MD.

Oh, he also liked citing a person whose big publication was "Power Systems in Atlantis".

I also liked the part where he quoted every Arco or APTI patent as being a "HAARP patent", and you see that list floating around ATS from time to time, it never gets old.

HAARP is more like gunpowder than a gun.

The weaponizing of gunpowder advanced over centuries. Physicists are still improving firearms.

HAARP was an opportunity to

1) learn the ropes of interference between adjacent and synchronized broadcasted power signals. The transmitters were normal omnidirectional antennas.

2) study and chart various atmospheric phenomena. Including the mass and usefulness of the ionosphere.

3) study and chart various frequency specific phenomena. Microwaves heat water without heating most containers directly. Other frequencies probably have various effects.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
HAARP is more like gunpowder than a gun.

The weaponizing of gunpowder advanced over centuries. Physicists are still improving firearms.

HAARP was an opportunity to

1) learn the ropes of interference between adjacent and synchronized broadcasted power signals. The transmitters were normal omnidirectional antennas.

HAARP didn't use omnidirectional antennas. But phased arrays are pretty well understood. That part wasn't experimental at all. Straightforward engineering.

2) study and chart various atmospheric phenomena. Including the mass and usefulness of the ionosphere.

The "mass" of the ionosphere was never a thing that was investigated, as far as I'm aware. The dynamics of it were.

3) study and chart various frequency specific phenomena. Microwaves heat water without heating most containers directly. Other frequencies probably have various effects.

Again, not particularly. Microwaves heat water because of dielectric heating. It's not particularly frequency specific - if you want to optimally spin water molecules, 95GHz or so is a lot more efficient. But 2.45GHz was high enough to work well and was in an unused band and easy to design for. 95GHz is not.

a reply to: Bedlam

As far as the C3I interdiction/assurance, how so?