Painting the sky..(pics)

Originally posted by billybob but edited by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Stuart Alsop
Clearly, you cannot measure relative humidity when the temperature is below freezing! It is impossible to do so, since the water vapor present in freezing air does NOT condense as water, but rather as ice crystals, and the physics of that are very different. Therefore, in temperatures below freezing, you cannot talk about relative humidity, but rather about ice supersaturation, or humidity with respect to ice. That is a VERY different animal. But chemmies never have been able to grasp this concept, so they continue to talk about needing 70% RH in order to form a contrail. Garbage.

i love you. now whenever i see a low altitude jet, say, at a peace protest, on an arid hot summer's day, i can say with absolute confidence, "look, ....chemtrails!"
this is what you call a chemically smoking gun. contrails are ice crystals at high altitude, or only form in very high humidity(as in, not blue sky) at low altitudes.

OK, it is apparent that you fail to grasp at what Stuart is saying here. That is, there is a fundamental difference between the relative humidity above and below freezing. Above freezing, there is a temperature at which a given amount of water at a given air presure will condense. Below freezing, this point is called the frost point.

And FWIW, you can measure the amount of moisture present in the air at temperatures below freezing, That is the Relative humidity with respect to ice.

Humidity and temperature measurements in the atmosphere are often conducted using a radiosonde

The sondes made by Vaisala use a thin film capacitor, heated twin-sensor called the H- HUMICAP�. These have a standard operating range to �40 C and can be made to measure in temperatures as low as �60 C.

There is one thing, however, if these units are not carefully stored, handled and calibrated, they can exhibit a dry bias at higher humidity levels.


But, lets go into the whole concept of relative humidity one more time.

(link)The relative humidity is a useful measure of some aspects of water vapor. The flaw is not in the concept, but in the way some incompetent authors present it to their readers as a percentage of the air�s holding capacity. The relative humidity is the vapor pressure divided by the equilibrium vapor pressure (times 100%). The equilibrium vapor pressure occurs when there is an equal (thus the word equilibrium) flow of water molecules arriving and leaving the condensed phase (the liquid or ice). Thus there is no net condensation or evaporation. If the vapor pressure is greater than the equilibrium value, there is a net condensation. And that is not because the air cannot hold the water, but merely because there is a greater flow into the condensed phase than out of it.

and

What appears to be cloud-free air (virtually) always contains sub microscopic drops, but as evaporation exceeds condensation, the drops do not survive long after an initial chance clumping of molecules. As air is cooled, the evaporation rate decreases more rapidly than does the condensation rate with the result that there comes a temperature (the dew point temperature) where the evaporation is less than the condensation and a droplet can grow into a cloud drop.

Evaporation increases with temperature, not because the holding capacity of the air changes, but because the more energetic molecules can evaporate more readily (with, of course, the caveat that evaporation is also influenced by things other than temperature, as described above).

What is key here, and what Stuart is trying to say is that there exists a condition known as super saturation. This is a case when the relative humidity is actually above 100% often as high as 150%. How can this be? Doesn�t the water vapor have to condense when the vapor pressure is greater than the equilibrium value? The answer is yes and no. Under strict thermodynamic principles, yes the water should condense out, however, at high altitudes there are two things that can hinder this process. The first is that high altitude air has a low pressure, there is more space between the individual water molecules, so that it is harder for them to "get together" and condense to form an ice crystal). Furthermore, because of the low pressure, the air at high altitudes is actually very very clean. Thus there are fewer particles to provide the nucleus needed for the formation of ice crystals.

Super saturation is fairly common, but it is also thermodynamically unstable. Therefore when you fly through an area of super saturation, the added water from the jet exhaust, the mixing of the air caused by the wing tip vortices and the small amount of particulate (soot) matter, and voila, instant cloud (contrail). Furthermore, as the ice crystals grow and tumble about in the vortex, they can break, and grow, break and grow into graupels. This can trigger the rest of the super saturated region to condense out as ice, thus "instant (almost) cloud cover.






[Edited on 17-12-2003 by HowardRoark]

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by HowardRoark]

double post,

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by THENEO
Oh my grasp of the scientific method is good,

but you truly mean the masonic method don't you?

and why would Francis Bacon and others carve out a method but to inhibit true science and discovery so that the secrets could remain in the hands of the secret societies themselves.

they have conditioned you very well.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


Willful ignorance at its finest.

Originally posted by dexxy
Do purpose built sprayers exist for the purpose of saturating the atmosphere with metallic particles to assist HAARP with weather modification experimentation?

These metal particles (aluminum/barium mix?) are supposed to allow the atmosphere to heat up faster when the ELF waves from HAARP target the saturated area.

I don't have enough reliable info to be even able to form a coherent sentence on this one. Any thoughts on this?


[Edited on 17-12-2003 by dexxy]

I bet you can guess what my thoughts are!

Lets look at your idea this way.

1. We know the HAARP arrays emits electromagnetic (radio) energy. Electromagnetic energy dissipates according to the inverse square law. The farther away from the source of the energy you get, the weaker the signal gets.
   
   
2. You are assuming that the EM energy emitted by HAARP will be absorbed by the aluminum "particles" and converted into heat. How is this done? Is the EM energy being absorbed as vibrational or as rotational energy?
   
   
3. How efficiently do the particles absorb the energy, surely not at 100%?
   
   
4. How much energy would be required to raise the temperature of the "particles" 1 degree C ? If we use water as an example, lets heat up a cubic meter of water 1 degree C in I hour. Can you calculate the energy in watts that this would require?
   
   
5. lets say we had a band of water vapor, 100 meters wide by 100 meters deep, 100 kilometers long. Just for the sake of disscussion, lets say that the water in that band would condense volume of 1 liter per meter. How much water would be in that band.
   
   
6. How many watts would be required to heat up this amount of water 1 degree in 1 hour? (assuming no phase change).
   
   
7. assuming that you wanted to heat up the moisture in a cloud bank that covers your county. Lets say that the clouds contain the equivalent of 1 inch of rain. How much water is there? How many terrawatts would be required to heat that amount of water 1 degree in one hour? How many to heat it 3 degrees in an hour?
   
   
8. how does this compare to the total energy output of U.S. power plants in 2000?
   
   
9. If the temperature in that cloud bank was one degree below the dewpoint, and we were to heat it up to one degree above the dewpoint (three degrees total) so that all of the moisture in the clouds were to evaporate back to vapor, would that be the same amount of energy as we calculated in the above question?
   
   
10. What would happen when the warmed air rises and cools off again, only this time at a lower atmospheric pressure?
    
    
    
    As you can see, I have a lot of problems with your theory. The biggest is that a practical application of what you are suggesting would take more energy than we currently are able to generate.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by THENEO
Oh my grasp of the scientific method is good,

but you truly mean the masonic method don't you?

and why would Francis Bacon and others carve out a method but to inhibit true science and discovery so that the secrets could remain in the hands of the secret societies themselves.

they have conditioned you very well.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


Willful ignorance at its finest.

Talk about yourself.
You have no desire whatsoever to research anything so why do you come here?

I keep asking that question and you keep ignoring it.

Masonic influence through hundreds of years has shaped the minds of people like you. You have become their agent unwittingly and you will soon face the great discordance of awarness of what you are.

Some thread youve got going here Bangin, I hear all this scientific, not so scientific data and yet still nothing concrete one way or another as to whether or not there is anything to chemtrails, of course we know there is, just not anything concrete and I really dont think anyone here has PROVEN anything concrete one way or another. So does anyone have any PROOF or just maybe this or maybe that?

Originally posted by tracer
Some thread youve got going here Bangin, I hear all this scientific, not so scientific data and yet still nothing concrete one way or another as to whether or not there is anything to chemtrails, of course we know there is, just not anything concrete and I really dont think anyone here has PROVEN anything concrete one way or another. So does anyone have any PROOF or just maybe this or maybe that?

It is up to those that make the claim for chemtrails to provide the proof. I can not prove a negative.

The only proof offered in support of chemtrails is "they don't look right." in spite of the fact that there is ample historic evidence of persistent contrails formation back to the dawn of the aviation age. (World War I at least)


On the other hand, I, and many, many others have provided sound, proven scientific explanations for the observed phenomena.

You are right about one thing. So far, there has never been any physical evidence such as a laboratory analysis, or a close up photo of the spray apparatus offered for proof. Not one of the thousands and thousands of people that such an operation would require has had an attack of conscience and decided to stop spraying his family and friends.

No one, Nothing, Nada, Nix



When cornered with facts, the proponents of the theory resort to ad hominum arguments and accusing people of being "disinfo agents" or "spooks."

Originally posted by THENEO

Talk about yourself.
You have no desire whatsoever to research anything so why do you come here?

I keep asking that question and you keep ignoring it.

Masonic influence through hundreds of years has shaped the minds of people like you. You have become their agent unwittingly and you will soon face the great discordance of awarness of what you are.

I answered your question a number of times. You and your theory represents a personification of willful ignorance. People like you are throwbacks to the dark ages of scientific illiteracy.

If I can get just one person to say "gee, I saw those, but now that I understand the scientific principles involved, I know that they are just harmless contrails."

You know what? It is working. The chemtrails hoax is but a faint shadow of what it used to be. There are far, far more former chemmies than current chemmies.

Sorry Howie,

but I live in a city with a large international airport and I have seen planes fly over for 25 years. Contrails are a recent within 5 years happening and then only as a result of certain activity in the sky by certain types of planes.

You are boring me, I saw what I saw. I also saw two UFO's in my life. I frankly do not care what you think.

This thread is a waste of time and you have won by default. I hope the poison gets you first, no it already has by the looks of it.

Originally posted by tracer
Some thread youve got going here Bangin, I hear all this scientific, not so scientific data and yet still nothing concrete one way or another as to whether or not there is anything to chemtrails, of course we know there is, just not anything concrete and I really dont think anyone here has PROVEN anything concrete one way or another. So does anyone have any PROOF or just maybe this or maybe that?

Perhaps time will tell. I'm not convinced that these trails are as harmless as contrails. I do think it's foolish to dismiss the possibility. Ah, the beauty of opinions.

Originally posted by THENEO
Sorry Howie,

but I live in a city with a large international airport and I have seen planes fly over for 25 years. Contrails are a recent within 5 years happening and then only as a result of certain activity in the sky by certain types of planes.

You are boring me, I saw what I saw. I also saw two UFO's in my life. I frankly do not care what you think.

This thread is a waste of time and you have won by default. I hope the poison gets you first, no it already has by the looks of it.

Ok, you want to quit the debate, that 's fine with me.

The only reason that the thread became boring is because you were unable to come up with any arguments to counter the scientific explanations that were presented.

HR, AR, SA, I'd like to commend you guys for your efforts, it's sad that it seems to fall on some deaf ears. I hope you guys continue to put out the scientific info. I've been finding it very educational.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by THENEO

You are boring me, I saw what I saw. I also saw two UFO's in my life. I frankly do not care what you think.

This thread is a waste of time and you have won by default. I hope the poison gets you first, no it already has by the looks of it.

Ok, you want to quit the debate, that 's fine with me.

The only reason that the thread became boring is because you were unable to come up with any arguments to counter the scientific explanations that were presented.

NO that is not why actually. You have not DISPROVED anything that anyone has said in regards Chemtrails either and as such this is a he says, they say kind of debate which is a waste of time.

Originally posted by THENEO


NO that is not why actually. You have not DISPROVED anything that anyone has said in regards Chemtrails either and as such this is a he says, they say kind of debate which is a waste of time.

You really don't get it do you. I will repeat this one more time for you.

You can not prove a negative.

IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROVIDE PROOF OF THE EXISTANCE OF CHEMTRAILS.

All you have provided is conjecture, not facts. I, and the others on this board who do not beleive in chemtrails have provided you with facts and science.

If you choose to thumb your nose at science then go ahead. I have no respect for anyone who remains willfully ignorant.

This stuff is not that hard to understand. I realize that for you to accept the fact that chemtrails do not exist means that you will have to admit that you have wasted a lot of time falling for a hoax. So be it. Cut your losses now.

I don't care what your political and social philosophy is. I don't care if you hate Bush or if you think that Dick Cheney is sexy. I don't care if you like to be a contrarian. There are no such things a chemtrails.

You have been provided with facts about the weather, the atmosphere, physics, etc. What have you provided to support chemtrails? conjecture and a total misunderstanding of science.

You don't want to continue the debate because you can't. you know that science will beat you every time.

You know that common sense will dictate that the vast fleet of planes that would be required to support the chemtrail theory can't possibly exist.

You know that deep in your heart, you believe in the inate goodness of your fellow man. You know that any operation with questionable morality that involved thousands and thousands of people would not remain secret for long. Deep down you know this. This is why you hate debunkers so much. We force you to face the truth.

have a nice night.

Howard: It is up to those that make the claim for chemtrails to provide the proof. I can not prove a negative.

Me: thank you, for this howard. like i said, i respect both you and stuart. believe it or not, i consider myself an objectivist, ....to a point. i also trust my eyes and mind. science isn't god. there is always a flaw, a new theory, a fudged result to cover up anonymolous results, etc.

Howard: OK, it is apparent that you fail to grasp at what Stuart is saying here. (regarding superstauration)

Me: no, actually. i have known about supersaturation for years. it's just that i don't think the air is freezing a thousand feet up on a hot summer's day. if i see a jet flying at low altitude on a hot summers's day, with huge billowing white 'contrails' coming out of it(which i have seen, BTW), and the relative humidity is low, i will know that this is not just water condensation if the contrail persists in this enviroment. then it would most certainly be suspicious. no? supersaturation should only happen below freezing, right? therefore, if a contrail from a low flying jet spreads out and becomes wispy like stretched out cotton batting then turns into cloud cover on a warm dry day, then it is not a contrail, right? or am i still missing something? say the tempature at sea level is 70 degrees Farenheit. how high up would you need to go typically, before the air temp is freezing?

Howard: The only proof offered in support of chemtrails is "they don't look right."

Me: all discoveries begin with observation. first you observe, and then you study using a described method. here's my method: everything is connected. a jet is not an singular isolated phenomena. it has a psychohistory(haha). it has a purpose. it has a budget. it has physical needs and limits. it has intake and output. kid's like to point at it. it pollutes. it heats the (immediate)atmosphere. it takes you on a vacation. it is commonplace. it has been a part of my culture and reality since i was born. there are thousands in the skies everyday. it can be used for good or evil. some love them, some are scared of them. only powerful people own them.
so, why would i NOT try to understand why all of a sudden one day i look up and the contrail looks different than i remember? why would i not think it strange if one day i noticed there were more trails than usual in the sky on some days, exhibiting these seemingly different exhausts, and these seemingly thicker, richer contrails were seemingly being laid down in grid patterns?
if then, i began an investigation via the web, and scored thousands of hits refering to 'chemtrails', and found that hundreds of other people noticed the same thing, why would i not think ....WOAH!
if i found that some had contributed huge personal resources to investigate these things, and had come up with results pointing to a nefarious hidden agenda, would i not think that the agenda was as relevant to the investigation as the science behind the observed phenomena?
if the observed phenomena also correlated logically with other projects(ie. weather control, NWO), why would it not make me more convinced that something was amiss?
if i then saw it in a house bill, would i not be completely convinced by now?
if i heard testimony from a general, not denying the existance of them, but rather saying they were for "aerial obscruration", would not another alarm sound in my mind? (it did)
and now, new info regarding NASA and the published results of cloudforming over the ocean and projects aimed at studying contrails for use in weather mod, should i not be saying by now, IT'S A FACT? something is different up there.

owning the weather 2025.
the patent for weather modification involving the spraying of aluminum from jets.
the bill.
the general.
the senator.
NASA doing experiments with contrails.

and mostly, ...the sky.


it's winter, i live in a big city, i look up at the sky everday.
i haven't seen much 'spraying' lately, but according to our science lesson here, we should actually see MORE contrails, and contrails turning into clouds than we did in the warm blue sky summertime. no?
days with similiar weather whould show similiar patterns of contrails in the sky, no?

this isn't just science. it's potentially science mixed with warfare propaganda and political agendas, and potential cointel pro style disinfo(ad hominem being the first and most obvious, i may just go back and count how many times i have been called an unscientific, stupid, ignorant, etc. just for fun .
it's a brave new world, and i will not bow down to orwellian tactics of doublethink newspeak spells.
even if in the end chemtrails ARE just contrails, my reasoning was sound and there is no reason for me to have been denegrated and ridiculed.
like i said before, though. i love you all, and this has been fun and educational.

Originally posted by StuartAllsop
But you still haven't told us how you can determine the altitude of a plane. How do you do that?

plane big. plane close. i don't lie. stalemate on that. i'm not out to prove anything, so i haven't snapped a single picture. eyes and mind.

this is what you call a chemically smoking gun. contrails are ice crystals at high altitude, or only form in very high humidity(as in, not blue sky) at low altitudes. Huh? Why would the sky not be blue when the humidity is high? I didn't follow that reasoning at all! You can only see water vapor if the humidity is AT 100%. At lower humidity, it is invisible, even at 99% RH. So why would the sky not be blue?

pollution clings to humidity in big cities. high humidity equals low visibility. it's called 'smog'.

BINGO!!! I knoe it wouldn't be long. Rather than continue to debate the ISSUE, as soon as a chemmie troll starts losing the battle, they resort to the only weapon left in theri arsenal: ad hominem. Attack the poster, instead of the post. But in this case, you are not even attacking the poster! You are attacking someone who is related to a person who once ownede the company that you claim the poster works for. How on earth did you hope to prove that chemtrails exist, by following that path? What possible connection could there be between the lover of the ex owner of the company where you work, and "chemtrails"?

i thought you were into conspiracy theory. i bet even a timid lurker could answer that one. should i bring perle, buffet, black, and the whole consortium into this debate? basically. people choose their avatars based on their beliefs and values. people's connections and convictions are highly relevant in this topic. anyway, i'm just a ignorant 400 pound unscientific chemmie troll(go back and check whats been hurled at me before you shout bingo. the character howard roark was an admirable one, truth be known, so i don't see how it's an attack. just a statement of fact). here i though i was just a nice guy trying to let truth see the light of day.

where does the name "stuart allsop" come from?

As far as I know, it comes form the town of Derby, in the county of Derbyshire, in England. I haven't traced it back much further than that, but I believe my cousin actually put together an extensive family tree, and traced our roots back to medieval Scotland, before losing the track. If you happen to find something more in your research of my ancestors, please let me know. It would be interesting... (Oh, and if it helps, I believe there was once an escaped convict in the penal colony in Sydney, Australia, with the name "Allsop". Can't tell you much more than that, though.)

So now you can go ahead and tell us about your family tree. Any time you are ready....

(And then you can show us the connection between our family trees, and the non-existance of "chemtrails").


well, now i can check and see if you're potentially in the masonic sphere. i don't give out personal information. i'm paranoid. weird that your not, for a conspiracy theorist. aren't you scared of 'them'? the connection of course is the potential for a motive to misinform.

Howard,

Thanks for your physics 101 tutorial. Now lets have a look at some relevant info:

HAARP Features:

On the ground beneath the antenna array are 30 transmitter shelters. Each shelter houses 12 diesel-powered transmitters which can be switched to drive either the low-band or high-band dipoles. Each transmitter is capable of generating 10,000 Watts of RF power. Collectively as a system they can send 3.6 million Watts of raw RF output to the antennas. The transmitters can be adjusted in amplitude and phase to focus the RF signal into a narrow upward beam with about 30 decibels of gain. This produces an effective radiated power of about 3.6 billion Watts.

--> 3.6 billion Watts, and thats before the power upgrade!

Ionospheric heaters around the world have been probing the ionosphere since the 1950's. But HAARP is different because it has the capability of steering its RF beam, operating on more frequencies, and using a greater array of scientific instruments to measure the results of its experiments.

The beam can be steered or aimed at specific regions of the ionosphere - the layered portion of the atmosphere that stretches from about 35 to 500 miles above the Earth. The ionosphere is created by solar winds striking the Earth's outer atmosphere. The ionosphere is in a constant state of change, dependent on solar activity. When conditions are right, the layers of the ionosphere can reflect (or propagate) radio signals back to Earth, making possible world-wide radio communications. The layers also absorb some of the signals. How deeply a signal can penetrate into the ionosphere depends on a number of factors, including frequency of the signal. In other words, different layers of the ionosphere can be excited by varying the frequency of the radio signal.

An RF beam is essentially electromagnetic energy. When an RF beam strikes the ionosphere, some of the signal is reflected back to Earth, some penetrates the ionosphere and is lost is space, and the rest is absorbed. The energy in the beam that is absorbed changes to heat in the gaseous molecules of the ionosphere. In this sense, a strong radio signal can be an ionospheric heater. The more powerful the signal, the greater the heating effect. Scientists theorize that targeted portions of the ionosphere can be raised in altitude be increasing the temperature of the ionic molecules.

Some HAARP Math:

Daytime radio signals are not reflected from the radio-mirror of the smooth ionospheric F-Layer which only appears at night. During the daytime the radiation of the sunlight disrupts the F-layer and the radio signals can only be broadcast by conduction along the surface of the earth. For daytime surface conduction, the smooth salty ocean is a much better conductor than the rough mountains and valleys and variety of soils over the continents. Even though Hawaii is twice as far from the HAARP transmitter compared to receivers in the northwestern states, Hawaiian listeners would receive comparably strong signals.

Using only daytime surface conduction of the radio waves, the signal strength is reduced as the square of the distance from the transmitter. Thus the numerous signal observations are completely consistent with the HAARP transmitter as the source of the mysterious 3.39 MHz signal.

Can the actual increased output power of the HAARP transmitter be measured? It turns out the answer is yes. Modern communication receivers all have a signal strength or S meter, but this only indicates relative signal strength. Also the S meter reading is affected by the angle of the receiver antenna along with the settings of the receiver �front end� so in general, the S meter cannot be used to measure the absolute output power of a distant transmitter. But there is a technique which can be used to accurately measure distant transmitter power using only the S meter.

By aiming the antenna at the distant source, in this case the HAARP transmitter, the S meter reading is noted. Then without moving the antenna or any �front end� settings, a local commercial radio station with a known distance and power output, is found which has the same S meter reading. Then using the 1 over R squared relationship of the signal loss with distance, the absolute power of the distant transmitter can be accurately measured.

I performed this measurement numerous times during the 3 and a half days, about 84 hours, HAARP was running at the increased power levels. I found a local San Francisco broadcast station which was almost exactly in the same direction as HAARP. The signal from the broadcaster shown on the S meter was exactly the same as the powerful peak of the half second heating pulse at the start of the 6.5 second HAARP pulse. The distance to the station was 36 miles NNW of my location. The station�s licensed effective daytime radiated power is 5,000 watts. The distance to HAARP is 2,100 miles from my location and also in a NNW direction.

The ratio of the two distances is 58.3, which when squared produces 3,403 and when multiplied by the 5,000 watts of the local transmitter gives a power of 17 Megawatts coming from Alaska. But, only about 10 percent of the HAARP power leaks off the side of the beam and is conducted along the ground. About 90 percent of the HAARP power is aimed upward toward the ionosphere. Thus the received ground conduction power should be multiplied by 10. Using this technique the total effective output power from HAARP is now approximately 170 MW. Is this consistent with the published power output?

The HAARP transmitter facility was designed to be built in a modular fashion with additional transmitters and their associated beam antennas simply being added on in rows and columns in a large array of antennas to increase the total output power in various stages. Since about 1999 HAARP has been operating in the FDP mode using an array of 48 antennas with an effective power output of about 21.5 MW.

The next stage of development is to be an array in the LIRI mode with 110 antennas and an effective power output of 169 MW. The final stage of construction is the FIRI mode with an array of 180 antennas and a total power output of 462 MW. The dates of the new construction and the power increases have not been announced.

Based on my measurement of the power increase after Saturday Feb 17, 2001, as a total effective radiated power of 170 MW, this is completely consistent with the next level of HAARP construction in the LIRI mode with a design output power of 169 MW.

The new output power is nearly 8 times the old power output in the old FDP mode. This accounts for the greatly increased signal reception throughout the world even during the daytime. And after the construction is completed for the final FIRI mode with the power rising to 462 MW, the signal will probably be easily heard on such �receivers� as left lower fillings.

HAARP is just one of many similar worldwide facilities:

1. HISCAT (International Radio Observatory, Sweden) (350 MW)
2. HAARP Gakona Alaska (110 MW)
3. EISCAT (Troms�, Norway) (48 MW)
4. VOA (Voice of America - Delano, CA) (27 MW)
5. SURA (Radiophysical Research Institute, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia) (20 MW)
6. Arecibo (National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, Puerto Rico) (20 MW)
7. HIPAS High Power Auroral Stimulation Observatory (UCLA Plasma Physics Lab - Fairbanks Alaska) (17 MW)

In the grand scheme of things HAARP is a relatively small element of a worldwide effort to probe and study the Earth's outer atmosphere. There are a number of facilities similar to HAARP operating unnoticed around the world. According to a U. S. government report, at least one of these facilities, operated by the International Radio Observatory in Sweden, is many times more powerful than HAARP will be when in full operation in the year 2002. The Swedish facility, according to the report, transmits 10 megawatts with an antenna gain of almost 35 decibels. This would produce an ERP of nearly 32 billion watts. This facility reportedly has been operating with little attention in the press. Such high RF power levels stagger man's imagination.

THe EASTLUND Patent

It would seem the primary shortwave transmitter instrument at HAARP, called the IRI (Ionospheric Research Instrument), has been built essentially according to the 1991 US Patent 5,038,664 submitted by Dr. Bernard Eastlund. The patent has the esoteric name " Method For Producing A Shell Of Relativistic Particles At An Altitude Above The Earth's Surface ."

Put simply, the patent describes a method using a radio beam aimed at the ionosphere where shortwave pulses from 1 to 3.6 MHZ are applied to "heat" the electrons in the ionosphere. Then the antenna is turned so as to align with the magnetic field lines in the magnetosphere, and ELF waves (in the audio range) are applied which then drive the hot electrons upward into the magnetic bottle of the magnetosphere where they remain trapped. The purpose is to enhance the number and density of hot electrons in the magnetosphere so it will become more radio reflective. Some of the beneficial reasons for making the magnetosphere into a radio reflector are listed in the patent. Of course, none of the military uses for a radio/radar mirror out at several earth diameters above the surface are listed.

The main advantage of the unique placement of HAARP in Gakona, Alaska is by placing the transmitter directly below the auroral electrojet where the magnetosphere intersects the ionosphere, the magnetic field lines there are nearly vertical. Then both operations described in the patent can be performed simultaneously and without moving the antenna. Thus the shortwave pulses heat the ionospheric electrons and the powerful ULF/ELF component of the pulses shoots the electrons up into the magnetosphere at the same time. There are several other ionospheric heaters like HAARP in operation around the world. But facilities such as Arecibo in Puerto Rico and VOA Delano in California are too far away from the auroral electrojet to accomplish both these functions.

Thus one of the primary research activities at HAARP is creating the enhanced reflectivity magnetosphere and then bouncing radio signals off the mirror to determine how well the mirror is working. This depends on how many hot electrons are injected into the magnetic bottle of the magnetosphere. To get the most electrons injected, you need to have just the right ULF/ELF signal.

www.brojon.com...

--> this post is getting way too long, so I'll cut here for now

Originally posted by THENEO
Sorry Howie,

but I live in a city with a large international airport and I have seen planes fly over for 25 years. Contrails are a recent within 5 years happening and then only as a result of certain activity in the sky by certain types of planes.

You are boring me, I saw what I saw. I also saw two UFO's in my life. I frankly do not care what you think.

This thread is a waste of time and you have won by default. I hope the poison gets you first, no it already has by the looks of it.

If you would stop making such asinine comments as, "...I have seen planes fly over for 25 years. Contrails are a recent within 5 years happening and then only as a result of certain activity in the sky by certain types of planes.", maybe you could get a point across. But when you make such ridiculous claims as this, your credibility is shot to hell and back again. Contrails only existing since 1998? I guess the photograph of the WWII bombers earlier in the thread weren't laying down aerodynamic contrails, eh?

Originally posted by jra
HR, AR, SA, I'd like to commend you guys for your efforts, it's sad that it seems to fall on some deaf ears. I hope you guys continue to put out the scientific info. I've been finding it very educational.

Thank you, jra...that one comment makes it all worth it. Just remember, you can lead a horse to water....but a conspiracy theorist will find an elephant in a peanut shell with GWB paying UBL to blow up the twin towers so his NWO can take over the world and allow the Bilderbergers to continue their pagan rituals with Henry Kissenger and Colin Powell....and so on, and so on, and so on....

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Originally posted by jra
HR, AR, SA, I'd like to commend you guys for your efforts, it's sad that it seems to fall on some deaf ears. I hope you guys continue to put out the scientific info. I've been finding it very educational.

Thank you, jra...that one comment makes it all worth it. Just remember, you can lead a horse to water....but a conspiracy theorist will find an elephant in a peanut shell with GWB paying UBL to blow up the twin towers so his NWO can take over the world and allow the Bilderbergers to continue their pagan rituals with Henry Kissenger and Colin Powell....and so on, and so on, and so on....

Well, what are conspiracies but good questions with little supporting evidence. Sure there are different levels of suspiscon and conviction, I appreciate logic, I don't appreciate being bullied because of someone elses convictions. Unlike the Scientific Method, the world is not black and white. Governments are not necessarily concerned about our health and welfare.

Many things are rotten out there, for my own sake, and that of the people around me, I'd like to know about them. If this means sometimes going against 'Scientific Method, then so be it. Obfuscation to control bias and opinion is an interesting study.

HR, AR, SA, I wouldn't go so far as to commend you yet, but its been alot of fun so far.