It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Defining propaganda has always been a problem. The main difficulties have involved differentiating propaganda from other types of persuasion, and avoiding an "if they do it then that's propaganda, while if we do it then that's information and education" biased approach. Garth Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell have provided a concise, workable definition of the term: "Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."[4] More comprehensive is the description by Richard Alan Nelson: "Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion."[5]
U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen publicly discussed the dangers of HAARP-like technology, saying "others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves... So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations... It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts."
This quote derives from an April 1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn, quoted from "DoD News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy," held at the University of Georgia-Athens, Apr. 28, 1997.
[Chadwickus]
'...magnetometer readings from the days prior, when no earthquakes occurred, lead us to the conclusion that HAARP is incapable of causing an earthquake...'
[paraphrased]
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
This is no feat of imagination, it is a logical application of the available technology.
All points being taken into account, one can surmise that secrecy would be paramount, and that purposeful disinformation would be spread, if such potentially controversial activities were taking place under the cover of regular HAARP research programs.
U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen publicly discussed the dangers of HAARP-like technology, saying "others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves... So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations... It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts."
This quote derives from an April 1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn, quoted from "DoD News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy," held at the University of Georgia-Athens, Apr. 28, 1997.
a) HAARP is developed in accordance with an underlying appreciation/ knowledge of particle physics, and the ways in which such constitute our biosphere (to include all meteorological and geological phenomena). The science started off innocently enough with simple 'beam and observe' experimentation, but without a shadow of a doubt could (and probably has begun to) develop into the ultimate tool of mass-interference with the biosphere - specifically as an 'EM mega-weapon', or EM-WMD, suitable for a number of highly distinct purposes.
b) HAARP can be focused on a specific or general region of either the ionosphere, or (by reflection) onto a specific/general surface region of the Earth itself. This can be either within or over the horizon boundary (a direct line of sight to the target region is not necessarily required). Over the horizon radar applications, including communications with deep sea submarine vessels, have been cited as one of the reasons for the development of the technology. The militarization of components of the project is quite apparent to anyone that chooses to look.
c) EM radiation is emitted by HAARPs antenna array, and can be used to literally heat the targeted regions (for example, heating the ionosphere in order to affect the velocity or trajectory of the jetstream / to alter the path of a hurricane etc). It could also be used to propagate radiation through particles in a substrate (any and all parts of the biosphere), resulting in simple energetic transfer affecting the stability of the particle arrangement. Dramatic effects could be achieved by means of harmonically resonant pulsing (particularly when 'tuned' to the target medium's resonant frequency), which could change the distribution of stored energy (strain/ stresses being released by resonance) in the substance of the macro-environment.
This is no feat of imagination, it is a logical application of the available technology.
Oh and by the way - I find it interesting that you tend never to address issues or contentions raised against you in response to things you've posted. It seems that generally, you'd rather find something you can use to distort the meaning and intention of what was raised; if possible, you seek to misrepresent the objecting party as someone not worthy of trust / not credible / ignorant.
You will reply civilly, or post in support of those who agree with you, or who post in support of the mainstream view of... anything.
Crystal clear - a dead giveaway.
Any chance you might get round to answering my criticism of your argument? Which, in case you thought I'd forgotten, was...
[Chadwickus]
'...magnetometer readings from the days prior, when no earthquakes occurred, lead us to the conclusion that HAARP is incapable of causing an earthquake...'
[paraphrased]
I still think that argument is logically fallacious - quite literally 'nonsense'. HAARP can be AIMED and FOCUSED. Precisely the same as the way in which a gun can be fired in safety on the shooting range, or with lethal intent on the front line of a live conflict.
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Oh and by the way - I find it interesting that you tend never to address issues or contentions raised against you in response to things you've posted. It seems that generally, you'd rather find something you can use to distort the meaning and intention of what was raised; if possible, you seek to misrepresent the objecting party as someone not worthy of trust / not credible / ignorant.
You will reply civilly, or post in support of those who agree with you, or who post in support of the mainstream view of... anything.
Crystal clear - a dead giveaway.
Originally posted by spiderbadarse
What you speak of it not harrp, but what harrp is seeing, refer to this post www.abovetopsecret.com... The moon is the real problem, it's getting real close and stuff tomorrow. I have looked directly in to the sun and I found no problems. The moon is real close however, and I can see that.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
I know your type, type lots of nothing to give the appearance of intellect.
So here you are basing a view on HAARP from something you read once, clever, did you go read the sources I linked?
Anyway, let's have a look at your claims...
a) HAARP is developed in accordance with an underlying appreciation/ knowledge of particle physics, and the ways in which such constitute our biosphere (to include all meteorological and geological phenomena). The science started off innocently enough with simple 'beam and observe' experimentation, but without a shadow of a doubt could (and probably has begun to) develop into the ultimate tool of mass-interference with the biosphere - specifically as an 'EM mega-weapon', or EM-WMD, suitable for a number of highly distinct purposes.
An EM mega-weapon?
Well I suppose it's max power is 3.6 megawatts so one could call it a mega-weapon but honestly, 3.6 megawatts is a tiny amount of power, I would love to see how such a small amount of power is meant to propagate and manipulate the weather, then the question begs as to how HAARP can create an earthquake in Japan one day and create and/or steer a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico another day. No one can explain how it's done except for "Just coz".
b) HAARP can be focused on a specific or general region of either the ionosphere, or (by reflection) onto a specific/general surface region of the Earth itself. This can be either within or over the horizon boundary (a direct line of sight to the target region is not necessarily required). Over the horizon radar applications, including communications with deep sea submarine vessels, have been cited as one of the reasons for the development of the technology. The militarization of components of the project is quite apparent to anyone that chooses to look.
HAARP points it's ionosphere heater straight up, the directional components of HAARP which are not to be confused with the heater are radio waves, radio waves have been bounced off the ionosphere for years, short wave radio operators rely on bouncing signals off the ionosphere all the time.
c) EM radiation is emitted by HAARPs antenna array, and can be used to literally heat the targeted regions (for example, heating the ionosphere in order to affect the velocity or trajectory of the jetstream / to alter the path of a hurricane etc). It could also be used to propagate radiation through particles in a substrate (any and all parts of the biosphere), resulting in simple energetic transfer affecting the stability of the particle arrangement. Dramatic effects could be achieved by means of harmonically resonant pulsing (particularly when 'tuned' to the target medium's resonant frequency), which could change the distribution of stored energy (strain/ stresses being released by resonance) in the substance of the macro-environment.
As I stated above, the heater is pointed straight up, the effects on the ionosphere is only seen directly above the facility, the heating compared to what the sun does to the ionosphere every day is negligible.
Also, they can't just point and shoot it as it plays havoc with aircraft and they in fact will alert any air craft flying nearby to stay clear of the area, this is why they have a C band radar, to detect any nearby aircraft.
This is no feat of imagination, it is a logical application of the available technology.
It isn't logical at all, you've read and therefore been spreading misinformation on the subject without knowing it.
This is shown by your out of context quoting of Cohen.
Oh and by the way - I find it interesting that you tend never to address issues or contentions raised against you in response to things you've posted. It seems that generally, you'd rather find something you can use to distort the meaning and intention of what was raised; if possible, you seek to misrepresent the objecting party as someone not worthy of trust / not credible / ignorant.
You will reply civilly, or post in support of those who agree with you, or who post in support of the mainstream view of... anything.
Never? Big claim!
Since when was this thread about me and how I reply to people?
Crystal clear - a dead giveaway.
A dead giveaway to what?
Oh please don't say disinfo, that would be hilarious, especially when it's you who has been spreading dis/misinfo.
Any chance you might get round to answering my criticism of your argument? Which, in case you thought I'd forgotten, was...
[Chadwickus]
'...magnetometer readings from the days prior, when no earthquakes occurred, lead us to the conclusion that HAARP is incapable of causing an earthquake...'
[paraphrased]
I still think that argument is logically fallacious - quite literally 'nonsense'. HAARP can be AIMED and FOCUSED. Precisely the same as the way in which a gun can be fired in safety on the shooting range, or with lethal intent on the front line of a live conflict.
Nonsense?
No, the premise of the OP is nonsense by using the induction magnetometer as proof of HAARP being on full power and making quakes, there was nothing else to back up the OP claims apart these graphs from the magnetometer, so my showing examples of the same graph with similar readings on days when there was no significant earthquakes shows that the OP's argument is in fact a logical fallacy.
It really is that simple.
edit on 16/3/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)