HAARP and Technical Memorandum 195

Hello all.

Am I the only person interested in HAARP Technical Memorandum 195?

For those of you who do not know what I am talking about, please take a few minutes to watch these 2 videos.

The Memorandum is discussed heavily in part 2.





I have spent about a year searching and digging for this document, unfortunately with no success.

I have contacted several people, including Dr. Nick Begeich, and Eric Nashlund.

The only response I got from anyone was to search Wikileaks, because "they probably have a copy by now."
Quite similar to this email.
I did search Wikileaks, and was quite surprised to find an odd lack of documents involving HAARP.

Any information would be greatly appreciated, as it seems this document has gone fairly unnoticed.

Or am I missing something?

Thanks, and Cheers,
Rico

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by boncho
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LOL, the funny thing, is that the dude (OP) actually posted on that same topic and now is reposting the exact same thing.. Wow. Learn the forum rules, pease Mr. OP Rico.

Here's a tip OP, don't waste your time chasing ghosts made up by someone who has a honorary degree in homeopathy from Sri Lanka...

Linky

reply to post by weavty1


I didn't want to necro that thread again. sorry.
And plus, that thread was discussing something different.

I'd actually be quite surprised if wikileaks DID have anything much on HAARP, they seem to be mostly getting diplomatic correspondence. I haven't seen much of anything technical in nature out there.

Is there a 25 word description of what memorandum 195 is supposed to be? I really hate threads where you have to either read 500 pages of drivel or watch 30 minutes of youtube links. Not to mention I can't get to youtube here, yay firewall.

edit to add: if you're looking for anything technically correct from Begich, you're wasting your time. His HAARP drivel is among the most egregious examples of pseudo-science, intentional misdirection, and self-aggrandization I've seen. It's rare you see someone quoting the screed you're reading as substantiation for itself.