PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

garyb wrote:the russians developed this technology first and it was put into operation july 4th, 1976 when the "woodpecker grid" was first heard over shortwave.

this stuff was pioneered by guys like tesla and given names like scalar and quantum potential...

the military says it can:
Generate extremely low frequency (ELF) waves for communicating with submerged submarines

Conduct geophysical probes to identify and characterize natural ionospheric process so that techniques can be developed to mitigate or control them.

Generate an ionospheric lens to focus large amounts of high frequency energy, thus providing a means of triggering ionospheric processes that potentially could be exploited for Department of Defense purposes.

Electron acceleration for infrared (IR) and other optical emissions which could be used to control radio wave propagation properties.

Generate geomagnetic field aligned ionization to control the reflection/scattering properties of radio waves.

Use oblique heating to produce effects on radio wave propagation, thus broadening the potential military applications of ionospheric enhancement technology.

Links please!

siriusbliss wrote:

BingoTheClowno wrote:What do you think HAARP does?

Supposedly used for 'over the horizon' radar type communications, it actually heats up the ionosphere, and has been considered a triggering mechanism for weather control.

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnRPZOUVhJ4


Greg

HAARP FAQ wrote:
The research to be conducted at HAARP falls into two broad categories:

1. The study of basic natural processes that occur in the ionosphere under the natural but much stronger influence of solar interaction. This includes studying how the natural ionosphere affects radio signals with the goal of developing techniques that may be available for mitigating these effects to improve the reliability and/or the performance of communication and navigation systems.

2. Development of technology to use effects produced through ionospheric interactions. One example of this is learning how to generate new signals in the ELF range for the real application of subsurface communications.



Is HAARP capable of affecting the weather?

The HAARP facility will not affect the weather. Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that will be used by HAARP is not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere - the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth's weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere.
The ionosphere is created and continuously replenished as the sun's radiation interacts with the highest levels of the Earth's atmosphere. The downward coupling from the ionosphere to the stratosphere/troposphere is extremely weak, and no association between natural ionospheric variability and surface weather and climate has been found, even at the extraordinarily high levels of ionospheric turbulence that the sun can produce during a geomagnetic storm. If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don't affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either.

How long do the effects of ionospheric heating last?

Since the ionosphere is, inherently, a turbulent medium that is being both "stirred up" and renewed by the sun, artificially induced effects are quickly obliterated. Depending on the height within the ionosphere where the effect is originally produced, these effects are no longer detectable after times ranging from less than a second to ten minutes.
A good analogy to this process is dropping a stone into a fast moving stream. The ripples caused by the stone are very quickly lost in the rapidly moving water and, a little farther down the stream, are completely undetectable. A University of Alaska, Geophysical Institute scientist has compared HAARP to an "immersion heater in the Yukon River."

if you were part of a department of defense secret project, would you explain EVERYTHING your facility was up to in a faq on the www?

you should read what the scientists whose work HAARP is based on say that it CAN do. no one is really sure just what it IS doing(hundreds of whales suddenly beaching themselves for a year or two...).....

garyb wrote: no one is really sure just what it IS doing(hundreds of whales suddenly beaching themselves for a year or two...).....

Weasel words!

Cochise wrote:Some lightnings, moreover, instead of the usual direction toward the ground, escapes from the planet up to considerable heights, then come back to Earth following the lines of the magnetic field. [...]
http://www.obiettivo.org/dinamica_terremoti/menu18.htm

Jumpseating on one of my roadtrips (I work as aircraft technician, mainly on A300 and B757), I've witnessed such lightening strikes. The flight crew and myself were most amazed, cos we couldn't logically explain where the static electricity would discharge to. We could imagine a differential electrical charge between ground and air, but between air and apparent vacuum of space!? Thanks for posting this link, it elaborates a bit

Another amazing phenomena we experience more often, in proximity of thunderstorms, is static build-up on the windshields (cockpit's front windows), resulting in Saint-Elmo's fire: little fire balls and lightening crawling over the windshields. In fact, like any other sparks, or the sun's corona, it's not fire, but plasma. Saint-Elmo's fire sounds very crisp, like one would imagine from a spark fest...
One time we keeping a little contest, as to who could pull the sparks further away from the window with his pen.

Valueing it on the basis of the concrete results it put in our hands, we usually look enthusiast and trustful at science intended as knowledge, mastery and control of physical phenomenons.
However I think on second thoughts, human knowledge isn't exhaustive at all, sometimes even about the subjects bringing the best results.

Or at least, some things I'm reading now about the lightnings phenomenon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning ) are gonna put in crisis my weak knowledge of the basic physical phenomenon.
Leaving apart that the lightning charge hasn't yet an unanimous explanation.
Electricity is based on electron movements, being electrons negative atomic subparticles. How is it possible to talk about positive discharges moving from the positive charged top of some clouds toward the ground? Which kind of particles are moving in such phenomenon? And what's the 'positive streamer' ?

@ Bingo:

- The sun acts on the upper layers of the ionosphere spreading its effects on large surface

- Relationship between positive lightnings and electrical and electromagnetical phenomenon in the ionosphere has been observed.


of course even relationship between the faults sliding causing earthquakes and the genesis of VLF has been observed.

This ain't means of course they can be 'inverse generated', especially the earthquakes..

BingoTheClowno wrote:

garyb wrote: no one is really sure just what it IS doing(hundreds of whales suddenly beaching themselves for a year or two...).....

Weasel words!

ok, but it takes one to know one.

let me say that in a better way...

SOMEONE knows exactly what's going on, but it's not likely to be any of us here on this forum. we can only guess based on what we are told. as i said, you can read what the designers say it's capable of, which is quite different than what the dept of defense is admitting to...

no, i'm not going to bother with links this time. if you really care, you can do your own research....

rolo wrote:They actually were testing Haarp at one point and officially asked for radio reports from shortwave listeners and Amateur radio operators

Is it often operating fully?

rolo wrote:I am a ham and love all this stuff

QSL !

Electricity is based on electron movements, being electrons negative atomic subparticles. How is it possible to talk about positive discharges moving from the positive charged top of some clouds toward the ground? Which kind of particles are moving in such phenomenon?

You've explained yourself - just need some help on the interpretation
Electrons are negatively charged. negative flow goes with the electrons. that's the same as positive flow in opposite direction. The moving particles are electrons, and the gasses ionised by the high electron pressure transmit light.
During the spark, gasses are ionised and become plasma.

A bit more on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightening
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection
magnetic reconnection is responsible for the lightening strikes going up and for the northern light:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stere ... mages.html

@ At0m

This is the question in plain terms.

Talking about positive lightning:
the top of the cloud has positive charge. It means afaik there's a huge quantity of atoms in it which have a number of electrons smaller than the protons number.
Being protons the positive charge elements, top of the cloud has positive potential.
So the top of the cloud looks to me in such a condition to take electrons and not to give them away, so the flow should has direction from the ground to the cloud...


Plasma lamp!I want one!

indeed it is!

THAT's the reason you can't dodge lightning if it strikes you, it comes up from the ground and then through you. the bolt you see is matter being transformed into energy(it's not the electrons flowing) and the boom is the air returning to the space that the ionized gas used to occupy.

more or less...

In a neutral atom the electron count equals the proton count. The proton count doesn't change (protons and neutrons are bound by the nuclear force).
Only the electron count can change. If the count is less than the proton count then you have an ion, or positively charged atom. If the count of electrons is greater than the proton count then you have an negatively charged atom or ion.

yes, true.(as a model)

one guy's opinion, i don't agree with all of his conclusions, but evidence is given for the reality of much of what we are discussing...


IT'S NOT ONLY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:
WASHINGTON'S NEW WORLD ORDER WEAPONS HAVE THE ABILITY TO TRIGGER CLIMATE CHANGE
by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, author of The Globalization of Poverty, second edition, Common Courage Press, 2000.

The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's climate can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of "environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases…

* * *

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the Hague Conference on Climate Change (CO6) (November 2000) have raised the broad issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)" as relevant to an understanding of climate change.

The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and American business lobbies has centered on Washington's outright refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets under the 1997 Kyoto protocol.1 The impacts of military technologies on the World's climate are not an object of discussion or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing debate on climate change serves Washington's strategic and defense objectives.

"WEATHER WARFARE"
World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that "US military scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods."2 Already in the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book "Between Two Ages" that: "Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised... [T]echniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm."

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of "unconventional weapons" using radio frequencies. He refers to "weather war," indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already "mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s."3 These technologies make it "possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves]." 4

A simulation study of future defense "scenarios" commissioned for the US Air
Force calls for:

"US aerospace forces to 'own the weather' by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications… From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary… In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. 5

THE HIGH-FREQUENCY ACTIVE AURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM (HAARP)
The High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokoma Alaska --jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy-- is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere". Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich --actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP-- describes HAARP as:

"A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead." 6

Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet." 7

MISLEADING PUBLIC OPINION
HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." 8 Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.9

According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, HAARP is part of a integrated weapons' system, which has potentially devastating environmental consequences:

"It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature. The military implications of combining these projects is alarming. … The ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be "sold" to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer. 10

In addition to weather manipulation, HAARP has a number of related uses:

"HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding the atmosphere with high-frequency rays… Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains, and effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out. 11.

More generally, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World's electro-magnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of "electronic weapons" which US military researchers consider a "gentler and kinder warfare". 12

WEAPONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). From military command points in the US, entire national economies could potentially be destabilized through climatic manipulations. More importantly, the latter can be implemented without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war.

The use of HAARP -- if it were to be applied-- could have potentially devastating impacts on the World's climate. Responding to US economic and strategic interests, it could be used to selectively modify climate in different parts of the World resulting in the destabilization of agricultural and ecological systems.

It is also worth noting that the US Department of Defense has allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence and monitoring systems on weather changes. NASA and the Department of Defense's National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working on "imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards, earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate change" with data relayed from satellites. 13

POLICY INERTIA OF THE UNITED NATIONS
According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

"States have… in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (…) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction." 14

It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1997 bans "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects."15 Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines "'environmental modification techniques' as referring to any technique for changing--through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes--the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space." 16

Why then did the UN --disregarding the 1977 ENMOD Convention bas well as its own charter-- decide to exclude from its agenda climatic changes resulting from military programs?

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACKNOWLEDGES IMPACTS OF HAARP
In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj Britt Theorin --Swedish MEP and longtime peace advocate--, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program.17 The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament:

"Considers HAARP… by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program." 18.

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". 19 Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington.

FULLY OPERATIONAL
While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, scientific findings suggest that it is at present fully operational. What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US military to selectively modify the climate of an "unfriendly nation" or "rogue state" with a view to destabilizing its national economy.

Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF and World Bank "economic medicine" imposed on the Third World and the countries of the former Soviet block has largely contributed to the destabilization of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have supported the interests of a handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to impose genetically modified (GMO) seeds on farmers throughout the World.

It is important to understand the linkage between the economic, strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the above context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program (whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas. Surely national governments and the United Nations should address the possible consequences of HAARP and other "non-lethal weapons" on climate change.



NOTES
1. The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent to become effective between 2008 and 2012. See Background of Kyoto Protocol at http://www.globalwarming.net/gw11.html.

2. The Times, London, 23 November 2000.

3. Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999.

4. Ibid.

5 Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ (emphasis added).

6 Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, The Military's Pandora's Box, Earthpulse Press, http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html. See also the HAARP home page at http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/).

7. See Briarpatch, January, 2000. (emphasis added).

8 Quoted in Begich and Manning, op cit.

9. Air University, op cit.

10. Rosalie Bertell, Background of the HAARP Program, 5 November, 1996, http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/env ... eapons.htm

11. Begich and Manning, op cit.

12. Don Herskovitz, Killing Them Softly, Journal of Electronic Defense, August 1993. (emphasis added). According to Herskovitz, "electronic warfare" is defined by the US Department of Defense as "military action involving the use of electromagnetic energy…" The Journal of Electronic Defense at http://www.jedefense.com/ has published a range of articles on the application of electronic and electromagnetic military technologies.

13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999.

14. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992. See complete text at http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html, (emphasis added).

15. See Associated Press, 18 May 1977.

16. Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27.

17. European Report, 7 February 1998.

18. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999.

19. EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between Environment and Defense,
European Report, 3 February 1999.

© Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, November, 2000.
All rights reserved. Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms contact the author at chossudovsky@videotron.ca, fax: 1-514-4256224.

Authoritative opinions of experts set us on the alert.
Considering that, probably, as much authoritative and opposite thesis could be called into the questions by people upholding such projects, I'd like to see a meaningful list reporting dates, power transmitted and associated phenomenons.
I know it's absolutely not an easy task, but I think it could be done even by a non governmental, independent association.
Holding a certain amount of such data, some possibility of appeal should exists...

It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1997 bans "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects."15 Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines "'environmental modification techniques' as referring to any technique for changing--through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes--the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space."

[added]
There's a thing I'm wondering about: why it's not used to throw out storms?
Ok, i guess not easy... throw out toward where?

[added2]
Ok, I'm gotta get some idea about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Mo ... arch_Board

stardust wrote:I feel blue

garyb wrote:
THAT's the reason you can't dodge lightning if it strikes you, it comes up from the ground and then through you. the bolt you see is matter being transformed into energy(it's not the electrons flowing)

Of course what I see is not the electron flow, being such flow often not wider than a pencil. The visible part is generated by the 'return stroke' (???) , light being emitted by ionized gas and by phenomenons related to the very high heat (around 10000°).

...I'm still wondering why the direction of what I can see ain't opposite for negative and positive discharges....

Cochise wrote: Plasma lamp! I want one!

Sometimes it's hard to resist to the fascination of the superfluous things

Cochise wrote:

rolo wrote:They actually were testing Haarp at one point and officially asked for radio reports from shortwave listeners and Amateur radio operators

Is it often operating fully?

rolo wrote:I am a ham and love all this stuff

QSL !

QRZ KG6VQC 73

rolo wrote: QRZ KG6VQC 73

I haven't an official QRZ. I operated around 11 meters only.
My QRA is Johnny.
Had some nice DX in favourable propagation conditions, however, despite the only 10 W available.

Just had a look at Gakona by Google Earth.
That zone anyway reminds me of a caldera.
Looks like HAARP direct signal might been received around Anchorage only, afaik. Although Earth's curvature and directionality of the signal could makes it hard...


@ Piddi

Have any friend in Tromso?

I was on 11 meter band as well made contacts all over the world. I also used to hear the woodpecker station and all the spy number stations on shortwave !

Cochise wrote:

rolo wrote: QRZ KG6VQC 73

I haven't an official QRZ. I operated around 11 meters only.
My QRA is Johnny.
Had some nice DX in favourable propagation conditions, however, despite the only 10 W available.

Just had a look at Gakona by Google Earth.
That zone anyway reminds me of a caldera.
Looks like HAARP direct signal might been received around Anchorage only, afaik. Although Earth's curvature and directionality of the signal could makes it hard...


@ Piddi

Have any friend in Tromso?