Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Bernard Eastlund is most famously associated with HAARP because of some patents he filed for speculative uses of natural gas in Alaska.

    This article on Skeptoid decribes the problems with this linkage.

    http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4122

    Eastlund did NOT invent HAARP. HAARP is just an ionospheric heater research facility. Eastlund's own patent describes such ionospheric heating as having gone on well before the 1985 patent:

    His job was to find a use for all that natural gas in Alaska. His solution was to propose building a super large ionosphere heater - far bigger than HAARP, and to speculate on loads of interesting usages (without actually explaining how they would work), in order to make the proposal sound interesting.

    More HAARP debunking:
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-03-03/#feature

     
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's interesting that the patent is sometime portrayed as being based on Tesla's work. But the only reference to Tesla in the entire patent is in the "Other References" section, which just says:

    Which is a reference to this article:

    http://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art11.html

    Which is only a kind of interview on the most general of concepts. The only technically similar sounding thing in there is:

    Tesla was a great showman.
     
  3. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    If Tesla were alive today, he'd be debunking the "death meter" stuff exactly the same way he did 75 years ago with "death rays".

    What he is speaking about is the inverse square law which shows how power, light, sound, etc. diminishes over distance.

    Here is a humorous example:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW3tT0L2gpc
     
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It kind of sounds like he was talking about lasers in the "Many thousands of horsepower can thus be transmitted by a stream thinner than a hair," but then he says it not a ray.

    Whatever he was talking about, I think it was pretty theoretical. He was pretty much regarded as a "mad scientist" at the time, all talk and no results.

    Anyway "Debunked: Tesla" is another topic :)
     
  5. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

  6. Tim TheToolman Coles

    Tim TheToolman Coles Active Member

    I am researching for a documentary that I am producing, and I could have swore that i once saw some quoted text from Eastlund himself saying that HAARP was not based off of his patents... Anyone else happen to know what I am talking about... It would be of great help... My documentary is debunking both HAARP and Chemtrails..

    Thanks....
     
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well, HAARP is certainly very unlike what was proposed in the patents. Eastlund's proposal used about a thousand times more energy. I would be very interested to see this quote though.
     
  8. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    So,

    The only thing you have Debunked here is; HAARP is not based on the Bernard Eastlund patent. ?

    OK, Very Good, Thanks: )

    Could you explain to me, how, HEATING large areas of the Ionosphere has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on the atmosphere below?
     
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Because the ionosphere is basically space, but with a few charged particles whizzing around. It's practically a vacuum. "Heating" it does very little, especially when compared to the effects of the sun.

    When I move my fingers, the motion has an effect on the sun because of changes in gravity. It's a small and meaningless effect, much like the effect that HAARP has on the lower atmosphere.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Sorry dude I read the patents, and i quote from patent US5038664
    its says in the claims section(which is the most important part of the patent):
    "The method of claim 6 wherein said shell is formed as an anti-missile shield"

    there it is it has a military applications, which is HAARP is jointly funded by:
    1-DARPA
    2-US AIR FORCE
    3-US Navy
    4-Alaska University

    you don't seriously think that the folks at HAARP would say to you that it was belt for secret military experimentation.
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Indeed, why would the military be putting details of their secret weapons in publicly available patents?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    this thread is [wrong]

    http://rezn8d.com/haarp/
    https://climateviewer.crowdmap.com/reports/view/7
    http://rezn8d.com/haarp/eastlundscience.com-HAARP.html
    http://web.archive.org/web/20070821084233/http://www.eastlundscience.com/HAARP.html
     
  13. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I believe Mick and others here KNOW a lot more about it than you do. They understand it, you think it is some horrible thing.

    Too late for me to argue
     
  14. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    It's our bunkum world, and you propagate bunkum wherever you go. We all come together.

    How did you do with "chemtrails"? It's how you are going to do in the future no matter what topic you pick. Unless you pick physics, of course.
     
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  16. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    I never said it was a good/bad thing, and if I had, I've grown up since then.

    Things are not good or bad, it's how you use the thing that makes it good or bad.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    Here is an explanation of the association between Bernard Eastlund, ARCO, APTI, the patents, and HAARP:
    This comes from eastlundscience.com, now deleted.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080829144259/http://www.eastlundscience.com/HAARP.html

    http://web.archive.org/web/20111017105001/http://www.eastlundscience.com/HAARPROOTS.html
    http://www.agriculturedefensecoalit...pdfs/15C_Eastlund_HAARPROOTS_History_2010.pdf


    http://web.archive.org/web/20080828213054/http://www.eastlundscience.com/HAARPROADMAP.html
    http://www.agriculturedefensecoalit..._Eastlund_Bernard_2008_ARCO_HAARP_ROADMAP.pdf

    all leading to:

    [h=1]HAARP Joint Services Program Plans and Activities – 1990[/h]http://r3zn8d.files.wordpress.com/2...ervices-program-plans-and-activities-1990.pdf

    note: HF Vertical Ionospheric Heating Facilities before 1990 (and HAARP)
    Ionospheric Heaters before HAARP 1990.

    Siple Station not mentioned? Why?
     
  18. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Because Siple Station was NOT a HF vertical heating facility. Siple Station had a VLF transmitter with a 21.2 km long dipole antenna. The objective was to interact with electrons in the plasmapause, the outer boundary layer of the plasmasphere/inner magnetosphere and far above the ionosphere where HF heaters are effective.

    http://vlf.stanford.edu/research/vlf-transmitter-siple-station-antarctica

    http://www-star.stanford.edu/~vlf/Antarctica/Siple/index.htm

    You really don't understand the science at all, do you?
     
  19. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

  20. rezn8d

    rezn8d Jim Lee

    [...]

    There are lots of people into cars, you don't have to understand how a crankshaft works to appreciate, comment on, or post online about cars.
    You however seem to specialize in pointing out how "if you don't have a degree in physics" you shouldn't talk/post/comment about physics.

    By your logic should a reporter be required to have previously been a certified lawyer to report news about legal proceedings?
     
  21. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    If you are going to talk about something that concerns physics, you need an understanding of physics.

    Personally I do not care for your attitude. You are attacking folks and yet not 'proving' yours.

    Your car analogy FAILS, because you are like someone insisting that a car can fly.
     
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    rezn8d banned for one month for excessive impliteness
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    No. But the reporter should have an understanding of legal proceedings to talk intelligently about them.

    ETA: Oops, I see Cairenn beat me to it.
     
  24. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Yeah, this.
     
  25. Bernard Eastlund US Patent #4,686,605 Quote :"Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device....A moving plume could also serve as a means for supplying a space station or for focusing vast amount of sunlight on selected portions of the earth." 39 days over 100 degrees in Dallas last year. Could that be caused by "focusing vast amounts of sunlight on selected portions of the earth?"
     
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, because the amount of incoming radiation is always the same. If it were to be hotter in Dallas by more sunlight being directed to it, then it would have to be colder a few miles away, where you took the sunlight way.

    (And that's assuming that atmospheric lensing is possible, which seems highly unlikely, and doubly unlikely you could do it without anyone noticing).
     
  27. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    You might look at the history of hot weather in Dallas

    Highest Maximum
    Rank Temperature Year
    1 101.6 1980
    2 101.2 2011
    3
    (tie) 99.1 1954
    99.1 1952
    5 98.8 1998
    6 98.4 1956
    7 98.1 2006
    8 98.0 1934
    9 97.7 2008
    10 97.4 1977

    Highest Average
    Rank Temperature Year
    1 90.5 2011
    2 89.2 1980
    3 88.3 1998
    4 87.7 1954
    5 87.6 1952
    6 87.5 2010
    7
    (tie) 87.4 2008
    87.4 1934
    9 87.1 2006
    10 86.8 1956


    We had a major heat wave in 1980 and several in the 50s. Was someone concentrating the sun on us then?

    The summer temperature here is related to amount rain we get in the spring, especially the late spring.
     
  28. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    CT follower's understanding of "anti-missle shield" is waaaay too literal. way way too literal. is Isreal's Iron Dome an actual iron dome?

    "1-DARPA
    2-US AIR FORCE
    3-US Navy
    4-Alaska University"

    DARPA funds thousands of large and small research projects. not all of them are weapons. darpa partially funded my highschool FIRST robotics team... We did NOT make weapons. feel free to google FIRST robotics. they funded it to get kids involved in science and engineering, because more kids in highschool getting into engineering means more young adults in college which means more adults in the United States coming up with unique technological innovations, military or not, that gives us the edge. its very very simple. darpa funds many benign projects. sometimes they will later apply the technology to wartime technologies, sometimes they will do nothing, because its never money wasted, it all goes right into USA GDP.... not everyone is out to get you, sometimes even military technology groups just care about innovation all the digital technology you have today, ALL of it came in one way or another from initial military funding. on a time, nasa was just a part of the USAF even. its the single most effective return on investment a government can make, investing in innovation and research..

    Im not sure how you take issue with alaska U funding it...

    An example of the ionosphere heating, if i hold i lighter a foot above a bowl of water, does the heating/rising of the air cause the water to rush up in a column to the lighter? No. because compared to the lower layer which is much more dense, the air represents nothing substantial to the water. there will be minute effects, but it may as well be a vacuum in comparison. the ionosphere really might as well be space. i dont think you understand this. the effects are about as strong, as mick points out, the gravitational effect of moving your body in relation to the sun.

    then there is that whole sun thing blasting it with untold times more energy than anything we can create...

    and we are talking about 2 electron volts... that is nothing.... nothing at all. you wouldnt even feel it on your skin.

    keep in mind we are talking about a guy who designed something that was never made, never shown to have been workable, Im not even talking about what you think it would do, im just talking about the mundane shit it actually could have done as per reality and the paper. plus we have patents for time machines so..... He was asked to get rid of a bunch of gas, so he came up with a way to waste a ton of energy.... thats all.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. electrojet

    electrojet New Member

    Greetings information seekers !

    Let's un debunk some skeptoid mis-direction from the lead post here. The excerpt in the opening salvo contained this
    - What the ???


    First it has to be noted that this is clumsily written at best. The excerpt itself works to add confusion. This is certainly worth noting. It also has to be pointed out that the skepteroid 'piece' make zero attempt to compare the patent claims with the scientific papers that actually detail accomplishments of HAARP. Lacking this type of actual real world examination of the science leaves us with what exactly? .... ?

    A very sloppy examination of portions only of the patent claims as well as blatent lies and attacks on individuals rather than truthful examination of the science. I do not have the time to point out all of the errors of the skeptoid piece. I will highlight 2 of them here.

    From the link is this doozy,
    This skeptoid piece was written in 08. Let's see if it was true when it was written. Note the hyperbole ' far too faint ' ...nice dramatic flourish. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a460185.pdf from 2005 notes on page 2 just below the images that,
    Hmmm...

    Second mis-direction from the piece is one of blatent ommission. Skeptoid examines the stated power of HAARP yet neglects to mention the multiplication of power that is in the Eastlund patent AND the scientific literature. In effect, HAARP does what Eastlund states it will do (woops). From; lol, relax ... it is a Stanford U published document from before Brian Dunning's woesome work http://sincedutch.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/haarp08.pdf quote;
    Indeed a comprehensive point by point examination of Eastlund claims next to actual ionospheric research illuminates that EASTLUND HAD AN EXCELLENT UNDERSTANDING of the physics of the ionosphere and the nuts and bolts of transmitter requirements. This is not surprising because he had a great deal of prior ionospheric research and experiments with which to draw upon. Eastlund also acknowledged in his patents that there is an energy potential that expands the currently embraced scientific paradigm. This can be either waved off with some lol death ray comments and Tesla mis direction or it can be examined in real world published scientific documents. Is there evidence of cascading electrons or not? The answer is yes there is and Tesla ( who Einstein purportedly called the greatest scientific mind of the day ) understood this.

    Tesla talked with pigeons and could put on a good show. Far more importantly, He understood and modeled cascading energy.

    Dunning's piece completely mis-directs about the true capabilities of HAARP in myriad ways AND the dynamic coupling of energy between the upper atmosphere and lower. My guess is Brian just really doesn't know much about meridional flows, the polar vortex and chemistry changes caused by injecting energy into the upper atmosphere. He just doesn't know.

    Lotek, I love to see that you are attempting to understand the science of atmospheric alteration. For your example try adding a boundary just above the candle and a wind moving horizontally through the flame. What are the effects on the sheet just above the candle? How is the chemistry of the sheet effects? How is the wind moving horizontally effected ? How is the flow of energy just above the candle altered?

    Mick, based upon the errors in Dunning's examination, what has been debunked here? Please keep in mind also that it has also been shown in the gravity wave thread that transmitters localized (though there are non linear effects/travelling) effects approach that of effects seen during high level solar events.


    God bless !

    Bryan
     
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Seems like the only thing you actually corrected was the visibility of the artificial auroras.
     
  31. electrojet

    electrojet New Member

    Hi Mick,

    Brian Dunning's article is not a scientific examination. If it were it would have patent claims in one column and actual results of HAARP in the other. If Brian completely lies about one claim, that is more than enough reason to cast doubt on any other assertation that he makes.


    The other correction that I make is that looking at total power of HAARP is disingenuous. It is only a sliver of what actually results. This leads you and others to make fallacious statements such as
    This is not scientifically accurate Mick. It really ought to be removed as it could lead others to conclude that you are not interested in truth.

    The precipitation of electrons is crucial and this is a proven capability of HAARP and other transmitters. Non linear and non localized effects caused by HAARP. This is in the peer reviewed scientific literature regardless of you or your claims.

    It was also shown to you that cascading electrons are an influence that is vastly greater than your claim.
    I can provide multiple links. I have provided 3 at the gravity wave thread that illustrate precipitation of electrons.

    Blessings,


    Bryan



    “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters”
    ― Albert Einstein

    character, honesty, integrity-these things are important.
     
  32. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    The style was more Kruger than Dunning, don't you think? Especially the spelling.

    Although the sentence construction: "Please keep in mind also that it has also been shown in the gravity wave thread that transmitters localized (though there are non linear effects/travelling) effects approach that of effects seen during high level solar events" would indicate either recent ECT or an explosion in a scrabble factory...

    What is unscientific about "Because the ionosphere is basically space, but with a few charged particles whizzing around. It's practically a vacuum. "Heating" it does very little, especially when compared to the effects of the sun"?

    What is unscientific about "When I move my fingers, the motion has an effect on the sun because of changes in gravity. It's a small and meaningless effect, much like the effect that HAARP has on the lower atmosphere"?

    I have a half-century of science experience, and might well have written the above almost word-for-word because it so exactly accords with my own scientific understanding, which is a reasonable expectation when science facts are common to both of us.

    But you, Mr Electrojet, are from somewhere else. Not science as is commonly understood. A fairground, maybe.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't think you've shown ANY evidence that HAARP can measurably affect the lower atmosphere.
     
  34. electrojet

    electrojet New Member

    Gentlemen,

    The evidence is conclusive that modifying the ionosphere effects climatic systems and weather - as in lower atmosphere weather. This is not my claim. It is seen in scientific literature extending back decades. It does not require me.

    Mick, You really must not want to know that rf transmitters are modifying the lower atmosphere. Weather modification is not a thought experiment. The EISCAT job posting and other links clearly establish that alterations at 80 km modify weather and climatic circulation in the lower atmosphere. Did you read past the 'strong down welling in the polar vortex' part???
    Eventually you will see it. There is stronger evidence for weather modification yet to be presented.

    As an aside, I admire both Mick and Jazzy. I have gleaned much from both of them and grown in my understanding of contrails from their information.

    The skeptoid is trash and not something to stand behind and proclaim as a debunking. Brian gets a lot wrong in a very short amount of writing. Standing in that wake and proclaiming that he has debunked something is not wise and it is not science. Dunning has no clue about vertical coupling processes and Eastlund is associated with HAARP. Dunning is alternately correct and then incorrect with regards to Eastlunds involvement. Dunning neglects to mention that many of Eastlund claims are already demonstrated as real in numerous scientific papers. In effect patent claims match actual modification. If Dunning misses this, then his skeptoid piece is complete junk. It is junk, standing on junk is a precarious place to perch.

    Question. Does HAARP create and modify acoustic and internal gravity waves? Yes or No? __________

    Jazzy, Take into account the energy and energy potential. Heating in the upper atmosphere is not the major effect, we are both familiar with the temperature in a vaccum equations, but this is not the net effect of the energetics of magnetic field lines and injecting energy into plasma sheets. Study evanescence issues, study dusty plasmas and electrical charging processes inside of plasmas. Molecular changes and energy transfer is where the action is, temperature is going to make you continue in promoting scientific inaccuracies and utilizing examples that have no relevance in ionospheric modification. Those 'few charged particles' are big business for more than a couple of reasons.

    I will link 3 scientific examples of energy changes and modification that are all much more significant than Dunning or you seem to embrace. The net effects are very significant. This is not my claim, it is in the documented peer reviewed public documents.

    Jazzy, I agree my spelling and word structure is woeful. I will apply a little more diligence going forward.

    Peace,

    Bryan

    -character is what a Man is in the dark. -D.L. Moody
     
  35. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    electrojet, I have a physics background and you are not convincing me of anything other than you don't really seem to understand what you are posting.
     
  36. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If the evidence is indeed conclusive, then I think you really need to consider why you are having such a hard time communicating your message.

    Why do you think that is?
     
  37. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    1.)Those two statements say the exact same thing. However the first one i quoted is worded very poorly. Now, if you would like to understand the technology you are talking about here are some very publicly avail;able news articles that make it very obvious:

    050202_haarp_02. http://www.livescience.com/124-artificial-neon-sky-show-created.html

    OR,

    http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/adminstuff/webpubs/1995_jgr_21385.pdf

    OR,

    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091002/full/news.2009.975.html
    HAARP2.


    and they are talking fainter than the many of the stars around it.



    -------------------------------------------------

    2.)A Theoretical patent, as many(most) are. something which has been proven many times. Can you tell me in Which non patent literature, and exactly wherein it this is stated? anything to do with an untested, unchecked patent cannot be considered evidence. at all. so please provide the second half of your statement.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    3.)What research?

    ---------------------------------------------------

    4.)Where is this backed up in research?

    ---------------------------------------------------

    5.) Where?

    ---------------------------------------------------


    6.) Meaningless appeal to authority.

    --------------------------------------------------

    7.) Reference please?

    --------------------------------------------------

    8.) Reference for the true capabilities?

    -------------------------------------------------

    9 .) Source showing large enough impact to alter global climate?

    -------------------------------------------------

    10.) Enlighten him. Have some sources for him? A, B, C?

    -------------------------------------------------

    11.) You are over thinking the application of my analogy. those are not the parts of the system you were referencing an impact having been made on.

    -------------------------------------------------

    12.) You think very highly of your own conclusions.

    -------------------------------------------------


    13 .) Source.

    -------------------------------------------------

    14 .) you-keep-using-that-word.
    You are assuming massive variances in power levels based off superficial data and misappropriated sciences. Prove me wrong, source me into oblivion.

    -------------------------------------------------

    15.) Pure supposition.

    -------------------------------------------------

    16.) And I hold you Nobel prize in my hand, awaiting yoru serious answers to my questions, and those (3) scientific examples.

    Bear in mind they need to be legitimate examples, and not just things you find ramblingly related to the subject at hand, from which you will for the umteenth time conclude you have proved beyond doubt haarp with a weather modification device.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    "Prove me wrong, source me into oblivion." - I wish I had written that. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    What we observe points the other way.

    The Sun is the biggest effector of our atmosphere there is, and what we see (apart from its illumination) is that the Earth's magnetic field PROTECTS the earth from the solar particle stream, and the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere PROTECTS the earth from solar high frequency EM, at least up to the poles.

    High frequency EM, no matter what emits it, or where it is produced, is heavily absorbed by earth's atmosphere. Wherever that absorption takes place, the involved molecules/ions will simply speed up a little.

    A thought experiment for you. How many times is the Sun more energetic than HAARP? A haha amount, no? Then how many times smaller than that must the effect of HAARP be?

    No.

    It's a truther thought experiment.

    To what extent?

    Forewarned now for strong upwelling in throat.

    We must meet someday. That would disappoint you.

    That is interesting behavior, but it doesn't extend beneath the thermopause.

    Not measurably.

    Energy transfer is the point. A PAUSE is a point of energy cut-off. In the atmosphere there are TWO of them: the tropoPAUSE and the thermoPAUSE. These are places where ENERGY TRANSFER STOPS.

    Great. Begin with NOT writing "vaccum" for "vacuum". LOL. I like you too. :)
     
  40. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    A little perspective on the energies involved.

    http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/ion5.html

    Compare to data on the effects of a solar storm on the thermosphere.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

    The amount of energy transmitted by HAARP is miniscule compared to the amount of solar energy absorbed in the thermosphere. When the thermosphere "puffs up like a marshmallow" from solar activity, it expands OUTWARD into the vacuum of space rather than push downward against the denser atmosphere below. Not a single scientific study has concluded that heating the thermosphere has an effect on weather or global circulation patterns.

    And Bryan, you apparently don't understand what downwelling in the polar vortex actually means.
     
    • Like Like x 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.