Can facilities like HAARP be used to manipulate the weather? (No)

[subhumn]

http://weatherwarfare.worldatwar.in...like-haarp-be-used-to-manipulate-the-weather/

[Lage cut-and-paste from the above link removed]

(Answer, no, see below)

 

[Pete Tar]

Well as Eastlund himself has said it's impossible, no.

(Tim The Toolman's post in another thread...)

HAARP CANNOT EFFECT THE WEATHER, and it does not represent Dr. Eastlunds patents either, as Dr. Eastlund says in his own words.

Including Quotes from Dr. Eastlund Himself stating that point
....
Also... The patent that he and others totally misunderstand and misrepresent and seemingly just make shit up about IS NOT THE HAARP DESIGN OR THE PLANS FOR HAARP.

Dr. Eastlund has confirmed this himself some years ago during some interviews that are freely available on the internet. I would suggest that if someone had claimed to have done so great of a job of "In Depth" research that they also god have found these as easily as I did.

The first is from an environmental Website and article. In it Dr. Eastlund says, "What's up there now is not, in my opinion big enough to be concerned about. It has to be used judiciously, but it's not the kind of power level that can do the stuff that's in my patents yet."

Link to article here: http://www.emagazine.com/includes/print-article/magazine-archive/8282/

The second quote is from a part of the interview while at his home grilling out it seems: From the article ""You can certainly do things that will change the ionosphere," he said from his Texas home. "Then it becomes the burden of proof to see if it has deleterious effects on the ground. And some people speculate that it does. But (the ionosphere) is a pretty low energy density environment.""

The third very interesting quote from the article is, "Eastlund was less sure that rearranging the ionosphere could cause a calamity. "You can certainly do things that will change the ionosphere," he said from his Texas home. "Then it becomes the burden of proof to see if it has deleterious effects on the ground. And some people speculate that it does. But (the ionosphere) is a pretty low energy density environment."

The fourth interesting quote is, from the article, ""While grilling a steak at his backyard, Eastlund used a cooking analogy to illustrate HAARP's anticipated surface power level of one-watt per square centimeter. "You wouldn't be too worried about that, would you?" he asked. "You've got that in your microwave oven. You cook your turkey with it.""

Link to article here: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~wbova/fn/earth/yonder_2.htm

The only relationship of his purely theoretical and untested patent is that it does happen to include a far smaller and much lower powered Ionospheric Heater, which there are many of, and there was before Dr. Eastlund, and that he of course did not invent....

I could go on and on, but the above information Nullifies his and others claims completely, and each example that I have researched, on each offer of proof that he has given, as to why he is right, and all the other real scientist are wrong, are the same type of muddled mess. He is not correct, and peer reviewed science documents do not back his claims up. PERIOD.

If you would like to hear from Real HAARP scientist that actually worked up at HAARP and conducted studies... Here is a podcast with a couple of them as they were interviewed by Armed with Science
Worth a listen........

http://podcast.dma.mil/pentagonchan...e_audio/20100224_AWS56_audio_022410154908.mp3

I do plan on including most if not each and every single one both in a group document and of course as much as I can fit in the film. At some point when I get the time..

Thanks,

~Tim

 

[Trigger Hippie]

"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."

Was the Secretary of Defense referring to the manipulation of the ionosphere by facilities like HAARP when he made this statement?

No he was not. That Cohen quote has been fully debunked.

William S. Cohen is explaining how an agency can be crippled as it spends time and resources dealing with rumors. He supports his point by calling on James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, to recall his experiences of chasing down fake moles. Cohen then goes on to say that the same waste of time and resources can be made while chasing down other types of false scares.

He actually states it explicitly: "The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon ..."

He lists false scare scenarios mentioned by writer Alvin Toeffler: ethnic specific pathogens, genetically engineered insects, and eco- type terrorism via earthquakes and tornadoes. The last example being a favourite of conspiracy theorist who use it as evidence weather weaponization, when in fact it's an example of the opposite.

 

[Tim TheToolman Coles]

Nowhere in the Claims section of his patent does it list Weather Modification.
Claim:

Now from the the bottom summary and discussion of his theoretical and untested patent.

Dr. Eastlund however, does mention the "POSSIBILITY" in the bottom section of the patent which I will describe it's usage below, where he in fact states...

"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. Also as alluded to earlier, molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved."

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=4686605.PN.&OS=PN/4686605&RS=PN/4686605

However, after having filed for a patent myself, and researching other patents, as well as discussing it in depth with the attorneys as to why they ask me to list any and all remote possibilities that the patent might even be able to do, or might be able to possibly be realized, even if untrue right now, but that I could envision, is so that IF, ever any such alternate use or purposing of the original patent for these additional purposes, I would, as Dr. Eastlund would, also be able to claim ownership as well for that idea, and be able to claim monetary compensation for future uses that fall within whatever I can make up in that section. These claims can be and often are disputed, but at least it does set the date of first being mentioned, and sets on the record that the patent holder did mention it as a possibility.

This is common practice and is done every single day and included in patents. It does not make it a fact that these additional claims are real or have been tested, or may ever even work as stated. It is just a possibility that was listed by the inventor.


We can all agree on the above, or should.

Now lets break this down. We are using Dr. Eastlund's own words, and relying on that as evidence and fact in regards to whether HAARP can do these things correct?

For the sake of argument, lets just say, that it is not just a possibility, but instead is an absolute truth.. In this "Just for the sake of argument" logical analysis, if we take what Dr, Eastlund says, we take it all, as would be the logical progression of analysis.

So in summary of this logical analysis using an example for the sake of argument, Dr. Eastlund has said that HIS PATENT can change or alter the weather. Because he said so.

In interviews, conducted by a Biased Conspiracy Theorist even, Dr, Eastlunds own words were also recorded to have said very clearly...
and I quote......

What's up there now is not, in my opinion big enough to be concerned about. It has to be used judiciously, but it's not the kind of power level that can do the stuff that's in my patents yet.

Source: http://www.emagazine.com/includes/print-article/magazine-archive/8282/

SO, HAARP is not designed using his patents specifications. Just a simple review and reading of Dr, Eastlunds patents, then comparing to the size, and power that sets now in Alaska at the HAARP facility, as well as reviewing all of the HAARP documentation. The two are so far apart that it is not even funny.

Eastlunds patents call for many thousands of times more power than what HAARP is capable of. In the patent it states in the Claims Section on line 1...

"1. A method for altering at least one region normally existing above the earth's surface with electromagnetic radiation using naturally-occurring and diverging magnetic field lines of the earth comprising transmitting first electromagnetic radiation at a frequency between 20 and 7200 kHz from the earth's surface, said transmitting being conducted essentially at the outset of transmission substantially parallel to and along at least one of said field lines, adjusting the frequency of said first radiation to a value which will excite electron cyclotron resonance at an initial elevation at least 50 km above the earth's surface, whereby in the region in which said electron cyclotron resonance takes place heating, further ionization, and movement of both charged and neutral particles is effected, said cyclotron resonance excitation of said region is continued until the electron concentration of said region reaches a value of at least 10.sup.6 per cubic centimeter and has an ion energy of at least 2 ev. "

And on line 9......

"9. The method of claim 8 wherein said electron concentration reaches a value of at least 10.sup.12 per cubic centimeter. "

HAARP specs however state that...
http://web.archive.org/web/20130121011744/http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/tech.html

"The intensity of the HF signal in the ionosphere is less than 3 microwatts per cm2, tens of thousands of times less than the Sun's natural electromagnetic radiation reaching the earth and hundreds of times less than even the normal random variations in intensity of the Sun's natural ultraviolet (UV) energy which creates the ionosphere. The small effects that are produced, however, can be observed with the sensitive scientific instruments installed at the HAARP facility and these observations can provide new information about the dynamics of plasmas and new insight into the processes of solar-terrestrial interactions."

Also from the HAARP specs....
http://web.archive.org/web/20130202021127/http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/ion4.html

"The effects of this added energy are limited to a small region directly over the HAARP observatory ranging in size from 9 km in radius to as much as 40 km in radius.
It is important to realize that HAARP interacts only with charged (or ionized) particles in a limited region of the ionosphere directly over the facility. Interaction occurs because a charged particle (electron or positive ion) will react to an external electric field. HAARP does not interact with the neutral atoms and molecules that make up the bulk of the gas at all atmospheric heights. Neutral (non-ionized) particles, which outnumber ionized particles by 500:1 or greater, remain unaffected.

Effects produced by HAARP are thermal in nature and do not result in new ionization. HAARP is not able to produce artificial ionization for the following two reasons.

1. The frequencies used by the HAARP facility are in the High Frequency (HF) portion of the spectrum. Electromagnetic radiation in the HF frequency range is non-ionizing - as opposed to the sun's ultraviolet and X-ray radiation whose photons have sufficient energy to be ionizing.
2. The intensity of the radiation from the completed HAARP facility at ionospheric heights will be too weak to produce artificial ionization through particle interactions. The power density produced by the completed facility will not exceed 3 to 4 microwatts per cm2, about two orders of magnitude below the level required for that process."

*** Note. It is very easy to see that HAARP is not what is represented in Dr.Eastlunds patents, and as he has stated it IS NOT, in his own words.

HAARP is reported to be the best, most advanced, and most powerful such Ionospheric Heater in the World.

If Dr. Eastlunds patent should ever be utilized in it's entirety, and actually built, and used, then we would still have to test, and prove that his listed "possibility" of Weather Control would actually be possible. But we are not even anywhere near that now.


If we are going to take Dr. Eastlunds own words, then lets take all of them, and let us not compare Apples to Oranges.

Please.........

Think about this for a minute.

What HAARP and other Ionospheric Heaters do, essentially is try to replicate what the Sun does up there in this region of our atmosphere every single day(But at many thousands of factors less in power). They do it in a controlled fashion, and in a specific location so that they can, under these controlled conditions, properly study the effects and observe the science and physics of what is happening.

Remember that the Ionosphere is created and maintained in our upper atmosphere by the Suns energy and full band of electro-magnetic radiation.

If replicating what the Sun does, by many thousands of factors less than the Suns power, causes Severe Weather, then every single time our planet was hit with a CME, and associated Geomagnetic Storm that are millions of times stronger than anything any of these Ionospheric Heaters can cause, we would be experiencing massive, horrific Severe Storms, Hurricanes, and other unstoppable weather events the likes of which we have cannot even fathom.

If the Sun cannot do it, in the ionosphere, how in the hell can this pea shooter do it?
From FAQ:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130221092611/http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/faq.html

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.