Bernard Eastlund's Connection to HAARP

Status
Not open for further replies.

electrojet

New Member
Hi all,


I am working on a post that will address your resistance to the fact that rf transmitters significantly effect weather. It also will be shown that Eastlund claims match demonstrated capability. HAARP public relations data is alternately incomplete and incorrect. The experiments and science is much more robust than HAARP media relations state, as always, this is not my claim-it exists in peer reviewed published documents. I suspect this is partly responsible for the clouded understanding and resistance to geoengineering. Disinformation such as The Skeptoid doesn't help either. I am going to source you into oblivion. This is taking much more time than I had imagined.


Did anyone directly answer my question re; do RF transmitters both create and modify gravity waves. Y or N _____ ?


Definition of NONLINEAR :
-from the oxford dictionary.


Q: Did Bernard Eastlund claim in his patent that nonlinear effects would occur in rf heating ? A: Y


Are nonlinear results observed in ionospheric modification? A: Yes


Did Tesla and Eastlund model nonlinear electromagnetic effects? A: Yes


Is this effect scientifically modeled elsewhere? A: Yes


Do plasma physics and rf experiments demonstrate that the paradigm 'rf heaters really are inconsequential compared with solar effects' is wrong. A: Yes


Do gravity waves have a significant effect on meridional circulation and polar circulation ? A: Yes


lotek, I'll be addressing your points one by one conclusively showing that the skeptoid is bunk.


Solrey, have you read Loeb and Meeks The Mechanism of the Electric Spark yet?
What is your understanding of downwelling of the polar vortex and dynamic coupling ?


Well wishes to all,


Bryan
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Do plasma physics and rf experiments demonstrate that the paradigm 'rf heaters really are inconsequential compared with solar effects' is wrong. A: Yes

Every experiment reference in this thread shows that "rf heaters" are inconsequential compared to the sun.


Do gravity waves have a significant effect on meridional circulation and polar circulation ? A: Yes

Gravity waves are a property of pretty much all fluids.

Can heating tiny bits of ionosphere affect gravity waves in the lower atmosphere?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
do RF transmitters both create and modify gravity waves. Y or N _____ ?
Yes. To the degree of the amount of energy they can insert into the atmosphere per unit volume.

Physics involving a lack of linearity between two related qualities such as input and output. Mathematics involving measurement in more than one dimension. not linear, sequential, or straightforward; random
Complicated, then.

Joyce’s stream-of-consciousness, nonlinear narrative - from the oxford dictionary
You mean Maxwell's Silver Hammer.

Did Bernard Eastlund claim in his patent that nonlinear effects would occur in rf heating? Are nonlinear results observed in ionospheric modification? Did Tesla and Eastlund model nonlinear electromagnetic effects? Is this effect scientifically modeled elsewhere?
Yes, but...

Do plasma physics and rf experiments demonstrate that the paradigm 'rf heaters really are inconsequential compared with solar effects' is wrong?
Not in my opinion.

Do gravity waves have a significant effect on meridional circulation and polar circulation?
Yes, they do. (Peeking at Scombrid's post - of course those circulations are in the atmosphere beneath the thermosphere, and what he writes is true. The atmosphere beneath is so much more energetic and dense).

Can you affect the tides by throwing a stone into the sea?
 

Katerina

New Member
Hello, I've just read portions of the actual patent found at the US Patent office and it clearly states, and I quote: "As alluded to earlier, missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion could result". And the reason people interpret (as you say) this patent as a weather control system is because it states in the patent, "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". Yes the patent also describes using natural gas to generate electricity, but as Eastlund goes on to say in the patent document, "Still further, plumes in accordance with the present invention can be formed to simulate and/or perform the same functions as performed by the detonation of a "heave" type nuclear device without actually having to detonate such a device. Thus it can be seen that the ramifications are numerous, far-reaching, and exceedingly varied in usefulness.”

So I guess those "conspiracy theorists" do have a plausible foundation for their claims.


And whether or not HAARP is the recipient of the technology described in this patent, the important fact is the technology exists to wreak terrible destruction, and I don't see how you can guarantee to us, a public that looks to you tell us the truth, that HAARP or some other such corporate/military complex is not using this or similar technology.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And whether or not HAARP is the recipient of the technology described in this patent, the important fact is the technology exists to wreak terrible destruction, and I don't see how you can guarantee to us, a public that looks to you tell us the truth, that HAARP or some other such corporate/military complex is not using this or similar technology.


A patent is not technology.

It's document designed to cover an idea, in case it actually turns out to work. There are plenty of patents for things that do not work. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/do-patents-mean-the-invention-works.194/

Eastlund's patent was highly speculative, he just threw everything in there he could think of.
 
Last edited:

rezn8d

Jim Lee
A patent is not technology.

It's document designed to cover an idea, in case it actually turns out to work. There are plenty of patents for things that do not work. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/do-patents-mean-the-invention-works.194/

Eastlund's patent was highly speculative, he just threw everything in there he could think of.


And his buddy discusses it with the American Meteorological Society, Weather Mod conference....


https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm

Turning tornadoes with HPM from the space station, great stuff. And using HAARP to shoot the power up there, even better.
Nobody here knows the full extent of HAARP's missile defense capabilities, but if the claims are true, it's an energy weapon that "may" be able to alter the weather.
more here:


Debunk this:
http://rezn8d.net/2013/04/17/the-birth-of-haarp/

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And using HAARP to shoot the power up there, even better.

Where's that bit? Seems vastly unlikely. As the beam would be super diffuse by the time it got to satellite altitude. The sun would be a much better source of energy.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
Not to mention the fact that the ISS is traveling at over 17,000 mph and among other details involving the physics of objects in Low Earth Orbit it makes the idea of HAARP consistently beaming any useful energy to the ISS quite preposterous.

None of the ideas regarding microwave transmissions to alter the weather have ever been proven conceptually, by simulation, in the lab or in the real world.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Where's that bit? Seems vastly unlikely. As the beam would be super diffuse by the time it got to satellite altitude. The sun would be a much better source of energy.

It's in the video I posted, at about 19:40, use link below:
HTML:
http://youtu.be/ylTQj2qX1ZM?t=19m20s

"put a rectenna on the space station and have a big base array antenna on the surface of the Earth beam it up and collect the energy and determine the transmission effects, losses, and that sort of thing, and then we would hope to put an antenna on the station, the do the opposite: beam it down to the surface of the Earth."

NOTE: image shows Earth > ISS power transmission 2008, ISS > Earth 2009
Also note:
6/16/2013 — RADAR used to transmit power to distant Rectenna — NASA experiment success
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/201...several-miles-to-rectenna-experiment-success/


This is based on the Solar Powered Satellite concept: http://rezn8d.net/2012/01/20/haarp-timeline-an-animated-history-of-ionospheric-destruction/#SPS

HERE IS AN ARTIST’S CONCEPT OF WHAT BEAMING ALL THAT ENERGY DOWN TO THE GROUND LOOKS LIKE:

SOURCE: DEATHRAYTHEORP (DEATH RAYTHEON CORPORATION?) ONWWW.PROPAGATION.GATECH.EDU

The mock website from Georgia Tech is hilarious!



SPS Military Implications (1978)
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/1978DOESPS-MilitaryImplications-Ozeroff.pdf


Dr. Robert G. Williscroft found that the SPS/rectenna could modify weather:
http://argee.net/Satellite-Hydrogen Energy/Satellite-Hydrogen Energy.htm

Analysis by the U.S. DOE (1978a) shows that rectenna waste heat will produce about the same atmospheric effect as a suburban area and that atmospheric attenuation of the microwave beam will be too small to produce significant meteorological disturbances. However, loss of beam control could have consequences which require further study.



These potential problems are not well understood and require further study. Because of deficiencies in our understanding of the physical and chemical processes above 40 or 50 km, especially with regard to water budget, there is a large uncertainty connected with any prediction.
They have the "you don't know 'till you try it attitude" which we all know always works out just fine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rezn8d

Jim Lee
after a little digging, I found this:

http://www.witricity.com/pages/more.html
So what's the chances this Aeolus space-based laser (facepalm, Real Genius comes to mind) anything to do with the Eastlund idea? I'ld say pretty high based on WiTricity's page


Due for launch at the end of 2013, ADM-Aeolus (or just 'Aeolus'), is the fourth Earth Explorer mission to be developed within ESA's Living Planet Programme. Aeolus will be the first-ever satellite to directly observe wind profiles from space.


Named after Aeolus, who in Greek mythology was appointed 'keeper of the winds' by the Gods, this mission will provide much-needed data to improve the quality of weather forecasts as well as contribute to long-term climate research.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/ADM-Aeolus
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But how is HAARP going to transmit any kind of useful power to a space station whizzing by overhead? And why would it?

What actual point are you trying to make here?
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
But how is HAARP going to transmit any kind of useful power to a space station whizzing by overhead? And why would it?

What actual point are you trying to make here?


That at least since 1968 they've been working on space > earth > space power transmission, progress is occurring, and oh by the way, it will probably affect the weather in some form... however they don't know.

And, that HAARP is the world's most powerful rectenna, until Tromso hit's 100 gigawatt in 2016. That is all.

I believe what Rosalie Bertell believes, debunk this: http://rezn8d.net/2012/01/20/haarp-timeline-an-animated-history-of-ionospheric-destruction/ This link has her words and my links/images.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
HAARP is not a rectenna (a microwave power receiver), it's a transmitter. And it only transmits 0.0042 Gigawatts.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
This is based on the Solar Powered Satellite concept
No. It's straight out of Star Trek "Enterprise". The Texan so-called engineer loses his sister in Florida. The Xindi are coming. Dutch nonsense. (That's enough nonsense - Ed.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rezn8d

Jim Lee
HAARP is not a rectenna (a microwave power receiver), it's a transmitter. And it only transmits 0.0042 Gigawatts.

No sir, it transmits 5.1 gigawatt:

http://rezn8d.net/2013/01/15/radio-...plication-to-atmospheric-methane-destruction/
 

solrey

Senior Member.
In that vid/audio of an AMS conference presentation the speaker said they looked at some IDEAS for EXPERIMENTS, which didn't even happen btw, to transmit microwaves from a ground station to be received by rectennas on the ISS for the purpose of testing efficiency to determine whether the concept is even feasible. The second phase of the proposed experiments would have been to utilize power from solar panels on the ISS to transmit microwaves from the ISS to a rectenna array on the ground. The experiments didn't happen because the ISS is just moving too damn fast so it spends just a matter of a minute or two within the line of site of any ground station. The idea of using a satellite in Low Earth Orbit as a platform for Space Based Solar Power is utterly ludicrous, laughable even. Every single legitimate Space Based Solar Power proposal has involved utilizing solar collector satellites in GEOSTATIONARY ORBIT.



The part in bold is what I have been saying repeatedly regarding microwave transmissions inability to affect weather.

Dr. Robert G. Williscroft found that the SPS/rectenna could modify weather.

As highlighted above that statement is absolutely false.

The biggest question is how would microwaves from SBSP interact with the ionosphere above 40 or 50 km.

The two main hurdles for SBSP are pretty much restrictions dictated by the laws of physics involving the inverse square law and beam spreading.

And Jim, it would help your case if you actually understood the stuff you present as evidence because most of the time it actually invalidates your claims. Just sayin'.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
6/16/2013 — RADAR used to transmit power to distant Rectenna — NASA experiment success
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/201...several-miles-to-rectenna-experiment-success/

I find it hard to believe that you are using dutch nonsense to support your ideas, Jim.
His followers may not be able to understand the technicalities in the paper he quotes, but I think you do. He is telling his folowers a lot of bunk, and istead of fighting his disinformation, you are getting in bed with him, and there is mutual suckling going on. He is using the paper to try and bolster his claim that NEXRADS radars modify the weather, certainly you know this to be false.

Wireless power transmission is a pipedream, and as the paper clearly says, requires some REALLY BIG equipment which simply isn't present at NEXRAD sites:

dutchsinsehoax.jpg

Why do you people insist on associating yourselves with obvious bunk and those who promote it? You have Dane Wigington holding his nose as Russ Tanner claims to smell chemtrails six miles up, you have Michael Murphy showing photos of obvious commercial airliners in his film about "spraying" while Wigington desperately claims every jet making a persistent contrail is a military tanker, and now this? Is it any wonder none of you gets credibility when rational scientific people see who your crew is?
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
back to the topic:

  1. National Space Society Launches International Initiative to Develop Space Solar Power by Timon Singh, 06/19/13
  2. Japan Wants to Power 300,000 Homes With Wireless Energy From Space
  3. Getting Solar Energy From Space We Are Near To Reach It!!!
  4. http://sam-strathclyde.blogspot.com/
  5. EADS Astrium Plans to Put A Solar-Collecting Demo Satellite in Space
achieving wireless power transmission via solar power satellite
http://techloaf.com/achieving-wireless-power-transmission-via-solar-power-satellite/

Noone has debunked any of these:
http://rezn8d.net/2013/04/17/the-birth-of-haarp/

Content from external source
HAARP can do the following:

Satellite Threat Due to High Altitude Nuclear Detonation – Eisenhower Institute – Papadopoulos-Presentation 280369


I believe what Rosalie Bertell does, her words and my images/links here:
http://rezn8d.net/2012/01/20/haarp-timeline-an-animated-history-of-ionospheric-destruction/

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Except that it can't do this. Nothing at all like this. A diffuse beam of 0.0042 Gigawatts is not going to do anything like that.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
In that vid/audio of an AMS conference presentation the speaker said they looked at some IDEAS for EXPERIMENTS, which didn't even happen btw, to transmit microwaves from a ground station to be received by rectennas on the ISS for the purpose of testing efficiency to determine whether the concept is even feasible. The second phase of the proposed experiments would have been to utilize power from solar panels on the ISS to transmit microwaves from the ISS to a rectenna array on the ground. The experiments didn't happen because the ISS is just moving too damn fast so it spends just a matter of a minute or two within the line of site of any ground station. The idea of using a satellite in Low Earth Orbit as a platform for Space Based Solar Power is utterly ludicrous, laughable even. Every single legitimate Space Based Solar Power proposal has involved utilizing solar collector satellites in GEOSTATIONARY ORBIT.



The part in bold is what I have been saying repeatedly regarding microwave transmissions inability to affect weather.



As highlighted above that statement is absolutely false.

The biggest question is how would microwaves from SBSP interact with the ionosphere above 40 or 50 km.

The two main hurdles for SBSP are pretty much restrictions dictated by the laws of physics involving the inverse square law and beam spreading.

And Jim, it would help your case if you actually understood the stuff you present as evidence because most of the time it actually invalidates your claims. Just sayin'.


Tim, your insults don't go unnoticed.

  1. Eastlund and his associate at the AMS convention are discussing weather modification because they believe it is possible, period.
  2. I never claimed any transmission occurred between HAARP and the ISS, I pointed out the fact that it's mentioned in the presentation.
  3. the 1978 claim that it is too small to produce is hampered by the fact that it was produced over 30 years ago, therefore is more than likely irrelevant
  4. And finally, they barely understand how the upper atmosphere works, so this is all theoretical at best. NASA’s Independence Day Fireworks from Wallops Investigates Earth’s Global Daytime Dynamo Current
  5. "First Global Connection Between Earth And Space Weather Found
    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html

    Weather on Earth has a surprising connection to space weather occurring high in the electrically-charged upper atmosphere, known as the ionosphere, according to new results from NASA satellites."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Except that it can't do this. Nothing at all like this. A diffuse beam of 0.0042 Gigawatts is not going to do anything like that.


that is your opinion, not fact. Do you understand how an artificial ionospheric lens in conjunction with sounding rockets work?
 

solrey

Senior Member.
So what's the chances this Aeolus space-based laser (facepalm, Real Genius comes to mind) anything to do with the Eastlund idea? I'ld say pretty high based on WiTricity's page

The chances are less than zero. The only instrument onboard the Aeolus satellite will simply be a LIDAR (laser based doppler radar).

Near UV at 355 nm is non-ionizing, btw. Ionizing radiation is wavelengths of less than 125 nm.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
I find it hard to believe that you are using dutch nonsense to support your ideas, Jim.
His followers may not be able to understand the technicalities in the paper he quotes, but I think you do. He is telling his folowers a lot of bunk, and istead of fighting his disinformation, you are getting in bed with him, and there is mutual suckling going on. He is using the paper to try and bolster his claim that NEXRADS radars modify the weather, certainly you know this to be false.

Wireless power transmission is a pipedream, and as the paper clearly says, requires some REALLY BIG equipment which simply isn't present at NEXRAD sites:

dutchsinsehoax.jpg

Why do you people insist on associating yourselves with obvious bunk and those who promote it? You have Dane Wigington holding his nose as Russ Tanner claims to smell chemtrails six miles up, you have Michael Murphy showing photos of obvious commercial airliners in his film about "spraying" while Wigington desperately claims every jet making a persistent contrail is a military tanker, and now this? Is it any wonder none of you gets credibility when rational scientific people see who your crew is?


  1. used dutch's link because he's my friend, and he had the video posted... period
  2. Are you saying that since 1975 they haven't acheived greater accuracy/power transmission capability?
  3. I don't care for Dane's nonsense, which I've told him and you on the phone
  4. Michael Murphy is a farce
  5. you are grasping at straws and not debunking, start here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-bernard-eastlund-and-haarp.248/page-2#post-53536
Your word games are failing gentlemen, and I will not be moved to anger or frustration.

Debunk the claims in my post above, if you can.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rezn8d

Jim Lee
The chances are less than zero. The only instrument onboard the Aeolus satellite will simply be a LIDAR (laser based doppler radar).

Near UV at 355 nm is non-ionizing, btw. Ionizing radiation is wavelengths of less than 125 nm.


SPS and Aeolus are ancillary to this conversation, and detract from the point of this thread

more straws, debunk this: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-bernard-eastlund-and-haarp.248/page-2#post-53536
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
no because you are dodging... debunk this: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-bernard-eastlund-and-haarp.248/page-2#post-53536 Your intention is to move past this without addressing it and focusing on the finer points of science while ignoring the glaring facts, for shame


Your links there are about transmitting solar power to earth. What's to debunk?

Don't you think there 1000x error in the power of HAARP is relevant? We need to start from a firm basis in fact if we are to build understanding. I want to make sure you understand this before we discuss the more complex science.
 
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
used dutch's link because he's my friend, and he had the video posted... period

I rest my case. Your friend is a hoaxer. He derives income from it.
Bad boy.
rezn8d said:
Are you saying that since 1975 they haven't acheived greater accuracy/power transmission capability?
Are you claiming they have? If so, where is the evidence?
I think you tend to exaggerate capability due to misunderstanding, or because of confirmation bias.

rezn8d said:
Debunk the claims in my post above, if you can.

Much of it has been done on this page already. You have already seen my rates, should I invoice you, or do you expect me to do this for free?
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Your links there are about transmitting solar power to earth. What's to debunk?

Don't you think there 1000x error in the power of HAARP is relevant? We need to start from a firm basis in fact if we are to build understanding. I want to make sure you understand this before we discuss the more complex science.

Jenkins does not mention HAARP in the AMS video, he said: "big base array antenna on the surface of the Earth" as previously stated here


These are MY claims:

HAARP can do the following:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rezn8d

Jim Lee
I rest my case. Your friend is a hoaxer. He derives income from it.
Bad boy.

Are you claiming they have? If so, where is the evidence?
I think you tend to exaggerate capability due to misunderstanding, or because of confirmation bias.



Much of it has been done on this page already. You have already seen my rates, should I invoice you, or do you expect me to do this for free?


Dutch and I discuss a lot, and I would call him a friend. Do you always agree with your friends? Your argument holds no water, SIR.
Much of it has been done already? where. Noone has debunked any of MY claims, just others. Again, start here:

These are MY claims:

HAARP can do the following:
 

solrey

Senior Member.
create ELF waves that are heard worldwide

Still confusing audio waves with electromagnetic waves, eh? HAARP can stimulate electrons in the ionosphere in a pattern that produces extremely long radio waves, NOT audible sound waves.

Like I said, you would do well to better understand the stuff you present as evidence, if you take that observation and advice as an insult then you're simply betraying your own insecurities.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Your links there are about transmitting solar power to earth. What's to debunk?

Don't you think there 1000x error in the power of HAARP is relevant? We need to start from a firm basis in fact if we are to build understanding. I want to make sure you understand this before we discuss the more complex science.

Strong foundation = less easily debunked!
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Still confusing audio waves with electromagnetic waves, eh? HAARP can stimulate electrons in the ionosphere in a pattern that produces extremely long radio waves, NOT audible sound waves.

Like I said, you would do well to better understand the stuff you present as evidence, if you take that observation and advice as an insult then you're simply betraying your own insecurities.


I am fully aware that humans hear from 20-20,000 Hz and HAARP generated ELF waves are 2.5 Hz, far below an audible range. Rude
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Dutch and I discuss a lot, and I would call him a friend. Do you always agree with your friends? Your argument holds no water, SIR.
Much of it has been done already? where. Noone has debunked any of MY claims, just others. Again, start here:

These are MY claims:
HAARP can do the following:

Jim, your "friend" tells intentional lies, he bans even thoughtful commentary, he makes money doing that, fooling with other people's minds, exerting control to maintain a lie.
There are whole threads on here showing dutchsinse doing this. He runs and hides. You are a better man than that.

That sort of person can never be a real friend in the end. This isn't an argument, I'm just telling you the way it is, in a fatherly manner.

Jim, are these the watered down claims, or the exaggerated ones you end up with when you "connect all the dots"...?

I've noticed that sometimes you start out fairly reasonable, but later on, the puny plasma clouds that HAARP makes gets blown up into a cataclysm in the making. Is it possible that was a foregone conclusion?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Jim, before your claims are debunked (if they actually do need debunking, many are just links to papers on non-controversial science), we need to establish common understanding. So you need to demonstrate understanding of two things (based on your comments in the thread so far).

1) ERP is not transmitted power, and HAARP only transmits 4.2 Mw
2) HAARP does not create ELF sound waves, it creates ELF electromagnetic radiation.

These are fundamental to understanding the science. You cannot build upon a shaky foundation. Please address these before bringing up anything else. Do not re-post your page of links until you've demonstrated you understand this.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
I am fully aware that humans hear from 20-20,000 Hz and HAARP generated ELF waves are 2.5 Hz, far below an audible range. Rude

Doesn't matter what the frequency/wavelength is, electromagnetic waves are not audible. And since 2.5 Hz is far below the range of human hearing, why do you say that HAARP can "create ELF waves heard worldwide"? Please explain how any knowledgeable person is supposed to take you seriously when you don't even know the difference between audio and radio waves? Yet you are to have us believe that you have connected some dots involving complex physics?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top