Bernard Eastlund's Connection to HAARP

Status
Not open for further replies.

rezn8d

Jim Lee
you just broke the rules, you deleted my last post, game over.

Got too real for you, I understand.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
you just broke the rules, you deleted my last post, game over.

Got too real for you, I understand.

Because it was essentially a repost. I'm asking you to address some specific issues before continuing. I suspect you won't. However I encourage you to look at those two things anyway, for your own benefit. You put a lot of energy into your sites, and it would be better if the output had a more solid scientific basis.

If you address those two issues (one of which you specifically asked to be debunked, and here it is debunked), then we can more on to your other claims.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
you just broke the rules, you deleted my last post, game over.

Got too real for you, I understand.
Or maybe your last post was unnecessarily long and just repeated a bunch of stuff from your website that you've posted previously? I saw that post but didn't see any new information or any answers to our questions/comments. It's no secret that Mick will truncate or delete excessively long posts when it's all contained on one link or website anyways.

And why are you evading our questions?
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Jay claimed to have d
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?
  1. I don't need your advice on friendship.
  2. You ain't my father
  3. Define watered down claims
  4. show me where I exaggerated in my claims
  5. When did I blow plasma clouds up into a cataclysm.
You just made five statements, none of which were debunks, all of which were at the very least semi-personal. Mick has no standards anymore when Tim and Jay are allowed to bully others with their Slavespeak
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
Because it was essentially a repost. I'm asking you to address some specific issues before continuing. I suspect you won't. However I encourage you to look at those two things anyway, for your own benefit. You put a lot of energy into your sites, and it would be better if the output had a more solid scientific basis.

If you address those two issues (one of which you specifically asked to be debunked, and here it is debunked), then we can more on to your other claims.

Everything I've written prior to this article is subject to review: http://rezn8d.net/2013/04/17/the-birth-of-haarp

My claims are summed up in The Birth of HAARP, yet you debunk none of it. You ignore the facts, search for your "weakest link in the armor" and start stabbing in the dark. I expect better from you Mick, really, I mean really?

You attack a dead man's ideas for sport in your thread here, and get all snarky with me whilst circumventing the truth. For shame.

Dr. Eastlund was a brilliant scientist, and made the claims of the potential for weather modification and wireless power transmission himself. He invented the artificial ionospheric lens, or AIM, and HAARP now uses that tech which was aquired by APTI and ARCO.


which was renamed a mirror here:

1991 PDF: 5041834 – Artificial Ionospheric Mirror Composed Of A Plasma Layer Which Can Be Tilted

Here is the timeline:

Whilst probing for Iranian nukes hidden under hills, you think those long-waves might disturb a little rock?

My question to you, Mick, is what exactly were you trying to debunk when you created this thread?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rezn8d

Jim Lee
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?

I am referring to this, smart guy:

http://www.vlf.it/trond2/below10.html
That's what I meant by "heard", like with antennas and stuff. SMH
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's what I meant by "heard", like with antennas and stuff. SMH

So why did you say this?

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

And what about the ERP? You understand that the ERP is not the actual transmitted power? That for HAARP EPR is 1000x the transmitted power?
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
So why did you say this?



And what about the ERP? You understand that the ERP is not the actual transmitted power? That for HAARP EPR is 1000x the transmitted power?

I'll rephrase that one word from my claims, doesn't change the claim.

The ERP/power of HAARP is irrelevant, as is my full understanding of the science behind it.

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
per your quote and Skeptoid, you missed his first patent, and more relevant imo:

You said he never explained how they would work, which is untrue. Jenkins explains it all to the AMS in the video I posted, and his original website explains the history of how the patents lead to the creation of HAARP.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070513183109/http://www.eastlundscience.com/HAARP.html
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'll rephrase that one word from my claims, doesn't change the claim.

The ERP/power of HAARP is irrelevant, as is my full understanding of the science behind it.

So basically you are just cutting and pasting these gobs of text that you don't understand, and asking people to debunk them?

Maybe it would be better if you did understand? Maybe you should try to actually figure things out.

Let's not have Gish Gallops. Please just ask one question about one subject. Any future posts you make will be edited down to a single question, whatever comes first.
 

rezn8d

Jim Lee
I und
So basically you are just cutting and pasting these gobs of text that you don't understand, and asking people to debunk them?

Maybe it would be better if you did understand? Maybe you should try to actually figure things out.

Let's not have Gish Gallops. Please just ask one question about one subject. Any future posts you make will be edited down to a single question, whatever comes first.
I just debunked your claims here, admit defeat or sling more mud and attack my character as a last resort. You brag about your plans to censor me in the future, your claims are debunked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I just debunked your claims here, admit defeat or sling more mud and attack my character as a last resort. You brag about your plans to censor me in the future, your claims are debunked.

I'm not attacking your character. I'm pointing out things that you don't understand, of that you got wrong. HAARP is just an ionospheric heater, similar to previous ones. Can you point to something from Eastlund's patent that is in HAARP that was not pre-existing technology?
 
Last edited:

Maggie Z.

New Member
I'm not attacking your character. I'm pointing out things that you don't understand, of that you got wrong. HAARP is just an ionospheric heater, similar to previous ones. Can you point to something from Eastlund's patent that is in HAARP that was not pre-existing technology?
I'm replying to this 5 year old thread, because I see several problems in the way Mick and several others here treated evidence presented by Jim Lee.

Mick's above quote essentially makes it all about whether or not Eastlund's patents had anything new contributing to HAARP that was not pre-existing technology, rather than about whether HAARP can do the things Eastlund, Jim and others say it can do.

Each patent has a section answering what the relevant "prior art" is, and how this patent is better than the prior art. So your question can easily be determined there, but I suppose your original intention was more about debunking the claims made about HAARP's purposes and capabilities, Eastlund's patents only representing the most well known of HAARP type technology.

Most importantly, the onus should be on YOU to demonstrate how HAARP can NOT possibly do what Eastlund and others said it can do, given all the info Jim provided, and some relevant info that electrojet mentioned earlier, such as the 2003 Stanford paper that pointed out the amplification of HAARP injected ELF/VLF signals "by the magnetospheric plasma, leading to the triggering of new emissions and enhanced precipitation of energetic electrons from the radiation belts."
https://sincedutch.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/haarp08.pdf
Also, how space weather occurring in the ionosphere affects weather below:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html

Given how many anomalies in the data from NASA and NOAA that can't be explained by the official science, but easily explained by the use of HAARP for weather modifications, the assumption should be that weather modification IS being used covertly and for hostile purposes, until thoroughly proven otherwise.

One recent example - this image was captured from http://www.earth.nullschool.net/ (a NASA website) on April 15, 2018, the day a devastating storm hit Kauai, Hawaii. How do you explain the SQUARE pattern of calm exactly near Kauai just as the vicious storm was happening? Did someone try to blot out the true signals in that square area? Squares NEVER happen naturally in weather patterns, you know?

Even more tellingly, this website has since been taken down, but if you look it up at archive.org, you'll see it was archived for every single day of the year so far - EXCEPT APRIL 15! They've been able to remove key info even from archive.org, as I've found out many times (I now make sure I archive at archive.is, archive.org, as well as some others).
KauaiStormApr15_2017.jpg
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Even more tellingly, this website has since been taken down,
no it hasn't. try this link https://earth.nullschool.net/

but if you look it up at archive.org, you'll see it was archived for every single day of the year so far - EXCEPT APRIL 15
actually 2017 is the same
2017.PNG



Not that it matters because the archive dates don't jive with what was actually archived. I tried 8 dates and they all said April 11, 2018
uu.PNG


But anyways.... those squares seem to be everywhere. I just opened earth. null school and see them right now.
ring.PNG
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Given how many anomalies in the data from NASA and NOAA that can't be explained by the official science, but easily explained by the use of HAARP for weather modifications, ....
I have never seen any verifiable evidence that such anomalies are "easily explained" by "using HAARP for weather modification" other than "I say it is o it must be so"


......the assumption should be that weather modification IS being used covertly and for hostile purposes, until thoroughly proven otherwise.
I've got a better idea - don't make any assumptions at all.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
One recent example - this image was captured from http://www.earth.nullschool.net/ (a NASA website) on April 15, 2018, the day a devastating storm hit Kauai, Hawaii. How do you explain the SQUARE pattern of calm exactly near Kauai just as the vicious storm was happening? Did someone try to blot out the true signals in that square area? Squares NEVER happen naturally in weather patterns, you know?
The weather data on Earth Nullschool is a computer model forecast derived from the Global Forecast System and updated every three hours. It is not a real time depiction of actual weather. The squares are meaningless, they're basically artifacts in a computer simulation. And the burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
(a NASA website)
Since this bit was not addressed: That website is not a NASA website. It is a private website created by web developer Cameron Beccario, who lives in Tokyo, Japan. It is based on his original Tokyo-only wind map, which was inspired by a similar US wind map developed by Fernanda Viégas and Martin Wattenberg, who also are not affiliated with NASA. These two are affiliated with Google, but the wind map was an off time hobby, not work related.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
One recent example - this image was captured from http://www.earth.nullschool.net/ (a NASA website) on April 15, 2018, the day a devastating storm hit Kauai, Hawaii. How do you explain the SQUARE pattern of calm exactly near Kauai just as the vicious storm was happening? Did someone try to blot out the true signals in that square area? Squares NEVER happen naturally in weather patterns, you know?

Even more tellingly, this website has since been taken down, but if you look it up at archive.org, you'll see it was archived for every single day of the year so far - EXCEPT APRIL 15! They've been able to remove key info even from archive.org, as I've found out many times (I now make sure I archive at archive.is, archive.org, as well as some others).
The website hasn't been taken done. Your link had an extraneous "www." at the start. I just checked and found what the image you posted actually shows. Here it is. (The "local time" there is my local time, which is BST, or UTC +1, so this is 2100 UTC, or 10am Hawaii local time on April 15.)

upload_2018-5-8_11-59-44.png

URL: https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/...ay=precip_3hr/orthographic=-154.83,12.47,1404

"3HPA" stands for "next three-hour precipitation accumulation". As @solrey says, it shows the model forecast data for the three-hourly rainfall total. If you skip forward or backward by one three-hour step you sill see totally different shapes. It's just a computer model predicting where rain will fall. The Kauai

upload_2018-5-8_12-2-10.png

upload_2018-5-8_12-2-37.png

If you actually look at real satellite images of the time in question, you can see that there are no "squares" anywhere to be seen. Here is the Himawari-8 image for 2100 UTC on April 15 (again, nothing to do with NASA: Himawari-8 is a Japanese weather satellite). Hawaii is quite close to the edge of the visible part of the Earth, but you can easily see there is nothing sinister there.

upload_2018-5-8_12-9-16.png
 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member.
the onus should be on YOU to demonstrate how HAARP can NOT possibly do what Eastlund and others said it can do

This seems backwards...you, Jim Lee et al are the ones making the claims. The onus is on you to prove they are correct. You have seen something you don't understand and just "assumed" it must be HAARP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top