Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Haarp Weapon, and Europe's Cold Summer

  1. Jul 16, 2004 #1
    The cod have moved off the coast of Sweden, due to fluxuations in the jet stream. Five miles of nets producing ten pounds of fish. A summer that is the coldest since 1847, and if it doesn't warm up soon, it will be the coldest since the 1700's. The Butterfly Theory talked about even minute changes making macro differences in the world scheme of things. I went looking for someone engaging in dialogue regarding this, here is a snippet of an article.

    As you have written, HAARP has proven itself, especially this year in preventing tornados. There have been few tornados in the places that normally get them.

    There are three components to the creation of a tornado: A cold wet low pressure cyclonic system; a hot high pressure front; and the jet stream...

    Edit: please see this link for the entire text http://www.bariumblues.com/dear_concerned_ionospheric_physi.htm - Ivan
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 16, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Mind control?!?

    Weather control?!?

    Yeah... off to skepticism and debunking you go!

    The engineering forum is for engineering discussions, not conspiracy theories
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2004
  4. Jul 16, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh... and you're a plagiarist as well!

    You're off to a great start here, Oyeah...

    Shamelessly ripped-off webpage
  5. Jul 16, 2004 #4
    I went looking for someone engaging in dialogue regarding this, here is a snippet of an article.

    I gave credit for a snippet of an article. Does that equal plagarism?

    So, there is no weather engineering going on? I read about Nissan using a tool to break up hailstorms that damage their goods in transit.

    There is no climate engineering going on?

    Do you enjoy name calling?

    How do you know I do not experience shame, are you empathic?
  6. Jul 16, 2004 #5
    If you don't cite your source, then yes, it is plagiarism. So calling you a plagiarist is technically correct.

    That being said, what is your point? This doesn’t give proof of project HAARP controlling weather.
  7. Jul 16, 2004 #6

    You have been warned for the post: Your Post. Your warning level is now: 14. This action was taken for the following reason: . Please reply back if you have a dispute. enigma
    I am not sure why I was warned. Since a period, does not particularly denote a value, except for an autocratic frame of mind. And, I was warned twice for the same post by the same "mentor". Were you hoping to get me controlled right up front? Is this a Physics Forum ***** Slap, of sorts?

    Is it the subject matter, that puts this in the skepticism department, with the UFO enthusiasts?
  8. Jul 16, 2004 #7
    There won't be any available proof of Haarp controlling weather, because that activity would be secretive. I suppose that trained weather observers could check the jet stream activity before the fourfold increase in the haarps size, a few months ago, and what the jet stream is now doing. In organic systems, it would be a hard proof, to say that any one thing is doing the job, especially if the doers were not interested in explaining themselves.

    I wonder if the new European Union is getting a dose of payback for their lack of involvement in Iraq, and to somewhat deflate the boom that will come from the creation of this new, vibrant economy that is forming from the unification of the European currency.
  9. Jul 16, 2004 #8
    You have been warned


    You have been warned for the post: Your Post. Your warning level is now: 7. This action was taken for the following reason: . Please reply back if you have a dispute. enigma
    Here is the second warning for the same post. I dispute this. I am a longer term member than you may think, I decided to get a less personal name to use in my posting. You don't play well with others, and your greeting skills are sub standard.

  10. Jul 16, 2004 #9

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oyeah and whoever else is interested: If we stick strickly to the facts about HAARP and why you feel that this is used for weather control I won't close the thread.

    Lets forget about the infighting. If you quote from a source then you need to cite that source. Never copy the entire article unless it already falls within the public domain.
  11. Jul 16, 2004 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Please address any complaints to administration. Don't hash things out here.
  12. Jul 16, 2004 #11

    Here is an article that discusses weather control. There were some satellites launched earlier this year, to control the "Space Weather", so that our satellites would suffer less disruption. I wonder if these fall into the power category that would control tornados, or influence the jet stream?

    Weather is something that I think should be a variable constant, something we do not attempt to influence. I think it is a part of a bigger scheme. In this article it discusses mood changes in populations dependent on certain solar cycles.
  13. Jul 16, 2004 #12
    Here is another article, with a lot of jargon about weather control, and the use of EM waves. This is interesting, is it bunk?

    http://www.tricountyi.net/~randerse/weather.htm [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  14. Jul 17, 2004 #13
    I learned some things about copying posts, and copyrighted material today, I was unaware of the seriousness of these things. I will be more careful in the future, and post only links to things that I didn't author myself.
  15. Jul 17, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have removed your warnings, Oyeah.

    You don't need to completely omit anything originally written by someone else, so long as you provide a link to where on the web it can be located and clearly designate it as a quote. Basically, the purpose is to quote enough to give the gist of the argument so people reading the thread can know what they'd be looking at and read further if they're interested.

    If you take a look at some of Ivan's threads in the S&D forum, you can see a good example of quotes staying within the "fair use" laws.

    Hopefully the two of us can get along from here on in. :smile:
    I offer my apology for jumping in with both guns blazing.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2004
  16. Jul 18, 2004 #15
    Anyway, Oyéah,

    There is no known means of controling the weather beyond:

    1.) cloud seeding

    2.) long term effects of air pollution (including greenhouse effect)

    Neither HAARP, nor any satellite can control the weather.

    The purpose of HAARP is to study the ionosphere. The ionosphere has a big effect on communications systems and the more they know about it, the more effectively they can design communications systems. It should be no surprise that both the Government and big business are interested in anything to do with communications.

    The notion it could be used as a weapon is the unfortunate result of people comparing it to Tesla's "Magnifying Transmitter" which it only superficially resembles. The Magnifying Transmitter, of course, could not work as Tesla claimed it would.
  17. Jul 18, 2004 #16
    I have heard some mention of HAARP's capability as a weapon. Not mind control exactly, but the idea that very low frequency waves(electromagnetic or sound?) could be aimed at a certian region and cause the populace to become ill and /or irritable. Is this a possibility and what could be the effects of such radiation?
  18. Jul 18, 2004 #17
    If the HAARP is so benign, then why all the people deeply concerned with it?.


    I know that articles are more opinions. If they weren't written, I doubt that anyone would be asking you or me, if it were okay to just do whatever they felt like, with this technology. I noticed that it was stated that there was a world treaty to ban weather control as a weapons system, but not an agreement to ban weather control. You know, the weather isn't a pile of bananas, but humans frequently misbehave when the stakes are low, much less as high as getting the weather the way they want it.
  19. Jul 18, 2004 #18
    Because of the unfortunate and inaccurate comparison made to the Tesla Magnifying transmitter. This planted the erroneous thought is people's minds that the HAARP can do what the Magnifing Transmitter couldn't do. People got the wrong impression that the HAARP installation succeeded in magnifying the signals it sent, so that they were greater in strength at the recieving end than at the transmission end. They aren't. That is impossible. Tesla had simple started to lose his mind a little bit when he made these claims. His transmitter never ended up doing what he said it would do.

    The HAARP is similar only in the sence that it sends high energy signals up and bounces them off the ionosphere. When they come back, or reflect somewhere else, they are very spread out and therefore very much weaker per unit area.

    I think that the people who are deeply concerned just don't grasp that Tesla's Magnifying transmitter could never have worked as he thought it would. It could transmit energy, yes. But it could never magnify it.

    People are always suspicious of anything that sounds like a secret weapon, or of technology that might give one group of people an inordinate amount of power. No one wants to feel helpless against such a thing. Therefore, they ruminate about such rumors and embellish them in their mind, wondering to themselves "Are they doing this with it?", "Are they doing that with it?". Pretty soon they go on the web and create fearful web pages listing all their suspicions and how they might be true. You really have to read that kind of stuff with a level head.
  20. Jul 19, 2004 #19


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Because they don't understand it, therefore its an easy to make-up a conspiracy theory about it. Just use the conspiracy theory to fill in the gaps in your knowledge.
    zooby's quote contained the asnwer to this as well. No, it doesn't have this capability, and no, there is no danger from ulf radiation (they are electromagnetic, not sound, btw).

    When electromagnetic radiation gets to the microwave frequency range (near radio frequencies), it starts interacting with water, making heat. That's how microwaves work. That can be dangerous. A little (lot) higher in frequeny and its infrared. That can be dangerous because its heat. A little higher in frequency and its light. That can be dangerous because of the associated heat. A little higher and its UV. Thats the lowest frequency radiation that can break chemical bonds - ie, cause cancer.
  21. Jul 19, 2004 #20
    I think this is probably the reason there isn't as much fish as there used to be to begin with.

    Forget conspiracy theories maybe it is overfishing.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 19, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook