Quote:

---

which i must say is highly disturbing

---

Yes it is very highly disturbing. The intentions seem logical but the uses beyond that are very scary indeed. Well they have always said man will eventually destroy himself.... I would have to say we are well down that road and hope there is another fork back to the good road .... hmmmmmmm

What bothers me the most is that far too many people have their heads buried firmly in the sand, some so far that you only see their feet!

DML
"Like I did before, I will type in "electromagnetic waves" and "HAARP" into google - if there is no connection, there should be no hits:"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan:
"That's not how search engines work. If a web page contains any of the words you typed it, it will return a hit. Pages with all three words will be near the front of your search results and pages containing fewer than all three will appear near the back. Google is a search engine. The hits it returns are not "evidence" of anything other than the fact that web pages contain at least one of the words you typed."

Unless you put two of the words in "quotes" - then they treat those two words as one whole term they search for. So it was a search for a term (electromagnetic waves) and another word (HAARP). According to you, it's just a "coincidence" that 3,660 hits came back for "electromagnetic waves"/HAARP - the two things still have nothing to do with each other. Yah, right. Let's read a few of those hits carefully (try not to dismiss this one because it's "out of his area of expertise" - according to that logic, nobody but those on the HAARP payroll have a right to discuss HAARP):


"It appears that electromagnetic waves have more of an effect on our weather than anyone realized. This was the first book put together on HAARP. It has material... from historical perspectives to technical theoretical explanation on how this secret device works! Includes many source documents, the Eastland patents, articles, and more!!!"

http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/books/290004.htm


"As the HAARP apparatus zaps and lifts the upper atmosphere with steerable electromagnetic beams, extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic waves bounce back to earth, penetrating all living organisms. ELF waves in certain frequencies are known to be extremely hazardous to human health. The impact of the full gamut of physical and psychological effects of HAARP waves on humans are yet unknown. Therefore, the use of ELF on humans fits the definition of scientific experimentation."

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project125.html


"HAARP is the test run for a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything, living and dead. HAARP's operations have been closely linked to weather control."

http://www.demonhunter.btinternet.co.uk/haaarp.htm



"The military has big plans for the many different functions this project qualifies for. One such function being defense weaponry. In U.S. Patent #4,686,605 (one of twelve HAARP related patents) it states that by transmitting a multitude of electromagnetic waves at varying frequencies, over a given region "this can cause confusion of or interference with or even complete disruption of guidance systems employed by even the most sophisticated of airplanes and missiles." Also achieved would be communication breakdown as well as loss of power and it has the ability to disable electrical systems."
http://www.sumeria.net/phys/apps.html









Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,660 for "electromagnetic waves" HAARP.


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



"Wow. When I type "HAARP Research Only" into google I come back with 27,100 hits (over 7 times the number of hits your search produced). I fail to see the relevence."

If you typed in HAARP and "electromagnetic waves" and they didn't have anything to do with each other, you would have gotten a few dozen hits, tops. The fact that there are thousands confirms they have something to do with each other. Just deal with that fact.

Here .... check out the patent itself if you don't believe me:

http://www.gewo.applet.cz/agentura/haarp__file_5.htm

(you can find all the references to "electromagnetic" in the "find on this page" feature of your "edit" service at the top of your page, if you still can't see the connection).










"You decided all electromagnetic wave making references must be HAARP. It is an unsupported assumption on your part, and google search results don't do anything to prove otherwise."

Right. There were over 3000 coincidental hits on google. As IF.









Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.freeessays123.com/essay86431/haarp.html



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



"This link goes to an anonymous essay that cites a broken link as part of it's bibliography. What sort of standards do you use to judge your information? Why would you put stock into a piece of writing with no author, on a site where people can download free essays?"

Check it again. The source is at the bottom:

"Angel’s Don’t Play This HAARP by Dr Nick Begich and Jeane Manning"


One of the links work if you break it into it's two parts:

http://www.kalamark.com/Kal_Dir/haarp.html










Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason that link is posted is because the tremors remain unexplained. If you read the following quote, you might ask yourself if the explaination is HAARP:


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



"If any of the scientist who had been monitoring that region for the last three years had suggest that there was even a remote possibility that the tremors were man made, I'd be with you. Nothing like that was mentioned. They're studying an area known for having large earthquakes every 140 years, and it's been 148 years since the last one hit. I don't see anything weird about deep earth tremors coming from the epicenter of a large quake zone that's 8 years overdue for another major quake."

There are other theories circulating .... they can't all be dismissed because they are not from HAARP employees:

http://www.cheniere.org/articles/Yakuza%20threat%20including%20tsunamis%20-%
20final%20w%20edits%201%20website%20a.doc

"By focusing the interference zone inside a volcano to its magma, and steadily depositing additional EM energy in the piezoelectric matter, a buildup of pressure in the volcano is induced. Eventually the volcano will erupt from the increased pressure. If the increase in pressure is applied slowly, the slow increase in pressure will be held longer by the static friction, so that a higher pressure is reached before the volcano erupts. This engenders a large and violent eruption, with consequently greater ejection and distant dispersion of ash, lava, and other debris."




http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=14755

Here's how you initiate a very large earthquake with such weapons. Take a convenient fault zone of set of them. Focus the interferometry on the fault zone, in the "diverging" mode, and deposit EM energy there in the rocks on both sides, increasing (slowly) the stress in the rocks by the reverse piezoelectric effect (deposit excess energy, get crystal mechanical movements).

"Do it slowly, and the stress will build up to large pressures well-above a plate slip minimum energy required. At some point, the rocks yield and one or both sides "slip" and move rather sharply, giving a very large earthquake in that zone.

"Do the same thing down in the earth (remember, LWs easily penetrate right through the earth and ocean at will, and so the "interference zone" focus can be inside the earth or beneath the ocean, at will.

"Anyway, focus this thing down to where the active part of the volcano is still slumbering, down where the hole in the plate has been made. Keep increasing the deposition of energy in the magma itself, and eventually the increasing pressure from deep within that volcano, underground, will cause an eruption. Build the energy slow, and the eruption will likely be much larger..."



http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=42049

UNKNOWN ENERGY SURGES CONTINUE TO HIT PLANET



http://www.geocities.com/orgonegal/telegeodynamics.html

EARTHQUAKES: Natural or Man-Made?





Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other researchers note that you don't need spacelab to bounce electromagnetic waves down to earth, you can use the "ionospheric bulge":

In the PARS Project, Authors Inan and Bell (StarLab at Stanford University) proposing a possible accompanying ionospheric effects due to induced precipitation of energetic electrons, generated by HAARP HF emissions, able to stimulate ELF/VLF signals as well as such ionospheric effects (6a). So manmade activity may excite (though unexpected) the needed overall condition in ionosphere and atmosphere, to get the one usually created by nature, to induce higher electron temperature and precipitation of energetic electrons toward the lower ionospheric as well as atmospheric layers.

http://www.itacomm.net/ph/embla2002/embla2002_2_e.htm


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



The very next sentence of that paper reads:
"This situation may induce electron fluctuations, able to produce most favorable condition to trigger optical phenomena in the low atmosphere, breaking SCEBs, with no (or partial) need of natural seasonal connections."



"They're talking about making 'optical phenomena', not making electron shields to bounce high energy HAARP blasts."

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. You may be able to see the process.









Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And all these folks:
http://www.jp-petit.com/nouv_f/Crop%20Circles/Illustrations/artificial_mirror.gif
http://www.jp-petit.com/nouv_f/Crop%20Circles/Haarp.htm
http://137.229.36.56/ulcar4.JPG
http://137.229.36.56/



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



"Why is the phrase 'crop circles' in the URL of above links?"

1) What do you think crop circles are - aliens? Guys with steam-irons out for a night of pranks? I alway thought it was a bunch of weapons testing rather than a bunch of guys running through a field - they all look computer generated to me.







"Isn't there even one credible news source of to support your claims?"

According to you, unless you're on the HAARP payroll, you're talking outside your area of expertise. You dismissed Dr. Bertell because some hack from Exxon said she didn't know what she was talking about regarding Global Warming, while at the same time ignoring evidence that Exxon pours money into putting out BS on Global Warming. Here's some other voices saying much the same thing:

"Ebell, who confesses to not having an extensive science background, appears comfortable dismissing the scientific case about global warming despite the fact that virtually the entire scientific community around the world has given it credence. "We think the case for scientific alarm looks weak," says Ebell .... There is something almost funny about this blithe dismissal of findings supported by such a heavy contingent of scientists, including many Nobel laureates. Yet Ebell's Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received more than $1 million from Exxon since 1998, is a voice that, remarkably, is taken seriously in the halls of power."

-Linda McQuaig, "It's the Crude, Dude", 2004, p. 18

"The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) which embraces many vehicle manufacturers, oil companies and Arab oil producers put on a massive propaganda campaign against any reduction at all. Highly paid scientists employed by the GCC were seen on TV voicing the view that global warming was small, insignificant and not due to human activity but to natural causes such as the tilt of the earth, sun cycles, etc. There is some truth in this. The IPCC is aware of that aspect but still says that anthropogenic emissions of guilty gases must be greatly reduced if disaster is not to be avoided. It is all very well to say that to be able to grow wheat in Siberia will be a blessing but that is only one good thing about global warming, whereas there are a great many minuses. Among these are the melting of glaciers which together with expansion by warming will cause. as it already has caused, a rise in sea levels. This will put many low lying areas at risk, eg the Maldives, Holland, Bangladesh. Besides, if ocean thermal inertia is overcome and if the tundra melts releasing vast quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, global warming may accelerate so fast as to leave no time for adaptation of plants, animals or humans. In sad and sober fact global mean temperature rise has recently been accelerating correlative with the surge in our greenhouse gas emissions. Humans are the most adaptable of animals but there is a sever limit on how many can be accommodated in deserts. Deserts are sprawling at the rate of 50,000 acres per year. A fairly modest rise of 2.5c in temperature (IPCC best estimate for 2100) could cause mass migration, straining the resources of the receiving countries to the limit and beyond."

http://www.stmachar.com/archivepages/enviro6.htm


"The CCSP did not even consider the likelihood, suggested by "a growing body of evidence," that the short-term warming changes it ignores "will trigger an abrupt nonlinear process," producing dramatic temperature changes that could carry extreme risks for the United States, Europe, and other temperate zones.The Bush administration's "contemptuous pass on multilateral engagement with the global warming problem," Kennedy continued, is the "stance that began the long continuing process of eroding its friendships in Europe," leading to "smoldering resentment.""

http://contemporarylit.about.com/cs/firstchapters/a/hegemony_2.htm







"Do we really have to hit the crop circle/UFO/alien abduction links to see the hard evidence that supports your theory?"

I don't see the "alien abduction" stuff? Is that another of your "dismiss everything and deal with nothing" tactics?







"Doesn't the fact that you have to fall back on sites like these for 'proof' make you wonder how reliable the information you're trusting is?"

Doesn't the fact that you have a million ways to identify arguments as "too incredible to bother investigating" make you wonder how "the official story" would hold up if these dismissive tactics could not be used?

Try dealing with the arguments presented as if they DID meet your impossible-to-achieve standards of credability .... I triple-dog-dare ya.








Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . .and you ignore how the tsunami has been used as an excuse to militarize the area and how aid is being withheld from the Aceh people.


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



"The area was already militarized. The Indonesian Army has been fighting rebels there for years, and now the fight continues. The tsunami didn't change any of that."

It certainly made it easier for the Indonesian military - they have a hundred thousand fewer Acehians to kill, and more death on the way as they keep the aid from reaching the locals.

Or did you not bother to read all those links to that?










Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As with many of your other posts, you're prognosis of "dead argument" is premature.



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



"The one scientist you had was speaking outside of her field."

You keep repeating that. You never answer my question - is she capable of understanding the sources she cites?

Your standards of credability keep shifting. First it's "an author who has a name and a location and who can be verified by another author. Then I give you three - the Defence Secretary, the Air Force, and Dr. Bertell. So then you shift your "credability" definition to also include "must be within one's area of expertise" - making credible commentary on new weapons an impossibility for those who aren't involved with making those weapons (even those with extensive backgrounds in technology and military pollution don't qualify).

Your shifting standards don't add weight to your argument - they take away from it.






"She also described the weapon capabilities of HAARP as requiring the defunct (since 1997) spacelab module to work."


And then you ignore the fact that she was 1) writing in 1996, and 2) not excluding the possibility that other methods of "reflecting" the EM beams could be used - as other authors have indicated.





"Now we have to turn to the crop circle sites and what not to get the "real" information on what's going on?"

Crop circles are ways of testing such weapons out - unless you think martians did them.







"I don't doubt that someone, somewhere, has pages full of all sorts of conspiratorial claims that support your argument."

Doesn't take you long to fall back on the most often used method of dismissing arguments. The "c" word. Here's a quote from the top of my first post in this thread - just in case you've forgotten how tired the "conspiratorial claims" argument is:

"CHOMSKY: That's one of the devices by which power defends itself -- by calling any critical analysis of institutions a conspiracy theory. If you call it by that name, then somehow you don't have to pay attention to it. Edward Herman and I, in our recent book, Manufacturing Consent, go into this ploy. What we discuss in that book is simply the institutional factors that essentially set parameters for reporting and interpretation in the ideological institutions. Now, to call that a conspiracy theory is a little bit like saying that, when General Motors tries to increase its market share, it's engaged in a conspiracy. It's not. I mean, part of the structure of corporate capitalism is that the players in the game try to increase profits and market shares; in fact, if they didn't, they would no longer be players in the game. Any economist knows this. And it's not conspiracy theory to point that out; it's just taken for granted. If someone were to say, "Oh, no, that's a conspiracy," people would laugh.

Well, exactly the same is true when you discuss the more complex array of institutional factors that determine such things as what happens in the media. It's precisely the opposite of conspiracy theory. In fact, as you mentioned before, I generally tend to downplay the role of individuals -- they're replaceable pieces. So, it's exactly the opposite of conspiracy theory. It's normal institutional analysis -- the kind of analysis you do automatically when you're trying to understand how the world works. And to call it conspiracy theory is simply part of the effort to prevent an understanding of how the world works."

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19900907.htm







"My question is why do only the alien abductees, crop circle people, chem trail people, and the rest of the tin foil hat crowd agree with you, but not a single expert? Doesn't that indicate something to you?"

Dr. Bertell doesn't talk about alien abductees, nor does she wear a tin foil hat. It's a shame that you've fallen back on ridicule instead of addressing the arguments presented with counter arguments.... I was hoping for a higher level of debate.

Maybe that's all you have left - ridicule.

I quadroople-dog dare you to try some other tactic besides "dismiss and ridicule".









"Find someone who knows about ionospheric research claiming that HAARP caused this tsunami. Find a seismologist that says this quake was man-made."

Academics are too worried about their respectability to rock the boat. As Chomsky puts it so well, "Wealth and power tend to accrue to those who are ruthless, cunning, avaricious, self-seeking, lacking in sympathy and compassion, subservient to authority and willing to abandon principle for material gain, and so on." The non-established, non-annointed, non-approved folks of the world have their suspicions. The fact that 23,700 hits for "tsunami HAARP" show up on Google indicate that more than one person suspects a connection. This healthy skepticism will not go away with either dismissive tactics nor ridicule. You'll have to come up with reasons and sources to make the questions go away.





"Enough with the conspiracy crowd,"

Enough with the "c" word.





"...let's have someone who knows what they're talking about supporting your claims."

According to you, nobody but those working on HAARP itself would qualify. But then, they're already bought, (and/or under strict orders and/or confidentiality agreements) arn't they?






"Not ten-thousand links of disjointed and out-of-context quotations that can be loosely fit together to sort of resemble your theory, but an actual expert agreeing with you. Show me one reputable, trusted scientist saying "HAARP caused this tsunami". That shouldn't be too hard."

Dr. Bertell is a "trusted scientist" - the fact that a corporate flack-catcher dismisses her Global Warming argument with the same tactics that you use to dismiss these arguements only makes her reputation stronger in my eyes. Try finding something on her that actually proves her wrong - Global Warming is accepted by everyone except Exxon employees.

"You know, I didn't have professional qualifications in the field. At MIT they didn't care. They just cared whether it was right or wrong. It's a scientific university. They don't care what's written on your degree."

Chomsky, on dismissive attitudes and "area of expertise" & "lack of credability arguments".

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/mc/mc-supp-030.html



And while we're on the subject of "area 51":


Grantham's history is littered with CIA wreckage. According to Eitel, "When Grantham wanted to leave Arizona undetected he leased hangar space at an Indian reservation where Customs didn't operate. He frequently flew into Area 51 and on his trips back from Latin America he would land at El Toro Marine Air Station in California.

http://www.wiolawapress.com/mike.htm


Among the aircraft flown in and out of Mena was Seal's C-123K cargo plane, christened Fat Lady. The records show that Fat Lady, serial number 54-0679, was sold by Seal months before his death. According to other files, the plane soon found its way to a phantom company of what became known in the Iran-Contra scandal as "the Enterprise," the C.I.A.-related secret entity managed by Oliver North and others to smuggle illegal weapons to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. According to former D.E.A. agent Celerino Castillo and others, the aircraft was allegedly involved in a return traffic in cocaine, profits from which were then used to finance more clandestine gunrunning.

F.A.A. records show that in October 1986, the same Fat Lady was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of arms destined for the Contras. Documents found on board the aircraft and seized by the Sandinistas included logs linking the plane with Area 51 — the nation's top-secret nuclear-weapons facility at the Nevada Test Site.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a9138c73be.htm


"And Grantham used the same law firm, Lewis and Roca of Tucson and Phoenix, to file bankruptcy and transfer the planes to Herrera which had handled the entire transfer of Air America assets to Evergreen back in 1976." Asked how credible Grantham's denial of drug involvement was, Eitel replied, "It stinks."
Grantham's history is littered with CIA wreckage. According to Eitel, "When Grantham wanted to leave Arizona undetected he leased hangar space at an Indian reservation where Customs didn't operate. He frequently flew into Area 51 and on his trips back from Latin America he would land at El Toro Marine Air Station in California.

http://dks.thing.net/RFKassassination.html





As for the Argonne National laboratory, it's located at the University of Chicago - Rockefeller dependent for a hundred years:


http://www.anl.gov/
A U.S. Department of Energy laboratory
operated by The University of Chicago

By 1910 the "spare change" he had given the University amounted to $45 million. To the end of his life, Rockefeller said of the university: "It was the best investment I ever made."
- The Rockefellers, Collier & Horowitz, 1976, p.50

"Grandfather's first major philanthropic project was the CREATION of the University of Chicago in the 1890's. ...

The Rockefeller philanthropic tradition was simple and unadorned. It required that we be generous with with our financial resources and involve ourselves actively in the affairs of our community and the nation. ... I was drawn to the work of educational and cultural institutions, especially the University of Chicago, the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research, and the Museum of Modern Art."

- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2003, pp. 11, 145


The creation and funding of the University of Chicago had done much to enhance Rockefeller's public relations profile among Baptists and educators.
http://www.sntp.net/education/leipzig_connection_6.htm


http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0212/features/images/0212_rockefeller_01.jpg
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0212/features/pyramids.html
David Rockefeller returned to Chicago’s International House on November 7 for a discussion of Memoirs with U of C President Randel. Several hundred people attended the program and the book-signing reception that followed.


"In 1906 the University of Chicago, academic SUBSIDIARY of the Standard Oil Company, ousted Thorstein Veblen, perhaps America's most original social thinker, on the pretext that he had been party to an unsolemnized love affair. Only two years earlier Veblen had published his his suavely corrosive Theory of Business Enterprise, and it was obvious that this work, and the antecedent Theory of the Leisure Class, that provoked his dismissal. Professor Edward W. Bemis, an economist, who had criticized methods of the railroads, also failed to be re-appointed. ....
At Yale, Harvard, Columbia and the University of Chicago one can, however, study stock-market trends, advertizing layouts, the mail-order business, office management, etc. In view of the linkage of the physical science departments with big corporations, and the schools of journalism and of business with general capitalistic enterprise, and in view of the exclusion from these universities and colleges of branches of study concerned with problems of the lower income groups (except as those problems become problems of the ruling families as well), one can say that they are upper-class schools in all their phases."

- America's 60 Families, F. Lundberg, 1937, pp. 389, 405




The University of Chicago Center for Integrating Statistical and Environmental Science Spring 2003 Seminar Series

Speaker Katharine Hayhoe is a research consultant specializing in science-policy interface. Her areas ofexpertise include the environmental impacts of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and control policies,and numerical modeling of the climate system. Ms. Hayhoe received her B.Sc. in Physics from the Universityof Toronto and her M.S. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Herclients and collaborators span a wide range of government, academic and private agencies in the U.S. andCanada. These include the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, the National Institute for Global Environmental Change, Pacific-Northwest NationalLaboratories, Argonne National Laboratory, Exxon-Mobil Research & Engineering Co ....

galton.uchicago.edu/~cises/seminars/hayhoe.pdf





Schriesheim, a Ph.D. chemist who joined Argonne in 1983 after a long career with Exxon Corporation, said he will leave his post on July 1, 1996. He has been the lab's longest-serving director, and upon his retirement he will become Argonne's Director Emeritus.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/951109/shriesheim.shtml




Carbon Management: Implications for R & D in the Chemical Sciences and Technology (A Workshop Report to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable) (2001)
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications

Brian P. Flannery, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Jerry E. Hunt, Argonne National Laboratory
Andrew Kaldor, Exxon Mobil
Chandrakant B. Panchal, Argonne National Laboratory

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309075734/html/212.html




One more point .... your boy, David Cook, who you rely on to "discredit" Dr. Bertell, was contradicted by both the Air Force and the Defence Secretary:

"Weather systems and storms are much too large to be modified by
man. Experimental attempts at weather modification of
small isolated storms and clouds have taken place since the
1950s with extremely limited success. Dr. Bertell either
doesn't know what she is talking about or it was reported
incorrectly.
David R. Cook
Atmospheric Section
Environmental Research Division
Argonne National Laborator"



But, while offensive weather-modification efforts would certainly be undertaken by US forces with great caution and trepidation, it is clear that we cannot afford to allow an adversary to obtain an exclusive weather-modification capability.
Conclusions - Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 - Final Report http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/

From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary."
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-1.htm

Also check out the participant list!
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/projpart.htm

And the "Key Players"
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/players.htm


Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume3/chap15/v3c15-4.htm#v3c15--4

"A number of methods have been explored or proposed to modify the ionosphere, including injection of chemical vapors and heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation or particle beams (such as ions, neutral particles, x-rays, MeV particles, and energetic electrons).45 It is important to note that many techniques to modify the upper atmosphere have been successfully demonstrated experimentally."



SAID IN APRIL 1997 BY THE U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, WILLIAM COHEN: "Others [terrorists] 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... So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations... It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our [counterterrorism] efforts." --- Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an April 1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by former Senator Sam Nunn. Quoted from DoD News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy, University of Georgia, Athens, Apr. 28, 1997.

"Ok. So is every graduate from the University of Chicago now tainted by Rockefellers racism? Can no one be trusted from that university simply because a Rockefeller created it over a hundred years ago? I don't find it remarkable that some people graduate from the university and wind up working for Exxon. When you have a school cranking out graduates for over a hundred years it's extremely likely that some of them will also work for Exxon/Mobil . . . just as some probably work for Walmat, some for Microsoft, etc. The question is, does David Cook work for Exxon, because that was the charge."

Nobody knows his affiliations, because unlike Dr. Bertell, his CV isn't up on the net for all to see.

We do know, however, that he works at a university started by the same man who started Exxon (known for it's Bullshitting on Global Warming), a university called an "academic SUBSIDIARY of the Standard Oil Company", a university that has gotten rid of academics critical of Corporate America, a university that keeps close ties to Exxon and to David Rockefeller, and this "expert" is working directly under a man who worked for Exxon.

But apart from all that, I'm sure he keeps his independence and his credentials solid (but hard to find).






"I don't really see the contradiction."

"Weather systems and storms are much too large to be modified by
man."
- David Cook, supposed expert

But, while offensive weather-modification efforts would certainly be undertaken by US forces with great caution and trepidation, it is clear that we cannot afford to allow an adversary to obtain an exclusive weather-modification capability.

Conclusions - Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 - Final Report http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/

I'd call that a contradiction.



"SAID IN APRIL 1997 BY THE U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, WILLIAM COHEN: "Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate,"

I'd call that another contradiction.




"I'm still hoping to see just one qualified expert saying that HAARP caused the quake that set off the tsunami. With an entire planet of specialists qualified to speak on the matter, isn't there one out there?"

"You know, I didn't have professional qualifications in the field. At MIT they didn't care. They just cared whether it was right or wrong. It's a scientific university. They don't care what's written on your degree."

Chomsky, on dismissive attitudes and "area of expertise" & "lack of credability arguments".

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/mc/mc-supp-030.html


"One danger for academics is academic elitism, which is (roughly) the view that only someone who has engaged in scholarship has anything worthwhile to say on any given topic, while all others are cranks."

http://www.searchspaniel.com/index.php/Academic_elitism

Alright, let's see if we can break out of this deadlock we seemed to have entered.

I recognize your skepticism involving David Cook. You believe he is biased due to his place of employment (an he may be). I believe he is qualified to criticize Dr. Bertell because he is an atmospheric researcher, and therefore speaking within his field of expertise where Dr. Bertell is speaking on an issue outside of her field of expertise.

I believe the point here is largely moot since Dr. Bertell was speaking of a combination weapon that requires the use of Spacelab, which has been defunct since 1997 (although she made her comments in 1996, that doesn't change the fact that the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination still could not have been the culprit causing the tsunami in the 2004).

As for the contradiction:
D. Cook is talking specifically about storm systems, not weather in general. Therefore I don't see any contradiction between his comments on storm systems and the Cohen/AF comments on the ionosphere and weather/climate modification. To me it appears that D. Cook is speaking about a very specific type of weater phenomena (storm systems) and the others are talking about a general issue (weather modification).

I'm glad Chomsky has strong opinions about "area of expertise" criticisms. I do not share his opinions. I believe that a person who speaks on an issue in which they have no expertise is less credible than someone who has a long history or years of formal training regarding the same issue.

I could have any number of opinions on how to run a cannabis seed selling business, but if there is an argument between me and Marc Emery about running a successful cannabis seed selling business who would you find to be more credible?

I would think that you'd find Marc Emery more credible since he has demonstrated his knowledge of how to run a seed-selling business, where I have not.

By the same logic, I find an atmospheric reasearcher more credible when speaking on topics related to the atmosphere than a Biometrics doctor.

So do we have any siesmologists/ionospheric researchers/electromagnetic weapon systems experts claiming that this tsunami was caused by HAARP yet?

-Dan M

"Alright, let's see if we can break out of this deadlock we seemed to have entered. I recognize your skepticism involving David Cook. You believe he is biased due to his place of employment (an he may be). I believe he is qualified to criticize Dr. Bertell because he is an atmospheric researcher, and therefore speaking within his field of expertise where Dr. Bertell is speaking on an issue outside of her field of expertise."

I think history proves that economic bias warps the truth far more often - and with greater concequences - than "lack of expertise" ever has - I could provide you with as many examples as you promise to read.







"I believe the point here is largely moot since Dr. Bertell was speaking of a combination weapon that requires the use of Spacelab, which has been defunct since 1997 (although she made her comments in 1996, that doesn't change the fact that the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination still could not have been the culprit causing the tsunami in the 2004)."

Assuming Dr. Bertell can identify quality sources herself (and no non-Exxon connected critic has pointed out that she's a weak academic ... if she WAS a weak academic she would have more than one critic), she has selected Eastland - one of the originators of HAARP technology, as a legitimate source. If he invented the damn thing, why wouldn't he be a legit source?

Here is a simple description of how HAARP doesn't need "spacelab" to work by Dan Eden http://www.viewzone.com/haarp00.html - a researcher who sums up Eastland's patented technology nicely (and provides military documents to back him up):

Eastlund's discovery involved beaming High Frequency (HF) and Extremely High Frequency (EHF) waves, of extremely high power (over a billion watts), directly at a point on the ionosphere. When this was done, the ionosphere became heated from the accumulating electrical energy. You might think of it as "cooking" the atmosphere.

The heated portion of the ionosphere expands like heated plastic and is raised to a higher altitude, causing an atmospheric "bulge." Eastlund discovered that this bulge was highly reflective to radio waves, and, because of its altitude, it could bounce high frequency radio signals to points well beyond the horizon. Even efficient ELF and microwaves signals, which normally would pass through the ionosphere into space, could be deflected without much loss of strength. He called this heated "bulge" the "lens effect."

Eastlund's first patent (US #4,686,605) was for a "method and apparatus for altering a region in the Earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and or magnetosphere." His second patent described the reflection of a second signal, using the ionospheric bulge, to distant locations on the Earth's surface. Eastlund had been working with the Atlantic Richfield Company, holders of a massive reserve of natural gas under Alaska's north slope. ARCO bought Eastlund's first two patents with the understanding that this new technology would make it possible for their natural gas reserves, too expensive to be piped from Alaska, to be converted to electrical energy on the north slope, and then bounced off the heated ionosphere to customers in remote locations around the globe. Also, because Eastlund's "heaters" could elevate the Earth's ionosphere, his discovery provided the ability to control weather! Jet streams could be altered, tornadoes could be zapped and rain could be made-- anywhere and anytime-- right here and right now! But the military had other plans.

Eastlund's patents were sealed under a US Secrecy Order. The military realized that his first patent outlined the recipe for an over-the-horizon radar apparatus, capable of detecting Soviet launched ICBM's within seconds of their launch. His second patent was even more appetizing. President Ronald Regan's infamous Star Wars program had challenged the military with tall order. Their complex laser systems, nuke satellites and rail-guns didn't work. The military were years from meeting Pentagon goals. Now, unexpectedly, their prayers had been answered. Eastlund's "energy transmission system" would be turned into the ultimate "death ray."

http://www.viewzone.com/haarp11.html


The use of very high power RF heaters to accelerate electrons to 14-20 eV opens the way for the creation of substantial layers of ionization at altitudes where normally there are very few electrons. This concept already has been the subject of investigations by the Air Force (Geophysics Lab), the Navy (MU), and DARPA. The Air Force, in particular, has carried the concept, termed Artificial Ionospheric Mirror (AIM), to the point of demonstrating its technical viability and proposing a new initiative to conduct proof-of-concepts experiments.

HAARP - HF ACTIVE AURORAL RESEARCH PROGRAM
JOINT SERVICES PROGRAM PLANS AND ACTIVITIES
AIR FORCE - GEOPHYSICS LABORATORY - NAVY - OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH
http://www.viewzone.com/haarp.exec.html












"As for the contradiction:
D. Cook is talking specifically about storm systems, not weather in general."

Interesting. Dr. Bertell was talking about "weather modification" - not "Storm System modification" - so obviouly D. Cook injected the word "systems" as a red herring.

There is nothing controversial in her conclusion - which you distract from with the discussion on "spacelab" - which isn't needed for HAARP to work, according to it's designer (Eastland):

"It would be rash to assume that HAARP is an isolated experiment which would not be expanded. It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere."

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/HAARPbg.txt





"Therefore I don't see any contradiction between his comments on storm systems and the Cohen/AF comments on the ionosphere and weather/climate modification."

Either Cook is saying "we can't modify "systems" (but we can modify the weather enough to use it as a weapon)" - which is a red-herring argument because the stuff in brackets is never said out loud .... or he's saying that we can't use HAARP as a weapon at all - which is contradicted by the Air Force and the Defence Secretary. So is he a weasle or a liar? Either way he's a bucket of Exxon petrolium product cheeze wizz.







"To me it appears that D. Cook is speaking about a very specific type of weater phenomena (storm systems) and the others are talking about a general issue (weather modification)."

Yes. Others like Dr. Bertell. My point exactly.






"I'm glad Chomsky has strong opinions about "area of expertise" criticisms. I do not share his opinions."

Being both an academic and a military man, I'm not suprised you've adopted the "cult of authority" mentality. I'm not as impressed with experts, because as an observant amature historian, I think it is a verifiable statement of Chomsky's that;

"Wealth and power tend to accrue to those who are ruthless, cunning, avaricious, self-seeking, lacking in sympathy and compassion, subservient to authority and willing to abandon principle for material gain, and so on."

Again, I could provide you with as many examples as you would promise to read.









"I believe that a person who speaks on an issue in which they have no expertise is less credible than someone who has a long history or years of formal training regarding the same issue."

So are non-HAARP employees allowed to make "credible" public comment on examining patents, Army documents etc etc? If so, I've provided "credible" sources. If not, no new weapon could ever be "credibly" commented on by those outside the research familiy.

Dr. Bertell's ONLY public critic works directly under the company most involved with HAARP (Exxon) and who's had the most criticized "Climate-Change is just a myth" PR campaign (Exxon again):

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

http://www.undoit.org/pdfs/ExxonMobilAD.pdf











"I could have any number of opinions on how to run a cannabis seed selling business, but if there is an argument between me and Marc Emery about running a successful cannabis seed selling business who would you find to be more credible?"

I would look at what you were arguing about before I would compare expertise - I'm not afraid to try and understand things and judge things based upon reason .... I only look at credentials to try and understand percieved bias, I don't look at bias without first examining WHAT IS BEING ARGUED. Perhaps that's what they taught you to do in school but it does not ring true to me.









"I would think that you'd find Marc Emery more credible since he has demonstrated his knowledge of how to run a seed-selling business, where I have not."

It depends. Are you saying that experts don't ever lie? History disagrees.

Look at all the lies in the nuclear weapons industry - an industry full of experts. Thank goodness for people like Helen Caldicott - non-experts in Nuclear war who are probably responsible for us all not being dust at the moment.








"By the same logic, I find an atmospheric reasearcher more credible when speaking on topics related to the atmosphere than a Biometrics doctor."

So, following that logic, Dr. Caldicott should have been ignored and the Nuclear Bomb makers listened to because they were the authorites in the matter?



Helen Caldicott is recognized in every corner of the globe as the most visible advocate for peace in the world. Her awards, acknowledgments and citations fill pages - just to name a few: Peace Medal Award (United Nations Association of Australia), which she shared with her husband, William Caldicott, who is equally dedicated to the mission for world peace; Integrity Award (John-Roger Foundation), which she shared with Bishop Desmond TuTu; Peace Award (American Association of University Women); SANE Peace Award; Ghandi Peace Prize... and the list goes on.

Dr. Caldicott has written books (Nuclear Madness.- What You Can Do and Missile Envy), developed dozens of video tapes and films, written scores of articles which have appeared in nearly every major newspaper and magazine; spoken at major universities throughout the world and has met with heads of state everywhere.

She founded and headed Physicians For Social Responsibility and Women's Action For Nuclear Disarmament (WAND).

http://www.wic.org/bio/caldicot.htm








"So do we have any siesmologists/ionospheric researchers/electromagnetic weapon systems experts claiming that this tsunami was caused by HAARP yet?"

If that's the new measure of credability, you may have found a way to avoid all "credable" discussion of the matter. I guess this part of the website is the one place those of us who don't subscribe to "academic elitism" can talk freely amongst ourselves. You're welcome to continue the conversation if you can get beyond the dismissal stage and talk about the arguments themselves, but you acting as the bellwether of credibility as a way to ignore the arguments is getting mighty boring. You do it every post.






Interestingly, both Dr. Bertell and researcher David Guyatt point to a "Project Prime Argus" - a precursor programme to HAARP - which "looked at ways to cause earthquakes":

It was the US Navy who were responsible for Project "Prime Argus" - a precursor programme to HAARP. Argus was responsible for exploding three atomic bombs in the Van Allen belts and, thereafter monitoring the resultant effects. Researchers who have recently investigated the son of Argus, project HAARP, maintain this is an advanced weapon system capable of acting as an impenetrable planetary-wide missile shield."28 Behind the construction of HAARP lay the scientific patents of Bernard J. Eastlund. Previously classified as Secret, Eastlund's patents are now partly available for inspection. They are revealing for the sheer scope of what the HAARP project may be capable of, including "weather modification." Eastlund had in fact used much of Tesla's work to arrive at his concepts, a fact he openly acknowledged. Moreover, the original Prime Argus project was also concerned with looking "at ways to cause earthquakes."29

http://www.copi.com/articles/guyatt/aumii.html


But I suppose these researchers should be discounted because .... because they weren't paid to perform such experiments! They're just researchers!