Just read the patent by Dr Eastlund. It does not describe a research tool. It describes a weapon and uses the word specifically.
-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
HAARP?
- Thread starter Shockwave
- Start date
This has nothing to do with parties or theories. It specifically relates to Dr Eastlund's patent for HAARP. Have you read it? Has anyone here commenting, taken the time to read this patent? It's available for free online. Use the Google find function to locate keywords like weather, manipulate, jet stream, weapon and jamming. The patent doesn't claim to be able to create hurricanes or rain. It claims to be able to manipulate them or, direct them.
You could argue that the patent lies however, that wouldn't protect the invention, it wouldn't make it worthwhile for the US military to purchase it, it wouldn't produce the funding to increase its effective radiated Power by six-fold and it also would not support a reason for it to be copied approximately a dozen times worldwide, since this patent was first issued.
That was back in the 1980s. 40 years of research, development, construction of multiple facilities worldwide while increasing the power levels of existing ones, and you think it doesn't do what the patent says? This is a 3.6 Gigawatt, atmospheric radio frequency heater... All of that heating, produces no effect?
What type of research could you be conducting when your research simultaneously injects the variable of a 3.6 Gigawatt radio frequency atmospheric heater, on the area you are researching? That is called "active research", because they are studying the effects of the variable they created within the atmosphere.
Research into the Luxembourg-Gorky Effect is, and has always been, what I assume that station is/was for. That is an observable effect and is proven to work, so to believe any other hypothesis would require more than a patent number, it requires facts. Countless patents are BS (ask any chemist lol), same with scientific journal entries. Some people just want to be published and have recognition at any cost. One guy even faked making an element!
The jet stream is a very well tracked and modeled thing, so much so that weather patterns are accurately predicted a month out. So why not monitor HAARP transmissions and watch for unpredicted changes in the jet stream? It is really that simple. When you do, come back and say "Here, look at these 7 times the jet stream abruptly shifted right after they keyed down." When someone does that is when I will consider that hypothesis a plausible theory and start doing my own research, but not a moment sooner.
Nothing personal, but one thing that causes me to immediately dismiss someone's hypothesis is when, apart from a distinct lack of research on their own part, they get offended when others don't immediately buy into it. Thats a huge red flag for me. Cause and effect, go connect the two and come back with the results. If it is indeed happening, it should be very obvious.
Edit: And for the record, I don't dismiss all conspiracy theories, especially those that are firmly rooted in clear evidence. Such as a jet carrying enough JP8 to get to California disintegrating in the front yard of the Pentagon yet having just a 5-frame long fireball. Now that is worthy of discussion, but we can't have that here.
The jet stream is a very well tracked and modeled thing, so much so that weather patterns are accurately predicted a month out. So why not monitor HAARP transmissions and watch for unpredicted changes in the jet stream? It is really that simple. When you do, come back and say "Here, look at these 7 times the jet stream abruptly shifted right after they keyed down." When someone does that is when I will consider that hypothesis a plausible theory and start doing my own research, but not a moment sooner.
Nothing personal, but one thing that causes me to immediately dismiss someone's hypothesis is when, apart from a distinct lack of research on their own part, they get offended when others don't immediately buy into it. Thats a huge red flag for me. Cause and effect, go connect the two and come back with the results. If it is indeed happening, it should be very obvious.
Edit: And for the record, I don't dismiss all conspiracy theories, especially those that are firmly rooted in clear evidence. Such as a jet carrying enough JP8 to get to California disintegrating in the front yard of the Pentagon yet having just a 5-frame long fireball. Now that is worthy of discussion, but we can't have that here.
Last edited:
So, basically the only difference between me and you, is I believed the patent I read. So did our military that purchased it and several other governments that have copied it worldwide. It's not like we are talking about cooking the atmosphere with 3.6 Megawatts of RF heating. This is 3.6 Gigawatts of RF heating! Enough to do what the patent claims. Manipulate and shift the jet stream.
You believe it heats the clouds or the ionosphere? If it heats the ionosphere, Washington state is the max distance. If it heats the clouds, considerably less. What do you propose they are doing? Three hops with a gigawatt? If they are shifting the jet stream directly above, someone would have reported that by now with the countless hours of testing they have done. Just saying, show a correlation. There is nothing else to argue about until you do.
Also... That gigawatt is EIRP, not isotropic. They are not generating that much energy at the RF source. So the area of heating is, on the grand scheme of things, very small. Do you really think heating a 1 square mile patch for an hour or two is going to make any long lasting change in global weather patterns? Best case scenario, those clouds rise from the heat, cool, drop their moisture, and done. Cloud seeding is more of a threat.
1 square mile has 27,878,400 cubic feet. Assuming all of that 3.6gw landed in that area, thats 129w per cubic foot. But wait, at that high of an angle of incidence, how much do propose will actually be absorbed and not lost to space? less than a percent? So maybe a watt per square foot at best? OK, now I'm done.
Truth is, I am expending way more effort trying to convince you to apply reason and common sense than you have to your entire argument, so yea, me and this thread are finished.
Last edited:
At least you understand it easily has the capability to reach its target. What's above Washington state? The ideal location to study the "active" effects of 3.6 Gigawatts aimed around the Jet Stream. Heating the ionosphere can "push" the Jet Stream. You think the target is skywave propagation, multiple hops away, because you don't understand how 180 towers being driven at different phase angles, can precisely focus and steer this energy into "pencil thin" beamwidhs.
When you have precise control of the radiation elevation angle and azimuth, and can change the beamwidth to range from large conical, to pencil thin, you can hit your target directly. Not necessarily dependant on skywave propagation.
Like me, you could have had all of your misconceptions corrected, by reading and understanding the patent. Where you could have learned this is not only the most powerful HF transmitter on earth, it is also the most directive, through electronic phase shifting of 180 crossed dipoles.
The capabilities and bandwidth of this system, offer prime opportunities to hide 3.6 Gigawatts of ERP. Do you understand these power amplifiers run close to class A, in order to produce the best Linearity and least IMD possible? The ionosphere doesn't heat at a specific frequency... What do you suppose might happen if that 3.6 Gigawatts of ERP, were taken from a 3 KHz bandwidth, to many Mhz, through any method of "Spread Spectrum" transmission? Suddenly, it's just a "bump" in the average noise floor.
Also, the 3.6 Gigawatts (not 1 Gigawatt) is Effective Radiated Power over a dipole. It is not referenced to "isotropic". Please explain to us how the level of RF Heating, changes at all, if that ERP mostly dependant on TPO or, antenna gain? Furthermore, the "isotropic" reference simply removes ground reflections and distortion from the radiation pattern by placing it in "free space", what do you think happens when you place a resonant reflector, directly under the crossed dipoles, as seen with HAARP? That effectively shields the individual radiators, from seeing their own ground reflections.
Brandon, if you can debate me, I encourage it.
Last edited:
There is no need to debate for me. Pencil thin beam pattern says it all. One little hot spot cannot make a widespread long-lasting change in anything. Thats like holding a zippo in the wind, then closing the lid and expecting it to change the wind patterns a mile away an hour later.
Show me one piece of evidence, just one, that this is actually happening. Not a paper that speaks to theory, but real observation. That station has been active for how long? And yet, nobody has done that. That tells me more than any patent ever will.
Show me one piece of evidence, just one, that this is actually happening. Not a paper that speaks to theory, but real observation. That station has been active for how long? And yet, nobody has done that. That tells me more than any patent ever will.
So, you don't understand how a pair of spaced collinear arrays, tightens a radiation pattern? If you did, you would understand how using 360 phased elements, compresses, focuses, shapes and directs that pattern, exponentially more. "Pencil thin" is one extreme described. The other end of that spectrum, is "large Conical beamwidths".
Not understanding the subject matter, is indeed a valid reason, not to debate me.
I also have to add, it's always the same thing with you naysayers on this topic. You claim knowledgeable people are "conspiracy theorists". When you are asked to read Dr Eastlund's patent, you either ignore all of the keywords provided or, are forced to claim it's all lies. When taking that option, you ignore the fact our Government believed the patent enough to purchase it. You also ignore the fact it has been copied by multiple foreign governments, that couldn't care less about any of its "officially reported capabilities".
Time will tell then. Some day, somebody, clearly not you, will show that when they transmit, weather patterns change. I am just fine not believing it until I see it with my own eyes. By all means, continue trying to convince others, I will stay out of the way.
You think the militaries of multiple governments are still studying how skywave propagation from a long distance at 100 watts, can cover up a much more powerful and local BBC station in 1924? You think it takes 3.6 Gigawatts to study skywave propagation, when no other transmitter could even mimic its performance characteristics? The effects you mention were documented using as little as 100 watts. At 100 watts, you are conducting "research". At 3.6 Gigawatts, you are causing an "active" variable in order to produce a modified result.
Did you read how Dr Eastlund's patent describes its worldwide jamming capabilities? Did you read how its operator can still communicate through its jamming? Just one of many capabilities HAARP has.
That effect had nothing to do with propagation, it had everything to do with the cross-modulation of two signals in the ionosphere to generate signals on frequencies that were never transmitted. Making it happen reliably takes serious power.
Keep telling yourself that all of those gigawatts are being absorbed in the clouds, every ham on the planet knows better.
Keep telling yourself that all of those gigawatts are being absorbed in the clouds, every ham on the planet knows better.