Talk:High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] GW

1 GW does not equal 10,000,000,000 Watts

[edit] Tesla claim

Moved from the article:

Some have pointed out that the constructed towers are similar in appearance to the Wardenclyffe Tower of Nikola Tesla, another favourite topic of the conspiracy theories, one that is particularly interesting considering they don't look even remotely like the Wardenclyffe Tower.

Who makes the claim? Also, this is very awkwardly written. Please rephrase and provide a citation.—Eloquence 13:53, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

1st, I readdedx it ...
Who makes the claim? Several ppl have ... it's common in some "fringe" text about harp ... do a google search over it, you can find it (If you look into Wardenclyffe Tower, you'd know this) ...
Awkwardly written? rewrite it ... but don't remove the information.
Rephrase? I'll try that ...
Provide a citation? I'll look into it ... but it's not necessary.
JDR

Guys, I have to remove this again. Wardenclyffe was a single tower that looked like an oversized iron mushroom. IRI looks like a series of "normal" radio antennas that you might see anywhere. They look NOTHING WHATSOEVER ALIKE. The only linkage is in the minds of the theorists, who apparently are unable to play that game from Seasame Street, "which of these things is not like the other". Maury 23:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Appearantly you do not understand the operations of Wardenclyffe.
The appearance is different. The principles of each have common facets.
Readded.
JDR

Remove again, for the reasons explained in my note on your personal page, and above. If you wish to retain it, we'll need something more than name-calling. Maury 12:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Look up Nikola Tesla and his research on the Iononsphere. JDR

[edit] Renamed from HAARP

Renamed article from HAARP due to Wikipedia no-abbreviation naming policy. Redirection entries in place. (SEWilco 04:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC))

[edit] NPOV

Way, way too much of this article is devoted to the conspiracy theory and very little to the actual science behind HAARP. Please balance this out. Goferwiki 12:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're an editor too. Be bold. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:01, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Erroneous Material

It even gave the frequency ranges where these effects could occur -- the same ranges which HAARP is capable of broadcasting.

HAARP is not capable of broadcasting at a frequency lower than 2.8 MHz - see the specifications at the HAARP Transmitter Page. While it can cause ELF waves to occur, it does not - it cannot - actually broadcast them. VLF and ELF can only be produced by transmitting two different frequencies from sections of the HAARP array, separated by the desired frequency. The combination of these two beams in the ionosphere produces VLF or ELF waves in the pico-Tesla range, much weaker than the 3.6 MW signal transmitted from HAARP.

More than 40 pages of the book by Jeane Manning and Dr. Nick Badich cites dozens of footnotes, chronicling the work of Harvard professors, military planners and scientists as they plan and test this use of the electromagnetic technology. For example, one of the papers describing this use was from the International Red Cross in Geneva.

There is no book by Jeane Manning and Dr. Nick Badich.

"X-raying the earth" is done already through electromagnetic wave scanning technology, in oil prospecting for instance. The technique is to pump very low watt and low frequency waves deep into the crust. Different materials innately have different reflection frequencies. It is just that simple to locate oil deposits in this way, by what particular reverberations are given off. Turning this technique into a weapon is just as easy as pumping up the watts at a particular identified reverberative location, whether it is an oil field--or an earthquake fault line. If this is found disbelievable, then you have some catching up to do. Let's go back to 1997.

This paragraph is full of confused jargon, and does not clearly specify anything. The author confuses "[sic] watts" with power as well as x-rays and ground penetrating radar. The claim that "turning up the watts at a particular identified reverberative location" will make HAARP into a weapon is neither good English nor good science. Before these outrageous claims are included, they need to be substantiated by quality science that demonstrates specific instances of RF radiation causing earthquakes. The language of "If this is found disbelievable, then you have some catching up to do," has no place on on Wikipedia.

HAARP's gainsaying defenders however have been in turn rejected by an originator of the HAARP technology patents, Bernard Eastlund, who says that such comments totally ignore the issue of pulsing technology capacity that has been installed after his tenure was closed there--which can be at a factor of many times greater intensity.

Eastlund is not a defender of HAARP, so this does not belong in the defenders of HAARP section.

Trull, D., "Tesla: The Electric Magician, Chapter 6, The Forgotten Genius". Enigma Editor, parascope.com.

This is not source material, nor is it relevant to HAARP itself. The link should be on a Tesla page. (6-14-05)

Many argue that HAARP is being used by President George W. Bush to control weather, and was used to guide Hurricane Katrina into New Orleans.

Moonbat Conspiracy Theories (hoaxes to ridicule government critics?)

    Opposers of HAARP will not be lumped in with this assumption - which has no citation; it will be removed until proven to be a valid and popular conspiracy.

    Nobody should be lumped in with these ideas except on April Fools Day! They are utter nonsense. If anybody suspects them of having validity, then they should present evidence how sufficient energy is generated by HAARP, how it is transfered to the Caribean, and how it can overcome the enormous power of a hurricane and divert it (or create it in the first place). HAARP does not have sufficient power, nor does it fulfil the requirements of the Eastlund patent to divert geophysical energy (nor is there any known physical mechanism for any such diversion) to modify weather. HAARP can only modify the ionosphere over the site - this is thousands of miles away from hurricane regions. I'm also removing the links to such conspiracy sites. Furthermore, the label "Moonbat" doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article!!! John Elder 07:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Objection to John Elder's Edits

    First, there is indeed a book by these two authors. Angels Don't Play This haarp: Advances in Tesla Technology by Nick Begich, Jeane Manning. So your valiant claim to remove "erroneous" information actually was instead introducing erroneous information and intentionally misleading. Why?

    Second, as for your other claim that "this paragraph is full of confused jargon," well that is merely John's opinion as well. Besides this information and its verbiage was taken directly from an interview with an oil prospector describing his industry's techniques so John is mistaken. John should do more research before promoting his opinions about what is "erroneous" or not. Sad, really.

    To JohnElder: Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. Your talk comments have added nonsense as well. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.


    --ReSearcher 20:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I had no intent to mislead, and I don't believe I did. There is no book by Nick Badich, as the original author claimed. Angels don't Play this HAARP is indeed a real book. Sloppy writing and sloppy thinking do not belong on Wikipedia.
    I have done plenty of research. I know a bit about both seismic techniques and the use of Ground Penetrating Radar for exploring the stratigraphy of an area. I also know the difference between "Watts" and "power." And I know that x-raying the earth is utter nonsense. Just the phrase "reverberative location" demonstrates that the author cannot adequately describe the oil exploration process. If the paragraph was based on an interview with somebody, then making a transcript of the relevant part of the interview into a page of supporting documentation would be useful - as well as naming the people involved in the interview, their credentials, the date, and the place.
    Get used to the editing, though. I didn't stop because the text was correct - I stopped because I needed to rest a bit. The HAARP page will be a quality page that describes the facility, the resources there, the work done, and references the controversies about it. I believe that there should be a separate page for all the HAARP conspiracy theories - especially the more speculative ones - the ones that talk about possible HAARP effects if it were much larger. As the page grows to better reflect the capabilities of HAARP, size alone will become an argument for relocating conspiracy theories.
    Removing erroneous content is not vandalism. If I were a vandal, I would simply delete it instead of moving it to the talk page and explaining why it does not belong on the oringal WP page.

    we should note that Nick Begich jr (born 1958) is a former teacher, now business man selling bogus products like cell phone absorbing ceramics see his phony ads page: [1]. he got his honoris causa doctor from a rather strange correspondence school in Calcutta (india). costs for such a dr hc are 350 USD. he is simply a pseudoscientist. 87.122.69.150 11:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] Well, I welcome JohnElder then, until...

    Welcome then. However, you have brushed over the fact that you did remove information, regardless of what you say. The perfect alibi for maintaining vandalism is a claim of "correcting erroneous information". Plus, you write with a real chip on your shoulder. And you claim to have total knowledge of HAARP and its project? Really, John! That's quite a big ego you have there: it's an impossibilty for a civilian to have such knowledge when the project has top secret connections, and when patent holder of much of the HAARP motifs, Bernard Eastlund, himself has said the technology there has now a pulsing capacity. Blithe dogmatic comments are very unfortunate when we are all picking our way here with a touchy subject. Your comments are not a sign of rationality or capacity for self-reflection in my opinion or a sign of capacity for weighing the issue of incomplete information in this case, where we all have limited information. However, that being said, with baited breath (or biting toungue) I do welcome you and I look forward to reading other's chipping in on the topic, and not chipping out from it without tenable explanations.

    --ReSearcher 21:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    • Some of us have less limited information than others. Ego size and capacity for self-reflection have little to do with scientific accuracy. Even civilians can learn enough about radio science to evaluate whether or not some of the more spectacular claims about the weaponization of HAARP have any basis in reality. If you think the information I removed should be re-inserted, correct the problems and put it back! As I said above, it's not vandalism, it's editing.
    John Elder 22:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    I think this problem can be solved this way: there sould be the factual sections about HAARP ( and John Elder has done a great job of addressing this, I am back on the job now too) and a conspiracy theory section on HAARP. That will balance out the articles. I am workin' on something in the sandbox, when it is presentable, I will post it. Goferwiki 09:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    Also per "ReSearcher"'s remarks: none of us have all the info about HAARP. What we do have is the offical line plus the science. The offical line can be discussed on another page. I think it our duty on wiki to present the facts "as we know them" because this is an encylopedia. Furthermore, based on principals of physics "as we know those to date" it is safe to discredit some of the claims. However I think the otherside can have its day in court, just on another page and not on the HAARP one. This article is very near being balanced enough to remove the NPOV.Goferwiki 10:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Reverted Graph Sizing

    Place a thumbnail for the photos - that's OK. But the graph is tough to read (at least for me) when resized to 375 px. Please leave it full-sized for those of us with older eyes. John Elder 00:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] plagiarism/copyvio

    I note that some big sections of this article have been copied from other places, among them this page:[2]. I don't see any attribution either. This is a de facto copyright violation, so I'm going to remove the material. I believe it was mostly added by user:ReSearcher. -Willmcw July 9, 2005 17:27 (UTC)

    As for the issue of geophysical warfare, this is well documented as well. Air Force documents revealed that a system had been developed for manipulating and disturbing human mental processes through pulsed radio-frequency radiation over large geographical areas. The most telling material about this technology came from writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski (former National Security Advisory to U.S. President Carter) and J.F. MacDonald (science advisor to U.S. President Johnson and a professor of Geophysics at UCLA), as they wrote about use of power-beaming transmitters for geophysical and environmental warfare. The documents showed how these effects might be caused, and the negative effects on human heath and thinking. http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/haarp_mind_weather_control.htm

    The mental-disruption possibilities for HAARP are the most disturbing. http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html

    For instance, on the issue of disrupting human mental processes, in the early 1960's, Dr. Andrija Puharich discovered various mental effects of ELF, specifically that 7.83 Hz made a person feel good, producing an altered-state; that 10.80 Hz caused riotous behavior; and that 6.6 Hz caused depression. http://www.awakening-healing.com/A-HNewsLetters/2004/Florida%20From%20Gillian_MBL_83004.htm

    In October 2001, United States House of Representatives bill HR2977 was introduced by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich. It called for the peaceful uses of space, and a ban on 'exotic weapons'. Section 7 of his 'Space Preservation Act of 2001' sought specifically to prohibit 'chemtrails', 'HAARP' and 'planet threatening weapons' by name. Kucinich even recently told the inside scoop on why his bill was yanked out of circulation. The removal of his bill was under pressure, according to Kucinich. He told the Columbus Alive newspaper (Jan. 24, 2002) that despite official denials, as head of the Armed Services oversight committee he is well acquainted with chemtrail and HAARP projects. "The truth is there's an entire program in the Dept. of Defense - 'Vision for 2020' - that's developing these weapons," Kucinich told reporter Bob Fitrakis. http://www.rense.com/general20/cc.htm

    In short the Secretary of Defense of the United States confirmed that there are indeed novel kinds of EM weapons right now and have been in existence for some time, which have been and are being used to (1) initiate earthquakes, (2) engineer the weather and climate, and (3) initiate the eruption of volcanoes. http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/secretary.htm

    On the issue of its capacity to deliver nuclear bomb type electromagnetic "snaps" wherever desired, the U.S. military says on the record that the HAARP system could give the military a tool to replace the electromagnetic pulse effect of atmospheric thermonuclear devices (still considered a viable option by the military through at least 1986). http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html

    The text above has been removed from the article as copyright violations/plagiarism. -Willmcw July 9, 2005 18:13 (UTC)


    [edit] This page is a mess

    And I'm marking it for cleanup. There are WAY too many sub-headings on the front page that lead to nowhere JD79 09:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

    Lots of the blank subheadings are my fault. If I don't get them filled before somebody cleans the page up, it won't be a problem, I'll add them as I add info. John Elder 07:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] verify

    • The solar flux overwhelms any effect of ionospheric heating. (needs to be verified John Elder 01:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))

    Fplay 19:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


    [edit] point to ponder , Resonance

    ...The critics' views have been rejected by HAARP's defenders, who have pointed out that the amount of energy at the project's disposal is minuscule compared to the colossal energies dumped into the atmosphere by solar radiation and thunderstorms. A University of Alaska, Geophysical Institute scientist has compared HAARP to an "immersion heater in the Yukon River."


    This does not explain away the effects of resonance, which, for the everyday person, means that even a small amount of energy broadcast at the right frequency will cause an exponential increas in this "small power". Even soldiers marching in formation can bring down a bridge.

    These frequencies are well known to the HAARP scientists, and we should take heed of the implications.

    Revelations 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    This article is part of WikiProject Alaska, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Alaska-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

    [edit] Weather warfare should be a separate article and treated more fully herein

    Don't just blindly assume the U.S. military is somehow acting to prevent the use of HAARP and similar technology to wage "weather warfare," as the quote by William Cohen suggests. Do you really think the U.S. isn't involved in exploiting the technology for their own purposes, with the same possibly nefarious consequences that Cohen describes?

    "Weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels." -- (US Air Force, emphasis added. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report[3]. See here[4] also -- and follow the arrows. This passage treating "weather [modification] as a force multiplier]] is particularly revealing.[5]. It addresses the inducement of drought, "storm enhancement," "fog and cloud removal," etc.

    Other sources:

    • "War and Ethics - To Own the Weather"[6]
    • "Earthquake-causing Techno-weapons Documented"[7]
    • "Weather as a Force Multiplier:

    Owning the Weather in 2025"[8]

    Some further food for thought:

    • In February 1998, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program. The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament:

    "Considers HAARP... by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body...; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give evidence to the public hearing ...into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program." (European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999).

    And the U.N. addressed and condemned the use of weather warfare in a convention ratified back in 1977. "The substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

    States have... in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (...) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992. http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html.)[9]

    Of course, the HAARP project and the very real phenomenon of weather warfare have given rise to various conspiracy theories regarding the devastating tsunami which struck Southeast Asia and hurricane Katrina, which obliterated portions of the U.S. Gulf Coast. deeceevoice 09:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

    I don't see any good evidence linking HAARP to weather mods (even if you accept the criticims, which I don't). This is all ionosphere stuff at best. I removed this para:

    In April 1997, the then U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen publicly discussed the dangers of HAARP-like technology, saying "[o]thers 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 efforts." This quote derives from 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,"[10] held at the University of Georgia-Athens, Apr. 28, 1997.

    The HAARP-like tech seems to be editorial interpolation. I don't see any HAARP in the link provided. In short, the para above has nothing at all to do with HAARP.

    Removing that para removes all the climate stuff; hence (whilst weather warfare may well be an interesting topic) it has nothing to do with HAARP, as far as I can see. William M. Connolley 18:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

    My interjection re weather warfare was based on the inclusion of the Cohen quote, which seems to suggest the U.S.'s stance toward weather warfare is solely one of prevention or a defensive posture against it -- rather than being actively involved in research to use it as a weapon. Totally misleading/one-sided. The military's stated objective is expressly to "own the weather by 2025." (Wild stuff.) I haven't read enough about HAARP to have formed an assessment about the criticisms one way or another, but I would tend to keep the references to concerns about possible environmental impact and concerns about weather warfare. They are, indeed, associated with HAARP -- rightly or wrongly. The Internet is replete with such associations. And, IMO, the matter should be addressed forthrightly and as dispassionately as possible -- not omitted/deleted wholesale. With regard to the subject of "weather warfare" as a standalone article, I've already placed it on the list of requested articles. It's certainly worth one. In fact, I was surprised that it wasn't covered already. deeceevoice 19:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    Note that the website I mentioned above and to which I provided several links (on the subject of weather warfare) is maintained by the U.S. Army Developmental Test Command, and it specifically mentions the U.S. military's history of research and activities in the field of weather control to abet/facilitate wartime operations, as well as to hinder those of enemy combatants. Clearly, it is within this context that the document also discusses HAARP, its military applications -- as well as the concerns (though couched in seemingly deliberately nonspecific terms) of noted physicists reported in the mainstream press about long-range and widespread environmental consequences.
    Further, under "Who we are," the website describes the USADTC: "We are the U.S. Army Developmental Test Command (DTC), the Army's premier organization for developmental testing of weapons and equipment. DTC is headquartered at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland, and the Operational Test Command (OTC), headquartered at Fort Hood, Texas, are subordinate to the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC), headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia." (emphasis added)
    Now, if HAARP isn't somehow connected with military weaponry, why is it even mentioned in the documents of a U.S. Defense Department agency treating weather warfare? (The article as it is now written treats HAARP's potential use as a weapon as pure speculation -- when it is a clearly stated objective -- and so stated by none other than the U.S. military itself.) Further, the "ionosphere stuff" is, in part, the expression of concerns about what lasting and far-reaching impact highly localized superheating of the ionosphere could have on weather patterns and, subsequently, climate change. Further, there are real concerns that U.S. testing is, in reality, not local -- but simply couched in such terms so as to circumvent the UN convention against employment of weather warfare technology against extra-national/international targets.
    It seems to me the excised text not only should be reinserted, but expanded upon. Unless you fellahs come up with a better defense for removing the relevant text than you don't think HAARP has anything to do with weather warfare and possible climatic implications (in obvious contradiction of clear documentation produced by a U.S. military technology agency and concerns expressed by scientists, and in light of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), then I'll simply reinsert it.  :p
    I am not a science professional. I've visited the user page of one of the contributors here (I don't recall which one), and he is. Clearly, you are more qualified than I to address this matter -- but not if you approach the subject with a degree of skepticism that precludes acceptance of obvious facts. Is the notion of weather warfare and possible global climate change as a result completely out there? Hell, yeah. But it clearly isn't the product of some delusional lunatic fringe. I'm not asking you to suspend disbelief; stay skeptical. But investigate before discounting the militarization of HAARP technology as U.S. government policy outright because it sounds far-fetched -- particularly when there is documentation that weather warfare (with potentially long-term, deleterious environmental and climatic change as an un/intended consequence) is an explicitly stated objective (and, indeed, operational history) of those who would make practical use of HAARP technology. deeceevoice 20:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    I have no problem with an article on weather warfare - as you say, its odd that there isn't already one (personally I think its more an aspiration than an achievement, but clearly there are things to be said and good refs to the US ideas). What I don't see is the weather/HAARP connection. HAARP itself has nothing to do with weather (as far as I can tell, the main reason to dislike HAARP is because its a gigantic boondoogle, not because it will do anything dangerous). So, which docs mention HAARP/weather? Clearly not [[11]]. [12] doesn't mention HAARP, and is anyway vapourware. William M. Connolley 12:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    I've just created weather warfare as a stub. In the course of trying to populate it I found [13] which does indeed say Not a word is mentioned about its main weather warfare program: The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) but... that is just anti-HAARP nonsense by people who don't know what they are talking about. Even if you believe them, its all *ionosphere* which is way way way up above the weather. Weather Warfare: A Corporate Bonanza is probably closer to the mark. William M. Connolley 12:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC).
    Like I said, click the link on the Army site and follow the arrows. deeceevoice 20:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    If you mean http://www.dtc.army.mil/tts/1997/proceed/abarnes/sld006.htm then (a) thats under the "space weather" section (which is not at all the same thing as weather). William M. Connolley 21:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

    You may not agree with the connection between HAARP and weather warfare and ENMOD, but several respected scientists, public officials, government and military types seem convinced.[14] I'm not going to bother to list all of the references to such phenomena here, but -- again -- the Internet is replete with such references. These certainly bear mentioning/treatment in the article. deeceevoice 23:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

    Indeed I don't agree. From your document:
    Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.
    these are big claims, which I think are completely implausible and without a physical mechanism. Now I read on, looking for the Recent scientific evidence that the document claims. But there is none. Not a single ref to a scientific paper, and as far as I can see, not even anything weaker. Rosalie Bertell [15] seems to have no climate expertise; the thing itself is written by Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics. Why is no-one in the climate community signing up to this? William M. Connolley 10:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC).

    [edit] Neurophone

    If anyone has any knowledge of references on any links between HAARP and neurophonic technology, please involve discussion herein. Thank you. --JimmyT 04:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Conspiracy Theory

    Why is this article categorized under conspiracy theories? HAARP is not a conspiracy theory. --JimmyT 20:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Communicating with submerged submarines

    I moved the 'communicating with submerged submarines' from the controversy paragraph to the objectives paragraph and rewrote it in a more general, objective way because it is one of the realisti--JimmyT 12:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)c applications of VLF and ELF research as mentioned on the HAARP site itself. Therefore it does not belong in the controversy paragraph being flanked by 'mind control' and 'x-raying the earth'...

    "The WIND Satellite - HAARP Experiment". haarp.alaska.edu, March 17, 2003.

    "About ELF". haarp.alaska.edu, July 2, 1996. (ELF Generation Using HAARP)

    [edit] Current facilities / Sura

    What is the source regarding the amount of MW ERP? The most recent edit indicated a private email which is not acceptable as a verifiable source in my understanding. --JimmyT 12:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    Hello Jimmy ! I am in email contact with one of the scientists at the Sura Ionospheric Heating Facility. He sent me the two pictures i added in that article, and he sent me some information concerning Sura. The chart shown in the HAARP-article is perhaps not representing precisely the actual situation of the russian station. You may contact Mr. Yuri Tokarev for further details using this email address:

    yt@ NOSPAM nirfi.sci-nnov.ru

    this is a part of his message to me (citation): ...technical information The facility consists of three 250 kW brodcasting transmitters and also 144 dipoles antenna array with dimensions of 300 m x 300 m. At middle of the operating frequency range (4.5 – 9.3 MHz) a maximum zenith gain of the array is about 260 (~24 dB), ERP of the facility is 190 MW (~83 dbW)...

    in his email he used the wikipedia-article (that i sent him for confirmation) and he corrected the values himself. Jimmy, please excuse my simple englisch. regards, michael Redecke 12:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

    OK and thank you for the communication about this, Redecke. Im not here at this article to correct other editors and I'll leave that for those who are more experienced in this subject. What I am interested in, is what I written in the #Neurophone portion of this discussion. Cheers. --JimmyT 23:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    good morning Jimmy ! I cannot see (I must add: as a doctor and HF-interested person) any connection between that "neurophore" and HAARP. HAARP's Lowest usable frequency is 2.8 MHz (at a very low efficiency), and the neurophore you are talking about, works at 40 kHZ (=0.04 MHz). Furthermore I have never seen any paper linking these two matters. Michael Redecke 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks Dr. Redecke, I did not want to add the connection to the article although I had been hearing alot about such a connection. I suspected those "reports" as false and probably just propaganda. --JimmyT 05:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Project HARP

    I changed the wording of the intitial notice, as "DO NOT CONFUSE" was a tad too commanding. If anyone can think of a better way to word it, please feel free. — ceejayoz talk 17:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] A Few Misc. Edits

    I like the way the page has changed since I last dropped by. Lots of good work. I zapped a few things:

    • An "allegedly" under HAARP supporters. If we're gonna start inserting "allegedly," then the conspiracy theory part needs to be FULL of alleged and allegedly, as well as some of the offsite references.
    • Wilhelm Reich link. Nothing in the article refers to Reich, nor does the WP Reich article mention HAARP.
    • Categorization that included "(meteorology)" HAARP has very little contriution to make to the field of meteorology at this point.
    • HAARP maintains a weather record that can be accessed online - helpful if you're planning on visiting and want to know how to dress.
    • To my knowledge this has not been written up, but we've seen instances of tropospheric ducting in some of our data.
    • With the diagnostic instruments there, HAARP could possibly be operated as a wind-profiling radar.

    John Elder 13:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/g/Talk%7EHigh_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program_7552.html"