Talk:High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template

Comments:
Alaska Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Alaska-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] More Science Content

This article is badly in need of a lot more content on the host of scientific breakthroughs that have been made at HAARP, instead of this focus on absurd conspiracy theories by people who have no idea what they're talking about. I've added some info, hoping others will follow suit.

Yes add to the science rather than removing the conspiracy stuff. Otherwise people will think you have something to hide or at least nothing you can report. <Grin>
P.S. The existence of science research does NOT disprove the exist of all conspiracies. That of course is part of what the rules of scientific method say, as well as past experience with black project made public (Stealth doesn't exist; its just science research, not a conspiracy of silence -- of course it wasn't all alien UFOs either.) 69.23.124.142 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[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
I don't believe his tower and ionosphere research were directly connected in time. As I remember his actual ionosphere research was earlier and related more asking why long distance radio skip worked and if that could be improved. Oh he might have had some idea of skipping power like long distance radio after proving his tower power transmission experiment. But the tower disaster killed that from ever seeing any work. Oh before the tower, Tesla briefly had a wild hair about drawing lightning from the air to provide power which never went anywhere. Of course this shows that Tesla's hobbyist/layman's education sometimes lead him to misunderstand the work of actual scientists. Some how Tesla thought the ionosphere meant it stored ions like a big battery and was thus the source of lightning coming down to clouds. He was going to use that free battery for providing everyone cheaper power than Edison. Few regular scientists looked anywhere for lightning but the same clouds as Ben Franklin and they knew the cloud deck stopped at about 17000 meters, not the ionosphere. The same creative thinker that delivered revolutionary advancements also delivered ideas which were radically wrong. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Not very scientific to claim there is no similarity based on appearance. Like claiming today's solid state radar is not similar to 1940s radar because their antennas look different. Moreover, in radio early crystal sets looked different than early vacuum tube radios which looked radically different from 1960s transistor radios which look different than early multi-chip IC radios and today single chip radios. If you look at Marconi's long wire antenna then the coil balanced radios of the 1940s and then the most sophisticated solid state loaded antenna of compact radios today -- you can even see see antenna technology has advanced for basic radio let alone high frequency high power antenna.
In specific the mushroom look of Tesla's antenna was due mainly due to the very crude state of insulators for high frequency/high voltage amplifications -- basically glass/ceramics and bakelite. Also contrbuting were the crude voltage amplifying by huge metal coils and mechanical switching to produce high frequency. Today much of that is done with high voltage digital switching elements (often computer controlled. But if you are old enough and have looked at power transmission substations (high voltage only, low frequency) from the 1940s and 1950s through the 1990s you recognize significant reduction in size of insulators even in that less demanding application.69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand the similarities are only ones of general construction theory, not engineering technology or application. Tesla was a raw idea man. His tower was in no way aimed, especially at the sky. Of course anyone only with a little science today could tell you that he most likely built an unshielded, omni-directional, low end microwave tower -- not a superweapon (try towing that into the middle of your enemy). But also definitely NOT something you want in your residential neighborhood or business either. Truthfully his engineering was crude and often overlooked longer term implications. Some of it via sheer pride. For instance DC current is not safer than AC in that it causes more fires even though household electrocution might be lower. But most telling DC transmission sucks for distance. When Telsa built his tower he was trying to jump past his earlier mistake ("I meant to do that" as Bart Simpson would say) by telling people to skip past Edison 60-400Hz AC to higher frequency power and drop the wires. The fact it cooked people was something he somehow skipped past in his laboratory trials (not the best model scale builder at times) fortunately for him. I think the military involvement came because they had most the federal money for research in the early 1900s and had interest in wireless power for the Navy, battlefield conditions and war torn civilian areas. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[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)
Hmmm neither side of the issue seems to be "playing fair". The defenders make fun of poor wording to evade the valid point of resonant power. Yes Tesla was a founding father of this idea though he only understood it intuitively. Yes resonance can destroy bridges. Yes resonance effects of seismology can cause effects to skip around the earth (interference patterns of waves and refractive boundaries of materials are involved but way beyond the scope of this article). The key thing about resonance is that it can shift structures out of normal phase within internal components to produce unexpected sheer forces and material fatigue and use a structure's own mass or weight against -- meaning far less energy is required to create destruction than simple direct blow analysis might lead you to think. In fact resonant damage can be so critically precise in delivery that while it does not directly destroy a structure -- the damage caused so weakens the structure that it can no longer stand under its own weight.
I suspect the detractors are Tesla-like thinkers. They have an intuitive grasp of several ideas that are present BUT -- they haven't a clue how to show that everything mathematically fits together with sufficient power to be practical. The key thing about resonance is that it still requires sufficient power to cause destructive effects. The fact that you can pump energy into a resonant system over a long time is irrelevant if leakage exceeds the rate energy is being added or you simply don't have enough "gas in the tank" over time to reach your goal.
To prove either point would require (1) original research or (2) access to material that SHOULD be classified. Pending (1) escaping (2) both sides tend to be rumor or its official equivalent propaganda.69.23.124.142 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2008 (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.


Reverberative seems to be proper geological/seismological terminology even in the US. Try googling "reverberative location geology" before basing your argument on two words. http://txspace.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/3650/bcb_thesis.pdf?sequence=1 69.23.124.142 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
First I note that objections to the term "reverberative location" is probably a cultural slur. I don't know - but this sounds very much like a UK or European layman's or even industry term. American language terms do not limit how other countries can properly refer to a process. To the American ear UK and EU terminology often sounds a bit over-convoluted. So shooting from the hip and saying you don't recognize the term as proper and that since it sounds like less than a direct understanding, it must mean poor understanding of the topic -- is good reason for the term "Ugly American". In fact you can get in trouble with that attitude even in the US.


But you are right to note that they need a citation to such detail on seismic technique as would be appropriate to clarify or prove that they know what they are talking about. However, I also think you need better citations of your own qualifications because given your Wikipedia links are pretty much dead end on seismological techniques. I'd settle for you stating that you work on an actual seismology crew (primary source knowledge) or teach geology at secondary school or above. But "I know something about the topic" is as vague as "I read the dead end Wikipedia articles and a Scientific American article 20 years ago".
However from my own shallow readings seismology/geologists no longer commonly use "echo" techniques where the explosive or other wave source is close to the monitors. That is so 1950s-1960s. You get self-interference and difficult to explain complex distortions from echoes (well you could explain them if you already knew what was there and its refractive and absorption rates, but then why are you surveying). Fast satellite links and the Internet means that the monitors are placed at much greater distances to see deeper and more directly - direct waves versus echoes. Plus as noted large explosives are not the primary signal source anymore. A more Tesla like automated tapping on the local bedrock (I find that so ironic in this page) or ELF or several other techniques may be used - even natural earthquakes and other large events.

69.23.124.142 (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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)


Alaska Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Alaska-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Video

An interesting 80 minute video, it is a little slow to start, and rather technical, but gets VERY interesting from about the half way point, to the end. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8066925138937638623 Scary stuff if true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.151.191 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[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)

HAARP is considered to be dangerous if used for the wrong purpose. If the military decide to use this as a weapon then it will be the biggest, boldest and brightest weapon on the planet. Many believe the military have plans to do this. Many scientists with whom I work believe or suspect that the military plan to use HAARP as a weapon. This is the source of the conspiracy allegations.

The comment at the start of the page that "scientists who work in space science say these fears are unfounded" is childish and unsubstantiated. All my scientific colleagues who work beside me think that HAARP is a great concern. The claim that scientists say these fears are unfounded should be removed. It is completely unsubstantiated.

The claim that you added that the project, in fact, would cause harm is completely unsubstantiated. The claim you removed that scientists say that the fears are unfounded is merely difficult to substantiate, although I cannot name a scientist who doesn't feel that way. I can find only few scientists who think it might work as a weapon.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Arthur Rubin, you are right to say it is extremely worrying. I agree with your point Arthur. All the trustworthy and gray bearded scientists I have spoken to think that HAARP is something to worry about. The power of this weapon is incredible. This weapon will disturb communications and also brain functioning amongst the population where ever it is directed. This is a new form of weapon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.171.28.83 (talk • contribs) 16:13, April 10, 2007 (UTC)

Are you intentionally misinterpreting my statment? I meant that the facts are:
  1. Many, including those who know something about it, believe the military plan to use HAARP as weapon.
  2. Almost all scientists who know anything about it believe it wouldn't work as a weapon. (Many believe it would damage itself before it could damage anything else, because of local ionization phenomena.)
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Arthur, I have spoken to my collegues where I work at one of the most prestigious Physics institues in the world. You can check this from the IP address. We know a lot about HAARP and we know even more about Physics. It is certainly true that HAARP could be used as a weapon. It would be simple to avoid local ionization by selecting the correct frequency. I'm sure that HAARP will be 'found out' in the next few years. Stay tuned... ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.171.4.95 (talk • contribs) 13:43, May 16, 2007 (UTC)

I haven't verified who owns your IP address, but it's more-or-less meaningless. Ludwig Plutonium posted from Dartmouth, using an account he had as a dishwasher in an on-campus cafeteria. It doesn't seem that unlikely that non-technical personnel would have access to the Internet. If you can provided published speculation, go ahead and add it. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in the article. There is published speculation that it would not work if attempted as a weapon. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Every weapons program has its basic research side and usually a civilian application side as well - more so at its beginning and major pilot tests. So the existence and publication of such info proves nothing. The public side does often narrow when a weapon system gets near practical weaponization.
Of course there is NO published and authoritative detailed speculation on weapons use, because that would be by definition classified until the government decides to declassify. The closest you'll get to classified if there is a weapon use is something like Janes. And guess what? Janes does not have any free fully public comment on HAARP. What Janes has is limited to "correct" industry-involved subscribers. Meaning info is considered EEFI -- just below what needs to be classified. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
With the exception of material "born classified" (which probably only includes nuclear), only those people with access to relevant classified information are forbidden from speculating on classified projects. In other words, informed speculation could easily exist. Even then, Aviation Leak has been known to have classified material in articles, which may or may not be accurate. (Should I add that, in the 1980s, while I was working on a classified, but not black, project, I used data from Aviation Week except when I needed a quasi-projection test run?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is one painful reason why my esteemed colleagues only talk about HAARP 'in house'. Can you work that out that reason ? Show me the published paper that HAARP won't work as a weapon and I'll show you some cuckoo scientists with very debatable credentials who can be bought for a few dollars by the Military. The creators of HAARP are going to be roundly spanked when the truth comes out. Let's see what happens..... :-) You are a fun guy Arthur but in all seriousness, leave this topic to the grown ups....! You are trying to prove a double negative and that is a tough call. It is so tough that nobody has yet done it. Maybe you'll be the first ;-) Keep trying....... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.171.27.65 (talk • contribs) 14:58, May 17, 2007 (UTC)

If no one who knows about it can say anything, perhaps the project is not yet notable. (And I've been on such projects. Unfortunately, I'm not permitted to search for them here, as I don't know unclassified names for them.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And if you do know something about it, and shouldn't talk, posting "anonymously" is not going to help. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
And a further update to my published speculation comment above; if there is "uninformed" speculation that it could be used as a weapon, and that speculation is commented on by the news media, we may also be able to include it. 16:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Arthur, you remind me of my argumentative little Nephew. He is a funny little soul but he keeps going like one of those little dogs that bark until their throat hurts :-) Citations are becoming less relevant nowadays. Most media and science has been sold to the highest bidder. We are quietly waiting till the right moment until this is ready to be exposed. When I was younger I was addicted to Ju Jitsu and one thing I remember is that you gotta know when the moment to strike presents itself. We are fairly clever geeks but also very patient :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.171.27.65 (talk • contribs) 15:57, May 20, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my comment was to indicate to the people unfamiliar with (US government) security that, if someone says that they know something classified about a subject and can't talk about it, they almost certainly do not have access to that classified material, or security would be after them. Wikipedia wasn't popular when I was last on a classified project (if it existed at all), but we were specifically warned not to talk about what we knew on Usenet, even to the extent of stating that something was hilariously wrong. Others I worked with reported that they had been warned about books and movies they should not read or see, but I believe any such specific restrictions had been removed by the time I joined the project.
And, you more resemble a barking dog than I. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yo, 134.171.27.65, out of curiosity, are you protesting the dozen other ionospheric heaters that exist in the world, including one run by the country (Germany) from which your IP comes? What HAARP is doing is no different than what all those other ionospheric heaters are doing, people just latch on to it because it's the US military which means it must be evil. Consider this: If HAARP were here for such a sinister purpose, why would they routinely allow people with no security clearance to tour the entire facility, as they do for their open houses and their annual summer school?

Not a valid argument. The Air Force let the public sit in SR-71s and Stealth fighters at air shows within months of their existence being made public. That doesn't mean they weren't using lots of top secret parts and used for "uber" secret missions. It just means they could sanitize what the public could see during a planned display. (instruments covered or removed for servicing etc. plus opening engine covers etc would be right out the window.) 69.23.124.142 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Now for some SLIGHTLY more realistic conspiracies.

(1) the US is looking at ballistic missile defense shield via EMP barriers. Probably not feasible to sustain long but in the past it was a lot easier to ensure a warhead or launch vehicle passed through a huge area of effect within a few seconds than to hit it with direct fire or missiles. While the warhead packages are heavily EMP shielded, some employ terminal guidance like GPS and radar which could be jammed, destroyed or misdirected. Launch vehicles are much much more vulnerable to EMP mangling of control systems, signals, and even EMP detonation of fuel.
(2) The US might be looking lower in height of effects for air-to-air missile denial as most long range AA missiles are radio remote or radar guided.
(3) all the world governments are worrying about the collapse of the earth magnetic field (that is currently happening slowly) or pole reversal. Thus they are looking at whether it is possible to temporarily erect a man-made solar radiation shield.
(4) similar to the above, the world governments are worried about unusual solar flares and are looking at temporary man-made supplementary shields to the earth's natural magnetic barriers.
(5) Everyone wants to know if we can substitute a ionospheric mirrors for communication satellites. I sort of worry about the residual radiation effects on living things and energy consumption of this idea as a long term operation past a couple hundred hours over an area. Emergency war communications fine -- commercial no. Unfortunately numerous high speed beams bouncing off huge ionosphere mirrors sounds very high bandwidth down to an individual person anywhere -- meaning don't let your life get in the way of our profit.
(6) Wild rumor #1: Quickly precipitating atomic fallout when nuclear weapons are used, rather than letting it drift world wide. Prevents or clears up nuclear winter too. Not sure how this might work except to note that mushroom clouds penetrate the troposphere and stratosphere and are composed of charge particles. But if true if would make nuclear weapons more practical in an overwhelming first strike. And here the Democrats and Liberals were complaining about how we have squandered 50 years worth of our best scientific minds on weapons we couldn't use. Maybe not. But weren't the big politicians just saying that they planned to use nuclear winter to counter global warming? <cackle hysterically>
(7) Wild rumor #2: Somehow HAARP reflections target the human brain/nervous system through EMP - somewhat like the new military nonlethal microwave riot control projector -- only at the lower hetrodyne frequencies of HAARP (nope you would not need megawatts to mess with brains if your area was small enough). nThis is the only weapon idea that seems to have a hair of connection to the real world but I'd need to see the power needed and available. I suspect this would only cover a very small battlefield or a domestic riot if you had gigawatts supplied. And the precision of effects of a weapon effected by atmospheric conditions sounds risky. Do you care if the effects vary from no effect, cause headaches, stun, incapacitate, and kill to barbecuing your targets? across the same target area?
(8) Tesla was right and the ionosphere can be used to store and transmit power without wires and the power industry is thinking they can make windfall profits before people figure out they don't need to buy expensive wires any more. All the copper saved goes into brass for bullets.

Earthquakes no. If they want an earthquake like effect, atomic weapons are quicker and easier -- and everyone knows it wasn't a coincidence "so you better listen to our demands". Plus earthquakes are huge hugely inefficient as to where the energy actually delivered goes. There is lots of open land around every target that you can shake forever without effecting anyone much. Plus you lose most the energy between the transmission point and delivery point even before that consideration.

Weather control no. First surface weather doesn't extend to the ionosphere. There is over 33km separation from the highest active weather (clouds) and 30km above most steering currents (jetstream). Then you have the fact that organized weather hurricanes and major highs and lows represent energies in the hundreds of megaton range when fully formed. Just steering a fully formed ssytem would take megatons delivered & more at transmission point. So again its very expensive to deliver the punch compared to nukes or conventional bombs. Plus to precisely deliver that punch you must understand ALL the natural weather pressures that might interfere to divert or block your planned punch. When you see weather forecasters delivering precise 100% accurate local and national weather let me know.

The economics of weather prediction alone far exceed military considerations let alone the idea of control. The US civilian and worldwide usage of weather actually ripped-off the Air Force Weather satellites in 1997-1998 (primary operational control civilian with military backup) and heavily influenced data sharing and usage back into the early 1980s when those satellites were still partially black ops. (See http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=94). 69.23.124.142 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2008 (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)

[edit] not enough refs, too many links

This article has 51 external links and only 5 references. That's WAY out of whack. As per WP:EL, most of these links do not belong here and need to be jettisoned. If they're so important that they really need to be here, they're no reason they can't be used specifically as inline-cited references. wikipediatrix 19:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs improvement

"Some of the main scientific findings from HAARP include:"

"Generation of very low frequency by modulated heating of the auroral electrojet, useful because generating VLF waves ordinarily requires gigantic antennae. "

The quoted sentences above need improvement.

Very low frequency is not a noun and the generation of VLF waves is not a scientific finding.

71.183.237.168 17:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The term "VLF waves" IS a noun, just like AM/FM waves, TV waves, etc. And the generation of VLF with HAARPs technique IS a recent scientific finding (though HAARP wasnt the first to do it).

[edit] Broadcast power comparison

Could somebody compare the power of this broadcast to the main intentional broadcasts into space that have been made? Is this project the strongest radio signal humans have sent into space? How well will it propagate through interstellar gas etc.? 204.186.59.187 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Signals from HAARP do not go into space at all. They're absorbed by the ionosphere. Small amounts (tens of Watts) may be broadcast out, but these ELF frequency signals are trapped near the Earth due to our planet's magnetic field. Even if there were no magnetic field, ELF frequencies would not have a shot in a trillion of making it very far in outer space.

[edit] But, just, before You delete it....

Insuficient Scientific Research and Unsourced Statements, etc.:

It is clearly notable this article even has a few basic grammatical mistakes and some embarrassing spelling errors on one heavier hand.

This article provides, at least, some pieces of knowledge. "Pieces?," Some of You might ask. Well, I use the word "pieces" in my best attempt to describe the structural problems I found on this article; its well-explained, if not detailed, content seems fragmented to me. Yet, still, this article is a great "eye-opener", with good extensive content of interest that enriches the reader with a pan-view of the many other existing technologies and fields of study as it derives from many sources. Some of its sources, resources, citations, unquoted quoted statements, and a few more flaws, although, as I aforementioned; "fragmented". Well, yes. Fragmented may be on this other weaker hand to sustain Wikipedia's standards of all.

In fact I do agree this article page has been tagged for deletion. But, just, before You delete it, consider the following:

If it weren't because of this article, I would have never got to ever know about that mankind ever attempted to manipulate weather by high frequency active-auroral and radioactive means.

I read it, noted the problem and here I am trying to help save this precious material by helping to find at least two resources.

Maybe the person who type it was jus too tired researching all this which You must admit; it's pretty dry stuff to deal with in the first place.

:Jammiefungt 11:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

… what are you talking about? There's no tag for deletion on this article, at all. -- Kesh 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UPLINK

I propose that it is an uplink to an otherwise undisclosed government project; more research into radar invisablity, like stealth technology perhaps. [16]15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[17]

[edit] Please, someone nail some facts about the system's military potential

HAARP is surrounded by vague claims that it can be used "as a weapon", but it seems like few of the commentators are willing to get down to specifics. For example:

  • If an airplane flies directly in the path of the HAARP antenna array while it is broadcasting, will it be damaged? (If so, how?)
  • I assume that if Captain Midnight can pirate a satellite that HAARP can pretty much put one out of commission, but still the question should be asked - Can it?
  • How far can the very low, extremely low, 0.1 Hertz, or any other kind of low frequency wave generated by the ionosphere propagate around the Earth?
  • How much water or rock can these waves penetrate?
  • Is it possible by HAARP-ing two or more (180?) spots in the ionosphere simultaneously to use constructive interference aim these secondary very/extremely/ridiculously low frequency transmissions?
  • can these transmissions be used as some form of "radar" or tomographic system to determine the locations of submarines or other large metallic structures beneath water or land? How far away?
    • While I'm not sure it's relevant, one document explains, "The Soviets have so far avoided a major commitment to ASW systems based on LOFAR per se".(p.32) (Thanks, User:Travb) LOFAR works at frequencies 10-240 MHz, where 10 MHz is upper limit on the diagram in this article. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • According to the HAARP FAQ[18], the 180 transmitters on 35 acres are used only in about four research campaigns of 1-2 weeks each. That seems like quite a waste. You sure nothing is going on with them the rest of the time?
  • In the HAARP FAQ[19], the question "Can HAARP affect the weather?" is answered "HAARP will not affect the weather..." because the energy ranges that "will be" used don't affect the troposphere or stratosphere. I assume that this is just sloppy writing but it whets a conspiratorial appetite for what happens if some other frequency range is used.
  • The HAARP FAQ answers the question "Can HAARP be used for military purposes" with "HAARP is not designed to be an operational system for military purposes". This again invites speculation - what would an operational system for military purposes look like, and what would the differences be? 70.15.116.59 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Will a bird die if it flies directly into the dish of air traffic control? yes. Does that make air traffic control radar a practical weapon? No. The same for planes flying over HAARP. Good chance it wouldn't be a good story for some onboard electronics. Will planes crash? Probably not unless a critical system is non-resettable and the plane is at low altitude where alternate systems cannot be quickly engaged.
Software hacking (Captain Midnite) is not connected to brute radiation strength (except if controls that turn up the juice are exposed to a hacker). Satellites tend to have serious EM shielding due that fact space is harsh environment for random solar radiation. So the answer is that HAARP probably cannot effect satellites except if they specifically operate on the HAARP frequencies for transmitting or receiving. And we pretty much know that satellites don't use HAARP frequencies for earth to ground communication because the ionosphere would block the signal (how HAARP heats the ionosphere; it blocks the energy from passing). But it is possible that satellite to satellite relay signals might use HAARP frequencies and that HAARP bleed through energy might overpower them.
How far is "around the earth"? I can't think of why ELF waves doing laps around the earth would be more than an annoyance. Ring like a bell for a while maybe. Useful property? Can't think of a use now. If you have a very fast computer and sophisticated enough software it might take fewer "rings of the bell" to do seismological mapping. But lacking that. several more samples of the initial ring will let a slower less sophisticated computer-software combination do the job.
How deeply penetration goes in rock and water? I have no idea. However penetration of very low energy is not military useful as a weapon. Maybe for communication. Probably useful for seismology but likely not the cheapest or most flexible generator of ELF.
Aiming by synthetic aperture? For the single HAARP array in Alaska certainly. Probably possible with multiple sites too though lower weather deck atmosphere will distort this some. But the key point will be the terribly low composite energy delivered by multiple HAARP sites. Versus multiple sites, its probably a lot more practical in terms of delivered energy to steer the antenna directly over your limited over the horizon options, then have other station that can steer to cover the remaining areas. For the single HAARP array in Alaska steering the antennas is still probably more energy efficient -- IF possible. But it may simply not be possible. Or direct steering may be limited. In any case the close local array is more efficient at synthetic steering than widely spread arrays. A local array also steers synthetically over little more sky than maximum possible manual steering (i.e. you can see only so much sky from a single location, even with bounce paths no matter how originally aimed).
Extremely low frequency radiation is not good for locating targets except in the slowest moving vessels in the most general sense. Why? First the low frequency effect the speed of updates on moving targets -- once every 5-100 seconds is not good, especially if you are not getting a great detection signal all the time. Then the wavelengths are far longer than the target effecting position accuracy by less complex methods. Of course being on multiple signal paths increases accuracy...but I think you also need a synchronized timer between target and emitters to play that LORAN trick and LORAN is much higher frequency than to what you refer. I suspect a target isn't going to give you synchronized time info and you would need multiple HAARP sites to emit multiple locating signals. Then too reflected energy is multiple times lower than the energy at the target (i.e. easier for "target" to amplify signal of transmitters to locate self than transmitters to receive back sufficient reflected energy). Finally ELF penetrates crust and tends to find ore deposits and even the moving magma flows of the earth and its magnetic field fluctuations. Only some of those can be mapped out as semi-permanent features (ores will change slowly too if there is active mining).
whets appetite...see elsewhere on this page why weather control is not practical for energy reasons. Also why if it was practical the national economic interests in COngress would easily truimph over military considerations during any time but all out war.
operational military configuartion -- unknowable; research rigs usually have little relationship to operational. Operational configurations can't be figured out until you figure out what objective the research is good for and then start looking at operational contraints of the operating environment and also look at current and near future engineering technologies. I'll bet they still have multiple objectives being looked at. I mean do you think they had any accurate idea of the Stealth Fighter or B2 would look like when they had just started Stealth related research in the late 1950s and 1960s or even early 1970s?69.23.124.142 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Tin Foil Hat" link

Removed the spurious, ad-hominem and frankly infantile link to "Tin Foil Hat" in what is otherwise a balanced article. The article itself does not mention foil in any capacity, so it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is clearly an attempt to ridicule people with certain beliefs about HAARP. Even more confusing, the snipe doesn't let you know the user's motivation. Is it an attack on people who believe in the HAARP facility? It's pretty well documented by official sources, as are the aims and the technology behind it. Slpeterson (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tin-foil hat discusses its connection to "HAARP." And I don't think you understand what "ad-hominem" means.TJRC (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be included in the article in question for it to warrant an external link? Referencing another whole article as justification for including the link on this article is an evasion, especially since there is no context for the link and it is ripe for misinterpretation. The Tin-foil hat link mostly discusses paranoid behavior, not HAARP, and many checking the link will walk away with that impression. "Ad-Hominem" is an argument against the person (eg, calling them a "tin-foil hat wearer") instead of addressing their claims on their own merits. In reference to HAARP, anybody who talks about certain capabilities of HAARP is often pre-emptively ridiculed and put in this category while the evidence they offer is ignored. If you added the link in the first place, you know this well already, so don't play coy. Thanks. --Slpeterson (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weather Modification

The section on "Weather Modification" was recently removed. It read as follows:

According to HAARP campaigners, patents state:

"Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device... molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc., concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased."[citation needed]

I thought I'd just document here the patent being quoted. It's US patent 4686605 " Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere", August 11, 1987. You can view the patent at the USPTO website here [20] or via google patents here [21]. The cited text is in column 13, lines 52-63.

I'm documenting only that the patent exists. I express no opinion on whether the technology in the patent is real or the patentee is a loon and this is one that slipped by the PTO on a bad day; on whether this patent is actually used by the HAARP campaigners in their arguments; or on whether the deleted text actually belongs in the article. TJRC (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. How many fucking times to I have to beat it into the heads of you conspiracy retards: PATENTS DO NOT PROVE ANYTHING. Patents do not verify that an idea works. They are a LEGAL TOOL for an inventor to claim to be the first to develop a certain idea and to protect it from competition. If the Patent Office was perfect, the best a patent could ever prove is that a certain idea is ORIGINAL (not that it works). But with the sheer volume of patents submitted, and the complexity of some of them, a lot of unoriginal and even downright loony ideas get through. Once again, PATENTS DO NOT PROVE ANYTHING. — NRen2k5(TALK), 18:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Boogley-oogley from what you posted. Sounds like the patentee was ripping pieces from every prior weather idea ever heard but primarily thinking from "cloud seeding" that it must be a chemical process. Weather isn't chemical change of molecules but phase change (freezing-vapor) and convection driven with some partial pressure of water vapor considerations (unless you start talking acid rain). And no way HAARP is a huge honking StarTrek replicator able to transform what you have into what you want electronically across hundred of miles.

Atmospheric plumes extending to the ionosphere? Ahhhh...talk about superhurricane! The core is a close vacuum and at -120 to -260C Centigrade (conditions of the ionosphere). Katrina was 902 millibars for strength of circulation. Hurricanes are heat engines driven by the temperature difference between the top of the core and ocean surface temperature (usually around 135C not 215C-355C difference) where a few degrees makes a huge difference in power available (some number raised to 3rd or 4th power as I recall).... Well you would not need to worry about life on Earth afterward, you just stripped the biosphere and atmosphere off and threw it into space. Just bare rock now. Not very selective as a weapon for anything but worldwide suicide. However I am not worried. You cannot convince me humans have access to the necessary power given the whole Earth and current technology. Call me when they get that first Mr Fusion home reactor assembly line going. Oh and I think we will notice the first and only successful test of such a weapon system whether they want it secret or not.

Weather control by other means -- no. Basically I won't say it won't ever be possible to use HAARP-like technology to do so though I believe it highly improbable. I am saying it will be too expensive to implement HAARP for weather (even if possible) when compared to other ways to achieve the same end for the foreseeable future (30-50 years out). First surface weather doesn't extend to the ionosphere. There is over 33km separation from the highest active weather (clouds) and 30km above most steering currents (jetstream). Then you have the fact that organized weather hurricanes and major highs and lows represent energies in the hundreds of megaton range when fully formed. Just steering a fully formed system would take megatons delivered & more at transmission point. So again its very expensive to deliver the punch compared to nukes or conventional bombs. Plus to precisely deliver that punch you must understand ALL the natural weather pressures that might interfere to divert or block your planned punch. When you see weather forecasters delivering precise 100% accurate local and national weather let me know.

The civilian economics of weather prediction alone far exceed military considerations, let alone the idea of control. The US civilian and worldwide usage of weather actually ripped-off the Air Force Weather satellites in 1997-1998 (primary operational control civilian with military backup) and heavily influenced data sharing and usage back into the early 1980s when those satellites were still partially black ops. (See http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=94). Yup count on any weather control being seized by Congress and the President for civilian economic gains of their most important constituents with trickle down (rain?) for everyone else. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muse HAARP Tour DVD

Why is this link consistently being removed? I think it has a valid reason for being there for people who search for "HAARP" in the interests of finding out more about the DVD.86.134.101.21 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's in the hat note at the top, titled H.A.A.R.P.. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How come it's a black spot on Google Earth btw? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.18.92.217 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure the black spot is where HAARP is supposed to be? Well, not being a conspiracy theorist or anything, but I guess maybe it's sensitive information. — NRen2k5(TALK), 18:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Movie References

In Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985) the hero, Remo Williams has to investigate Grove Industries, a corporation that makes bogus and over-priced weapons for the military, including a "Star Wars" type weapon known as "Harp." Remo and his multicultural-multigender fraud squad (Captain Janeway or Kate Mulgrew helps in heels) are out to stop government waste! or rather the greedy businessmen and their corrupt cronies in government who want to take advantage of tax payers. Barkmoss (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)