[spectre] HAARP -it is to say Haarp?

[Ewen Chardronnet]

have a look at the official website

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/

Louise Desrenards a écrit :

>J'ai suivi un lien dans le site de elli medeiros
>
>http://www.ellimedeiros.com/logz/journal/
>
>et je suis tombée sur le projet Harrp - enfin pas un projet une réalité...
>
>Alors j'ai cherché davantage dans google:
>http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&q=harrp&btnG=Recherche+Google&meta=
>
>et j'ai trouvé toutes sortes de choses dont aussi ce lien:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/jilaens/haarp.html
>
>Je cite intégralement :
>
>UFO Reality Interview
>
>Jilaen Sherwood Interviews Dr Nick Begich on HAARP
>
>Dr Nick Begich reveals the frightening truth behind the United States'
>latest black technology project.
>
>JS: Can you tell me a little bit about your background?
>
>NB: I was born and raised in Alaska. I was a Senator and President of the
>Confederation of Teachers for
>two terms, and President of the Council of Education for two terms. I have a
>doctorate in traditional medicine.
>
>JS: How long have you been researching the HAARP project?
>
>NB: I began in early 1994. My co-author, Jean Manning, had started her work
>in this area around 1991.We became acquainted after I had published my first
>major article in Nexus, in Australia, and it was published in the summer of
>1994. From that article we were contacted by a number of people, including
>Jean Manning.
>
>JS: What does HAARP actually stand for?
>
>NB: It stands for High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program
>
>JS: What is the purpose of the program ?
>
>NB: It's a project being managed by the US Air Force and Navy for the
>purpose of what they describe as upper atmospheric research. The reality of
>it is this is a proto type, which they acknowledge as a prototype, basically
>to develop Tesla-type technologies..
>
>JS: So, it's like Star Wars?
>
>NB: Absolutely. At the very end of the Presidential election in this last
>cycle Doyle raised the issue of Star Wars again, and in the raising of this
>issue he mentioned a couple of things that are relevant. First of all he
>said that the cost of Star Wars had gone down significantly, and second that
>the reason the cost had gone down
>significantly was because Star Wars was essentially comprised of four
>ground-based systems augmented by satellites, and HAARP was providing some
>of that research for those ground-based systems.
>
>JS: In your opinion what will the Star Wars weapons system be used for?
>
>NB: What they describe in the military is a 'number of things'. The first
>thing they talk about is communication
>with submarines, and the idea in this application is by sending a radio
>frequency signal, which is what HAARP produces, of a very high power Which
>can cause the ionosphere - which is an area about 30 miles above the Earth's
>surface and is a protective layer from the sun - they can cause it to
>vibrate. It sends them a returning signal which penetrates the Earth and
>sea, which they can use for communicating with submarines.
>
>They can also use it for ground-penetrating tomography which is currently
>funding the United States Congressional Project, and this abdication of, if
>you will, X-raying the Earth, or looking into the Earth several kilometers
>deep for underground facilities, shelters, geologic strata differentials
>currently this particular use has proven to be effective. Beyond that it
>deals with over-the-horizon radar technologies; looking around the curvature
>of the Earth; and for detected incoming objects. They can also distinguish
>which of those incoming objects carry nuclear payloads. They can also
>disable those objects with the same system that detected
>, so it becomes a defensive as well as an offensive weapon. Beyond that the
>things that we have uncovered
>in our research is how the system can be used for affecting human
>physiology, human behaviour, as well as weather systems.
>
>JS: Do do you think that some of these incoming objects" might be of
>extraterrestrial origin?
>
>NB: That's really out of my field, but certainly it's plausible. I mean, the
>idea that this weapon and technology can be used against high technology I
>think is quite probable.
>'Whether or not it will be, that is beyond my area of research. But it's a
>very sophisticated
>weapons technology. It represents a major initiative of the United States
>military, of
>which HAARP is just one part. I mean the whole idea of electromagnetic
>weapons and
>technologies is just now being talked about in the main- stream again. Our
>research goes back to the '7Os, '8Os and look at what HAARP is as a early
>'70s, when these weapons were first being evolved. And what has happened is
>tat most of the evolution of these weapons was done in secrecy under what
>are called 'black projects'.
>HAARP is a visible representation of a very large program.
>
>JS: So in truth HAARP is a top-secret weapons program?
>
>NB: Yeah. I think the technologies that surround it really deal with some of
>the most sophisticated weapons technologies conceived. When you research
>facility, every weapons program begins that way. To say that HAARP is not a
>research project would be wrong, but to say it is not a weapons project is
>equally wrong. It is a weapons program based on early research. Where it
>goes from here really remains to be seen, but we believe we have hit the
>very beginnings of a very large project. The documents that we point to are
>primarily their own - military documents, HAARP planning documents,
>mainstream media reports and press releases that they've released about the
>technology.
>
>JS: Where is the HAARP project based?
>
>NB: The HAARP project located ... about 150 miles northeast of Anchorage, in
>a place called Gakona, Masks. So it is very remote, and very few people live
>in the region. It's an area the size of, say, Connecticut, that might have
>5000 or 6000 people, so it is very sparsely populated.
>
>JS: Why is it located there? Is it because Gakona close to the pole?
>
>NB: Absolutely, that is a major reason it's located there. There are really
>three criteria for locating in Alaska: one was it's closer ... to where the
>naturally occurring magnetic lines of force intercept the Earth, which
>happens to be at the poles; the second cnteria was that you needed large
>supplies of fuel, natural gas being the ideal fuel source, and Alaska is
>well-known now for its natural gas supplies; and, thirdly, the remoteness of
>the location, while still being within the confines of the United States.
>This is the idea when you build a weapons system. A Star Wars weapons
>system, totally satellite-based, is very
>vulnerable. I mean you could have accidents, you could have all kind of
>things occur involving other countries. You could pretty well say maybe it
>was an accident, maybe it wasn't. If you have a ground- based system on,
>say, US soil, any country who violates that system has to really cross a
>line tat is pretty clearly distinguished - I think that a large part of it.
>The other part is maintaining the system. A ground-based Star Wars system to
>maintain is much cheaper than a satellite-based system where you have to use
>space shuttles to do service
>work instead of a mechanic in a pick-up truck!
>
>Weather Modification
>
>JS: You mentioned that it could have an effect on the Weather
>
>NB: This particular effect is one that people, when you first raise the
>question, doubt. But weapons technology in terms of weather modification
>goes back to the l950s. In the I 970s, the middle of the '70s (1976) we
>signed an agreement with over 60 other countries, where we agreed to not use
>weather warfare - weather modification as a
>weapon. The idea that we would sign that agreement over 20 years in advance
>speaks for itself.
>The idea of using the system for weather modification is described quite
>clearly. The Program Manager at
>Hanscom Air Force Base for the military has said on public television in
>Canada that you can, and they will,
>put holes in the ionosphere - in other words, create a lifting of the
>ionosphere so that there is a space, and
>the idea in creating holes in the ionosphere is that if a satellite enters
>one of these spaces they encounter
>an atmosphere that shouldn't be there and it causes drag forces, causes
>satellites to malfunction, so as an anti- satellite weapon it has that use.
>The problem is that when you create a hole, even if it is only 30 miles in
>diameter or 250 miles in diameter
>(which is the range the military have been talking about) at 250 miles high
>what happens is that the lower atmosphere rushes in to fill this empty
>space, and as a result wind patterns in the area underneath change. This can
>have a dramatic effect, because it is not just a small area that is affected
>- a large area becomes affected by these changes in weather patterns, and
>anyone who's watched global weather maps knows that what happens in Alaska
>effects most of Canada and the entire West Coast of the United States. The
>flow of our weather patterns flow right through the Mid-West, so somehow to
>view this in isolation is absolutely ridiculous. The fact is that it will
>affect the weather patterns throughout the United States.
>
>JS: So this would also have quite an effect on people?
>
>NB: This is one of the other areas that we explored very thoroughly. We
>viewed countless documents from the United States Air Force, also from the
>Navy, dealing with the bio-effects, the biological effects of
>electromagnetic weapons systems. This is a relatively new area in terms of
>public disclosures, but it has been around a long time. The idea is that you
>can go back to some of the older weapons that they've talked about, like
>particle-beam weapons or laser weapons.
>On 60 Minutes, one of the major CBS television programs, they put out a
>'special' last year and used a pulsed microwave for creating symptoms of
>sea-sickness or illness in people. The most recent documents that have come
>out on these technologies - one in particular 'New World Vistas', produced
>by the United StatesAir Force - talks about these kinds of weapons being
>used to affect the emotional state rather than the physiological state. What
>we know in terms of what you can do with a pulsed microwave ... you can also
>do with pulsed signals when they hit a certain range that biologically
>happens to be in a very low range of power, and it was called ELF, an
>extremely low frequency.
>Research done in Yale University from the '60s all the way through to the
>'8Os has demonstrated that using pulsed or electromagnetic signals you can
>create huge chemical changes within the body that manifest either as illness
>or behavioural change, and they would demonstrate this at Yale with animals
>and humans - they were able to change the mental state of humans and animals
>almost like turning on and off a light the switch, from highly agitated to
>very passive.
>
>The systems have been around but what HAARP can produce, according to
>according to its Program Managers, is energy densities approximately equal
>to what the Earth naturally produces in the ELF range. What was shown at
>Yale is that energy densities one-fiftieth as strong were sufficient for
>changing the behaviour of animals, so it is fifty times more power than you
>need within the frequency range of modeling human behaviour.
>The question is: will it be, as John Hefiier has said, a side-effect which
>they aren't particularly interested in, or will it be a deliberate effect?
>We don't know the answer to that question, but the fact that it can create,
>if you will,these side-effects or purposeful effects is highly disturbing to
>us, because it is not disclosed in any of the environmental impact
>statements dealing with this project. Many of these risks have now.
>
>There are no biological scientists on the project looking at the
>physiological risks. Even if they had the standard biologists, if you will,
>what they really need are people skilled in electro-physiology, people with
>the requisite backgrounds dealing with electromagnetic effects on humans.
>They are available to the military but they are not on the program, and they
>should be on the program..
>What we are talking about is their gains with the ionosphere; the ionosphere
>belongs to everyone on the planet.
>This is not an Alaskan issue. The idea that they're going to create changes
>in the ionoshere - which protects us
>from incoming cosmic radiation, X-rays, and a number of other particles
>could make life impossible on the planet, and that's why it's really an
>international issue.
>
>
>______________________________________________
>SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe
>Info, archive and help:
>http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
>
>
>  
>