DINAR & DONG RV - BASIL III COMPLIANT

[sandraed1963]

Basel III

Global banking regulators sealed a deal, in September of 2010, to effectively triple the size of the capital reserves that the world’s banks must hold against losses, in one of the most important reforms to emerge from the financial crisis.

The package, known as Basel III, sets a new key capital ratio of 4.5 per cent, more than double the current 2 per cent level, plus a new buffer of a further 2.5 per cent. Banks whose capital falls within the buffer zone will face restrictions on paying dividends and discretionary bonuses, so the rule sets an effective floor of 7 per cent. The new rules will be phased in from January 2013 through to January 2019.

Banks will be required to triple core tier one capital ratios from 2 per cent to 7 per cent by 2019. This ratio measures the buffer of highest quality capital that banks hold against future losses.

The long-awaited agreement, developed by central bankers and officials, follows months of wrangling among the 27 member countries of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision over how to make banks more resilient to financial shocks.

Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank and chairman of the negotiating group, called the deal “a fundamental strengthening of global capital standards ... Their contribution to long term financial stability and growth will be substantial.”

Tougher capital standards are considered critical for preventing another financial crisis, but bankers had warned that if the new standards were too harsh or the implementation deadlines too short, lending could be curtailed, cutting economic growth and costing jobs.

In addition to the 4.5 per cent core tier one ratio, and the 2.5 per cent buffer, the reform package also endorses the idea of an additional buffer of up to 2.5 per cent of core tier one capital to counter the economic cycle. [1]

http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=basel-iii

[makecents]

First Rayzur while this might sound pretty critical, I don't mean this as any sort of charge against you. I'm in fact delighted with your post since it is a perfect example of just the problem I was talking about.

I said

But, unless you can offer a peer reviewed paper supporting the idea that this is anything but an ordinary quake, the fact that some one somewhere in the net suggests otherwise is irrelevant. I haven't even heard that, but don't doubt somewhere its being pushed. Given that large number of scientists that work in this area if there was something odd going on it would have been major news by now let alone having just a few papers at least.

to which you replied

I first want to make sure we're on the same page. My experience with using peer review is that of peers reviewing the practice of other peers in determining that their practice is competent, and within community standards. In effect one leg of the quality assurance infrastructure overseeing professional practice.

In professional journals, ones work is likewise at times, subjected to the review of one's peers. However, it seems that testing the veracity of a proposed relationship (e.g., HAARP can cause earthquakes) one would want to see the scientific community weigh in from the expertise of their speciality, as well as the creation of models that can demonstrate replicated results. That exercise, in my view, tends to add greater credibility to the causal nature of said relationship... (I'll purposely avoid discussion about formal methodology, design and approach in rejection of the null hypothesis, as that's a bit deeper than I think we need to go)

There have been so many scientific papers written on the potential of HAARP in precipitating this type of event. And you have a good point that one would want to see this kind of information before arriving at any conclusion as to the viability of this possibility. Indeed, the video I posted was the cliff note overview and didn't provide this type of approach. Here is a YouTube link with several scientists of credible expertise in fields involved with HAARP Scientist Peers

When I said peer reviewed paper, I meant a paper appearing in a mainstream peer reviewed scientific journal. Such venues are where real scientists discuss their work. This is a key part of science since especially in the internet age anyone can claim anything. Publishing in peer reviewed journals means two things. First you have to get past the peer review of the editors. This is a first level filter that keeps obvious bad science from having to be read by many folks. Then once an article is published that is the 2nd level and much bigger peer review by all the readers of the journal. For a new theory (e.g. HAARP can cause earthquakes) to be seen has having some validity even this is not enough. The idea has to be taken up by others, the work has to be replicated, it has to be shown that it dovetails with previous results, that it gives new insight and leads to new results.

Science is of course carried out by humans and thus is subject to all our failings. Ego, pride, stubbornness, politics, money, etc etc. It is always hard for a new theory to break through the old guard protecting the status quo. But it is constantly occurring. Its just how the process works. We stumble forward making all kinds of mistakes but the process of peer review over the long term weeds out the false ideas and inches us slowly toward an every more correct understanding of the world.

Specifically about HAARP, you say there have been "so many scientific papers written on the potential of HAARP in precipitating this type of event". Ok show me just ONE that meets the criteria of being published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal. I'm betting you can't do it. The video you offered is a fantastic example of the sort of "marketing" I was talking about. The video features Dr. Brooks Agnew, claimed Phd in Physics. Yet a literature search shows not a single journal paper authored by this guy (I checked Google Scholor and SCIRUS and found only more web videos etc), nor will he say where his Phd was obtained and in fact it looks to be self-awarded.

Early on in the video he talks about using a ELF transmitter (of quite low power) to do some geologic analysis and "when they turned it on there was immediately a 4.0 earthquake" and he talks about this as a "causal event". No, its a correlative event, no causality has been established. As can be seen here, there a lots of earthquakes in the pacific northwest all the time. The most obvious answer is that it was just a coincidence (even if its true at all, i.e. he offers no evidence even of the correlation).

The kicker is the portion of the video you called out (around the 29 minute mark). Here the good "Dr" gives us a claimed demonstration of the potential of HAARP by pointing a 30W (about 18") subwoofer a couple feet away from a small rock positioned on a sandy sloop. He turns on the speaker and after a moment (you can see the sand jumping from the low frequency sound waves) the rock is dislodged! And this is claimed to demonstrate what HAARP can do. Really? But harp produces RADIO waves not SOUND waves. Further the power output of HAARP is about 10MW so some 300,000 times the power level of the speaker, but how much bigger are the masses of rock he claims are impacted compared to the (guessing) 1-2 lb rock he uses sitting on a sandy slope? What are the forces involved? And just how will RADIO waves move mass? He of course does not say. What a surprise.

This is just what I mean by "marketing". This video has no more scientific validity then when a car commercial claims "the all new XYZ is the best car on the road", or "melt those pounds away without changing your diet" or... There is ZERO scientific validity to this presentation. As is pointed out on the wikipedia page for HAARP, the 10MW power level is less than your average lightning strike and there is such a strike somewhere in the world about 50 to 100 times ever second of every day.

There is not the slightest hint, scientifically speaking, that HAARP can do anything wrt causing earthquakes. Yet the conspiracy theories abound. Don't be taken in by this junk!

Edited January 19, 2013 by makecents

[snooz]

First Rayzur while this might sound pretty critical, I don't mean this as any sort of charge against you. I'm in fact delighted with your post since it is a perfect example of just the problem I was talking about.

I said

to which you replied

When I said peer reviewed paper, I meant a paper appearing in a mainstream peer reviewed scientific journal. Such venues are where real scientists discuss their work. This is a key part of science since especially in the internet age anyone can claim anything. Publishing in peer reviewed journals means two things. First you have to get past the peer review of the editors. This is a first level filter that keeps obvious bad science from having to be read by many folks. Then once an article is published that is the 2nd level and much bigger peer review by all the readers of the journal. For a new theory (e.g. HAARP can cause earthquakes) to be seen has having some validity even this is not enough. The idea has to be taken up by others, the work has to be replicated, it has to be shown that it dovetails with previous results, that it gives new insight and leads to new results.

Science is of course carried out by humans and thus is subject to all our failings. Ego, pride, stubbornness, politics, money, etc etc. It is always hard for a new theory to break through the old guard protecting the status quo. But it is constantly occurring. Its just how the process works. We stumble forward making all kinds of mistakes but the process of peer review over the long term weeds out the false ideas and inches us slowly toward an every more correct understanding of the world.

Specifically about HAARP, you say there have been "so many scientific papers written on the potential of HAARP in precipitating this type of event". Ok show me just ONE that meets the criteria of being published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal. I'm betting you can't do it. The video you offered is a fantastic example of the sort of "marketing" I was talking about. The video features Dr. Brooks Agnew, claimed Phd in Physics. Yet a literature search shows not a single journal paper authored by this guy (I checked Google Scholor and SCIRUS and found only more web videos etc), nor will he say where his Phd was obtained and in fact it looks to be self-awarded.

Early on in the video he talks about using a ELF transmitter (of quite low power) to do some geologic analysis and "when they turned it on there was immediately a 4.0 earthquake" and he talks about this as a "causal event". No, its a correlative event, no causality has been established. As can be seen here, there a lots of earthquakes in the pacific northwest all the time. The most obvious answer is that it was just a coincidence (even if its true at all, i.e. he offers no evidence even of the correlation).

The kicker is the portion of the video you called out (around the 29 minute mark). Here the good "Dr" gives us a claimed demonstration of the potential of HAARP by pointing a 30W (about 18") subwoofer a couple feet away from a small rock positioned on a sandy sloop. He turns on the speaker and after a moment (you can see the sand jumping from the low frequency sound waves) the rock is dislodged! And this is claimed to demonstrate what HAARP can do. Really? But harp produces RADIO waves not SOUND waves. Further the power output of HAARP is about 10MW so some 300,000 times the power level of the speaker, but how much bigger are the masses of rock he claims are impacted compared to the (guessing) 1-2 lb rock he uses sitting on a sandy slope? What are the forces involved? And just how will RADIO waves move mass? He of course does not say. What a surprise.

This is just what I mean by "marketing". This video has no more scientific validity then when a car commercial claims "the all new XYZ is the best car on the road", or "melt those pounds away without changing your diet" or... There is ZERO scientific validity to this presentation. As is pointed out on the wikipedia page for HAARP, the 10MW power level is less than your average lightning strike and there is such a strike somewhere in the world about 50 to 100 times ever second of every day.

There is not the slightest hint, scientifically speaking, that HAARP can do anything wrt causing earthquakes. Yet the conspiracy theories abound. Don't be taken in by this junk!

RADIO waves not SOUND waves.

???

Aren't both of them calculated in frequency and wavelength ?? Just asking...

SnooZ

[staunch]

I have seen this art before , and same response "Bingo" It is verbatim to my studies of same !! Hold on to your shorts , THIS WILL BE A WILD RIDE !!!! Great time to be alive , Bravo !! Pause all ,( who would have thunk ! ) :rolleyes:/>

Eh?.....Did I miss a post? I didn't understand this. Sorry I can be stupid sometimes.

[makecents]

???

Aren't both of them calculated in frequency and wavelength ?? Just asking...

SnooZ

Sure you can measure the frequency and wavelength of both. You can measure the frequency and wavelength of the pulses of traffic on the freeway too. That doesn't imply anything about the similarity or lack of it for the underlying phenomenon. Radio waves travel at the speed of light and are about the propagation of massless photons while sound waves travel at the speed of sound and are about the physical compression (i.e. the wave) of a physical object (be it air or a steel bar). Edited January 19, 2013 by makecents

[Rayzur]

Hey MakeCents,

I love a good academic polemic as much as the next guy so no worries. I think you've missed a few of my words in past posts. One set of words was apologizing for not being more clear that my response in contrast to yours initially, was that a HAARP event was far more probable than an atomic bomb, in the event the Japanese earthquake was man made.

I also talked about meeting with an assembly of scientists when this was first introduced and thinking it was twilight zone, and some 15 years later we are now talking about things openly. My intention is not to "prove" the veracity of any theory. That would take a whole other thread and time I don't want to commit. My intention was to note that there is scientific evidence of this probability. I am totally cool with your choice to require further evidence of such (as published in journals), I was in contrast sharing my experience (and for a long time, my discomfort) with this while at the same time, noting there are scientific publications about this technology.

It also looks like we agree about both journals (peer review) and replication of results as supporting probability, (more correctly stated, rejecting the null hypothesis). I have a shelf full of journal articles published. Its not really all that difficult, and really is a matter of time and energy. And its a pain in the tail and you have to be committed to that as important in your life, in order to participate. I appreciate your allegiance to professional journal peer review while noting the politics of such are played with the same depth of "game" as any academic defense of original work. With respect to your choice, I nonetheless prefer replication of results as the more credible support.

Interesting about Brooks Agnew, though not sure that possession of a Ph.D. either confirms or denies his assertions. That notwithstanding and supposing it does, what about Eastlund, and the other Ph.D.s giving their views of this potential. Granted you would have to take some of Tesla's foundation and apply it to the mechanics of what they are stating... but the probability is there.

In the book Angels Don't Play this HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology, there are over 350 footnote citations of varying scientific expertise, publications and papers. But again, my original intention was not to prove this theory as much as it was to state the probability was Haarp versus an atomic bomb, in the event the event was man made. I personally don't need proof of what I have seen or know. In fact I'll go one further, for which I won't offer proof either: the tsunami that hit Thailand in December, was the unintended consequence of "playing" with haarp out in the ocean, where it was assumed there would be a degree of safety absent human damage in experimentation with its potential(s). We don't know what it can do in full measure. I don't need proof of what I know, nor do I really need anyone to really believe it. However, in the event its interesting to others, I offer these not too terribly scientific snippets from the book and PS agreed this is absolutely not a peer reviewed scientific paper, and is a collaborative peer presentation of findings. If nothing else, its a good background on HAARP for those curious who haven't explored this technology:

HAARP Boils the Upper Atmosphere

HAARP will zap the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable electromagnetic beam. It is an advanced model of an "ionospheric heater." (The ionosphere is the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth's upper atmosphere. It ranges between 40 to 60 miles above the surface of the Earth.)

Put simply, the apparatus for HAARP is a reversal of a radio telescope; antenna send out signals instead of receiving. HAARP is the test run for a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead.

HAARP publicity gives the impression that the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. However, other U.S. military documents put it more clearly -- HAARP aims to learn how to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." Communicating with submarines is only one of those purposes.

Publicity documents insist that the HAARP project is no different than other ionospheric heaters operating safely throughout the world in places such as Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Tromso, Norway, and the former Soviet Union. However, a 1990 government document indicates that the radio-frequency (RF) power zap will drive the ionosphere to unnatural activities.

" ... at the highest HF powers available in the West, the instabilities commonly studied are approaching their maximum RF energy dissipative capability, beyond which the plasma processes will 'runaway' until the next limiting factor is reached."

If the military, in cooperation with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, can show that this new ground-based "Star Wars" technology is sound, they both win. The military has a relatively-inexpensive defense shield and the University can brag about the most dramatic geophysical manipulation since atmospheric explosions of nuclear bombs. After successful testing, they would have the military megaprojects of the future and huge markets for Alaska's North Slope natural gas.

Looking at the other patents which built on the work of a Texas' physicist named Bernard Eastlund, it becomes clearer how the military intends to use the HAARP transmitter. It also makes governmental denials less believable. The military knows how it intends to use this technology, and has made it clear in their documents. The military has deliberately misled the public, through sophisticated word games, deceit and outright disinformation.

The military says 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)

• Replace the huge Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) submarine communication system operating in Michigan and Wisconsin with a new and more compact technology

• Be used to replace the over-the-horizon radar system that was once planned for the current location of HAARP, with a more flexible and accurate system

• Provide a way to wipe out communications over an extremely large area, while keeping the military's own communications systems working

• Provide a wide area earth-penetrating tomography which, if combined with the computing abilities of EMASS and Cray computers, would make it possible to verify many parts of nuclear nonproliferation and peace agreements

• Be a tool for geophysical probing to find oil, gas and mineral deposits over a large area

• Be used to detect incoming low-level planes and cruise missiles, making other technologies obsolete

HAARP History

The patents described below were the package of ideas which were originally controlled by ARCO Power Technologies Incorporated (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Company, one of the biggest oil companies in the world. APTI was the contractor that built the HAARP facility. ARCO sold this subsidiary, the patents and the second phase construction contract to E-Systems in June 1994.

E-Systems is one of the biggest intelligence contractors in the world -- doing work for the CIA, defense intelligence organizations and others. $1.8 billion of their annual sales are to these organizations, with $800 million for black projects

E-Systems was bought out by Raytheon, which is one of the largest defense contractors in the world. In 1994 Raytheon was listed as number forty-two on the Fortune 500 list of companies. Raytheon has thousands of patents, some of which will be valuable in the HAARP project. The twelve patents below are the backbone of the HAARP project, and are now buried among the thousands of others held in the name of Raytheon. Bernard J. Eastlund's U.S. Patent # 4,686,605, "Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere; and/or Magnetosphere," was sealed for a year.

Eastlund's patent said the technology can confuse or completely disrupt airplanes' and missiles' sophisticated guidance systems. Further, this ability to spray large areas of Earth with electromagnetic waves of varying frequencies, and to control changes in those waves, makes it possible to knock out communications on land or sea as well as in the air.

The patent said:

"Thus, this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth's atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art, particularly by detonation of nuclear devices of various yields at various altitudes... "

"...it is possible not only to interfere with third party communications but to take advantage of one or more such beams to carry out a communications network even though the rest of the world's communications are disrupted. Put another way, what is used to disrupt another's communications can be employed by one knowledgeable of this invention as a communication network at the same time."

"... large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction."

"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."

Begich found eleven other APTI Patents. They told how to make "Nuclear-sized Explosions without Radiation," Power-beaming systems, over-the-horizon radar, detection systems for missiles carrying nuclear warheads, electromagnetic pulses previously produced by thermonuclear weapons and other Star-Wars tricks. This cluster of patents underlay the HAARP weapon system.

Related research by Begich and Manning uncovered Air Force documents revealing that a system had been developed for manipulating and disturbing human mental processes through pulsed radio-frequency radiation (the stuff of HAARP) 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.

The mental-disruption possibilities for HAARP are the most disturbing. More than 40 pages of the book, with dozens of footnotes, chronicle 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. It even gave the frequency ranges where these effects could occur -- the same ranges which HAARP is capable of broadcasting.

The following statement was made more than twenty-five years ago in a book by Brzezinski which he wrote while a professor at Columbia University:

"Political strategists are tempted to exploit research on the brain and human behavior. Geophysicist Gordon J.F. MacDonald, a specialist in problems of warfare, says accurately-timed, artificially-excited electronic strokes could lead to a pattern of oscillations that produce relatively high power levels over certain regions of the earth ... in this way one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period"

" ... no matter how deeply disturbing the thought of using the environment to manipulate behavior for national advantages, to some, the technology permitting such use will very probably develop within the next few decades."

In 1966, MacDonald was a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee and later a member of the President's Council on Environmental Quality. He published papers on the use of environmental control technologies for military purposes. The most profound comment he made as a geophysicist was, "the key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy." While yesterday's geophysicists predicted today's advances, are HAARP program managers delivering on the vision?

The geophysicists recognized that adding energy to the environmental soup could have large effects. However, humankind has already added substantial amounts of electromagnetic energy into our environment without understanding what might constitute critical mass. The book by Begich and Manning raises questions:

• Have these additions been without effect, or is there a cumulative amount beyond which irreparable damage can be done?
• Is HAARP another step in a journey from which we cannot turn back?
• Are we about to embark on another energy experiment which unleashes another set of demons from Pandora's box?

As early as 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted a "more controlled and directed society" would gradually appear, linked to technology. This society would be dominated by an elite group which impresses voters by allegedly superior scientific know-how. Angels Don't Play This HAARP further quotes Brzezinski:

"Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Technical and scientific momentum would then feed on the situation it exploits," Brzezinski predicted.

His forecasts proved accurate. Today, a number of new tools for the "elite" are emerging, and the temptation to use them increases steadily. The policies to permit the tools to be used are already in place. How could the United States be changed, bit by bit, into the predicted highly-controlled technosociety? Among the "steppingstones" Brzezinski expected were persisting social crises and use of the mass media to gain the public's confidence.

In another document prepared by the government, the U.S. Air Force claims: "The potential applications of artificial electromagnetic fields are wide-ranging and can be used in many military or quasi-military situations... Some of these potential uses include dealing with terrorist groups, crowd control, controlling breaches of security at military installations, and antipersonnel techniques in tactical warfare. In all of these cases the EM (electromagnetic) systems would be used to produce mild to severe physiological disruption or perceptual distortion or disorientation. In addition, the ability of individuals to function could be degraded to such a point that they would be combat ineffective. Another advantage of electromagnetic systems is that they can provide coverage over large areas with a single system. They are silent and countermeasures to them may be difficult to develop... One last area where electromagnetic radiation may prove of some value is in enhancing abilities of individuals for anomalous phenomena."

The United States Congressional record deals with the use of HAARP for penetrating the earth with signals bounced off of the ionosphere. These signals are used to look inside the planet to a depth of many kilometers in order to locate underground munitions, minerals and tunnels. The U.S. Senate set aside $15 million dollars in 1996 to develop this ability alone -- earth-penetrating-tomography. The problem is that the frequency needed for earth-penetrating radiation is within the frequency range most cited for disruption of human mental functions. It may also have profound effects on migration patterns of fish and wild animals which rely on an undisturbed energy field to find their routes.

T. Eastlund further noted that the super-powerful ionospheric heater could control weather.

.... government documents indicating that the military has weather-control technology. When HAARP is eventually built to its full power level, it could create weather effects over entire hemispheres. If one government experiments with the world's weather patterns, what is done in one place will impact everyone else on the planet. Angels Don't Play This HAARP explains a principle behind some of Nikola Tesla's inventions -- resonance -- which affect planetary systems.

Bubble of Electric Particles

interviews with independent scientists such as Elizabeth Rauscher. She has a Ph.D., a long and impressive career in high-energy physics, and has been published in prestigious science journals and books. Rauscher commented on HAARP. "You're pumping tremendous energy into an extremely delicate molecular configuration that comprises these multi-layers we call the ionosphere."

"The ionosphere is prone to catalytic reactions," she explained, "if a small part is changed, a major change in the ionosphere can happen."

In describing the ionosphere as a delicately balanced system, Dr. Rauscher shared her mental picture of it -- a soap-bubble-like sphere surrounding Earth's atmosphere, with movements swirling over the surface of the bubble. If a big enough hole is punched through it, she predicts, it could pop.

Slicing the Ionosphere

Physicist Daniel Winter, Ph.D., of Waynesville, North Carolina, says, "HAARP high-frequency emissions can couple with longwave (extremely-low-frequency, or ELF) pulses the Earth grid uses to distribute information as vibrations to synchronize dances of life in the biosphere." Dan terms this geomagnetic action 'Earth's information bloodstream,' and says it is likely that coupling of HAARP HF (high-frequency) with natural ELF can cause unplanned, unsuspected side effects.

David Yarrow of Albany, New York, is a researcher with a background in electronics. He described possible interactions of HAARP radiation with the ionosphere and Earth's magnetic grid: "HAARP will not burn holes in the ionosphere. That is a dangerous understatement of what HAARP's giant gigawatt beam will do. Earth is spinning relative to thin electric shells of the multilayer membrane of ion-o-speres that absorb and shield Earth's surface from intense solar radiation, including charged particle storms in solar winds erupting from the sun. Earth's axial spin means that HAARP -- in a burst lasting more than a few minutes -- will slice through the ionosphere like a microwave knife. This produces not a hole but a long tear -- an incision."

Crudely Plucking the Strings

Second concept: As Earth rotates, HAARP will slice across the geomagnetic flux, a donut-shaped spool of magnetic strings -- like longitude meridians on maps.

HAARP may not 'cut' these strings in Gaia's magnetic mantle, but will pulse each thread with harsh, out-of-harmony high frequencies. These noisy impulses will vibrate geomagnetic flux lines, sending vibrations all through the geomagnetic web. "

"The image comes to mind of a spider on its web. An insect lands, and the web's vibrations alert the spider to possible prey. HAARP will be a man-made microwave finger poking at the web, sending out confusing signals, if not tearing holes in the threads. "

"Effects of this interference with symphonies of Gaia's geomagnetic harp are unknown, and I suspect barely thought of. Even if thought of, the intent (of HAARP) is to learn to exploit any effects, not to play in tune to global symphonies. "

Among other researchers quoted is Paul Schaefer of Kansas City. His degree is in electrical engineering and he spent four years building nuclear weapons. "But most of the theories that we have been taught by scientists to believe in seem to be falling apart," he says. He talks about imbalances already caused by the industrial and atomic age, especially by radiation of large numbers of tiny, high-velocity particles "like very small spinning tops" into our environment. The unnatural level of motion of highly-energetic particles in the atmosphere and in radiation belts surrounding Earth is the villain in the weather disruptions, according to this model, which describes an Earth discharging its buildup of heat, relieving stress and regaining a balanced condition through earthquakes and volcanic action.

Feverish Earth

"One might compare the abnormal energetic state of the Earth and its atmosphere to a car battery which has become overcharged with the normal flow of energy jammed up, resulting in hot spots, electrical arcing, physical cracks and general turbulence as the pent-up energy tries to find some place to go."

In a second analogy, Schaefer says "Unless we desire the death of our planet, we must end the production of unstable particles which are generating the earth's fever. A first priority to prevent this disaster would be to shut down all nuclear power plants and end the testing of atomic weapons, electronic warfare and 'Star Wars'." Meanwhile, the military builds its biggest ionospheric heater yet, to deliberately create more instabilities in a huge plasma layer -- the ionosphere -- and to rev up the energy level of charged particles.

Electronic Rain From The Sky

They have published papers about electron precipitation from the magnetosphere (the outer belts of charged particles which stream toward Earth's magnetic poles) caused by man-made very low frequency electromagnetic waves. "These precipitated particles can produce secondary ionization, emit X-rays, and cause significant perturbation in the lower ionosphere."

Two Stanford University radio scientists offer evidence of what technology can do to affect the sky by making waves on earth; they showed that very low frequency radio waves can vibrate the magnetosphere and cause high-energy particles to cascade into Earth's atmosphere. By turning the signal on or off, they could stop the flow of energetic particles.

Weather Control

Avalanches of energy dislodged by such radio waves could hit us hard. Their work suggests that technicians could control global weather by sending relatively small 'signals' into the Van Allen belts (radiation belts around Earth). Thus Tesla's resonance effects can control enormous energies by tiny triggering signals.

The Begich/ Manning book asks whether that knowledge will be used by war-oriented or biosphere-oriented scientists.

The military has had about twenty years to work on weather warfare methods, which it euphemistically calls weather modification. For example, rainmaking technology was taken for a few test rides in Vietnam. The U.S. Department of Defense sampled lightning and hurricane manipulation studies in Project Skyfire and Project Stormfury. And they looked at some complicated technologies that would give big effects. Angels Don't Play This HAARP cites an expert who says the military studied both lasers and chemicals which they figured could damage the ozone layer over an enemy. Looking at ways to cause earthquakes, as well as to detect them, was part of the project named Prime Argus, decades ago. The money for that came from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA, now under the acronym ARPA.) In 1994 the Air Force revealed its Spacecast 2020 master plan which includes weather control. Scientists have experimented with weather control since the 1940's, but Spacecast 2020 noted that "using environmental modification techniques to destroy, damage or injure another state are prohibited." Having said that, the Air Force claimed that advances in technology "compels a reexamination of this sensitive and potentially risky topic."

As far back as 1958, the chief White House advisor on weather modification, Captain Howard T. Orville, said the U.S. defense department was studying "ways to manipulate the charges of the earth and sky and so affect the weather" by using an electronic beam to ionize or de-ionize the atmosphere over a given area.

In 1966, Professor Gordon J. F. MacDonald was associate director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California, Los Angeles, was a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee, and later a member of the President's Council on Environmental Quality.

He published papers on the use of environmental-control technologies for military purposes. MacDonald made a revealing comment: "The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy. " World-recognized scientist MacDonald had a number of ideas for using the environment as a weapon system and he contributed to what was, at the time, the dream of a futurist. When he wrote his chapter, "How To Wreck The Environment," for the book Unless Peace Comes, he was not kidding around. In it he describes the use of weather manipulation, climate modification, polar ice cap melting or destabilization, ozone depletion techniques, earthquake engineering, ocean wave control and brain wave manipulation using the planet's energy fields.

He also said that these types of weapons would be developed and, when used, would be virtually undetectable by their victims. Is HAARP that weapon? The military's intention to do environmental engineering is well documented, U.S. Congress' subcommittee hearings on Oceans and International Environment looked into military weather and climate modification conducted in the early 1970's. "What emerged was an awesome picture of far-ranging research and experimentation by the Department of Defense into ways environmental tampering could be used as a weapon,"

I cut the rest of it out, as it was getting too long. But can bring it all if someone wants to read it.

You have a good point MakeCents that this video and likely others are not good examples of any kind of scientific research. I don't think that's the intention of YouTube, and any video presentation of credibility at the threshold you correctly note, would likely be found on University sites.

When you say marketing, what do you mean. Are you saying that people are selling ideas? I guess on one level that's true across the board and then becomes an issue of credibility. Interesting way to look at it. In any event, somewhere around the house I have Raytheon thumb drives if you want me to take a picture of them

PS you've got to tell me how you do that cut and paste quoting... I like it so much more than the way I've done it with blue midst the old post... nice

[Rayzur]

MakeCents..... apologies I forgot to meet your challenge ...... knew there was something I forgot... lol ... Please note there is a reason I use the word probability as proof is a whole other ball game as any scientist would know

Taking 3 seconds of review I found the following (previously unknown to me) article:

Evidence that HAARP is not only capable of inducing earthquakes, but that it appears to have been used on Japan

(NaturalNews) Recent data released by Dimitar Ouzounov and colleagues from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland highlights some strange atmospheric anomalies over Japan just days before the massive earthquake and tsunami struck on March 11. Seemingly inexplicable and rapid heating of the ionosphere directly above the epicenter reached a maximum only three days prior to the quake, according to satellite observations, suggesting that directed energy emitted from transmitters used in the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) may have been responsible for inducing the quake.

Published in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) publication Technology Review, the findings are presented alongside a different theory called Lithosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere Coupling, which hypothesizes that the heating in the ionosphere may have been caused by the impending earthquake as the fault line released radioactive radon. This theory, of course, is not actually proven, but is instead presented as a possible explanation for the presence of the high-density electrons and emitted infrared radiation that was observed.

Technology Review publishes further findings explaining this strange heating -- and one that, upon analysis, seems much more likely -- is that it was an indication that concentrated energy was used to induce the earthquake, and not the other way around. Numerous credible reports and scientific observations reveal that HAARP technology is fully capable of being used as a scalar weapon, meaning it can emit strong electromagnetic pulse bombs that can alter weather or trigger seismic fault lines.

Evidence that HAARP is not only capable of inducing earthquakes, but that it appears to have been used on Japan

A casual glance at the graphics presented as part of Ouzounov's research data shows near-perfect heat rings present above the epicenter of the quake. If radon emissions from the fault line were truly responsible for creating these heat zones, they would more than likely have had irregular, scattered appearances, rather than concentric circles. This anomaly by itself debunks the theory that the impending earthquake caused the heat patterns.

Also, readings from the HAARP Induction Magnetometer, which visualizes the frequency spectrum of signals detected in the earth's geomagnetic field, show that a steady, ultra-low frequency (ULF) of roughly 2.5 Hz was being broadcast days before the earthquake. The 2.5 Hz ULF happens to be the exact same frequency as the natural resonance produced by an earthquake -- and since there were no constant earthquakes occurring on the days before the quake as the HAARP Induction Magnetometer appeared to indicate, the logical conclusion is that the signal was being broadcast to induce the quake (http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=1624).

Some would argue that HAARP is not capable of producing such frequencies, especially at the power levels that would be required to induce a massive earthquake like the 9.0+ that occurred in Japan. But testimony by various governments says otherwise.

On April 28, 1997, then US Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen gave an important keynote address at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and US Strategy at the University of Georgia in Athens. When asked a question about terrorism, Cohen had this to say as part of his response about the type of technology that existed, even back then:

"Others are engaging even in an eco-type terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves" (http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=674).

This admission counters the claims made by some that no such technology exists, and that it is impossible to create seismic activity using directed energy. Clearly the technology has been around for a while, and the notion of it being used as a weapon is anything but a baseless conspiracy theory.

Then, there is the EU report on the environment, security and foreign policy, that was released on January 14, 1999 (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPO...). This report outlines various types of weapon threats, including a section entitled, "HAARP - a weapons system which disrupts the climate."

The paper explains that HAARP is "run jointly by the US Air Force and Navy," and that one of its purposes is "to heat up portions of ionosphere with powerful radio beams." It also states the following important details:

"HAARP can be used for many purposes. Enormous quantities of energy can be controlled by manipulating the electrical characteristics of the atmosphere. If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy. HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a given area than any other conventional transmitter. The energy can also be aimed at a moving target which should constitute a potential anti-missile system."

Later references to HAARP describe it as "a matter of global concern," emphasizing that most people have no idea it even exists. This was written, of course, more than a decade ago -- and yet not much has changed since that time, despite several pushes to make HAARP more transparent. But if HAARP is truly responsible for helping to induce some of the seemingly natural disasters that occur in the world, it is no surprise that the program continues to be kept largely under wraps.

You can view the HAARP Fluxgate Magnetometer for yourself at the following link:

http://maestro.haarp.alaska.edu/cgi-bin/scmag/disp-scmag.cgi

Sources for this story include:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26773/

[makecents]

MakeCents..... apologies I forgot to meet your challenge ...... knew there was something I forgot... lol ... Please note there is a reason I use the word probability as proof is a whole other ball game as any scientist would know

No worries. The previous post was pretty long and I'm a bit tired. Its a lot easier to cut and paste from web sites than for me to run it all down. I may go back and provide some responses or not, or if there is one or two points you think are the best you could highlight those.

You seem to agree with my methodology, i.e. basically using science to tell us, but you don't seem to practice it. I found nothing here persuasive at all to the HAARP death ray earthquake starter idea. You have not provided one instance of a paper in a peer reviewed journal making a case that HAARP can cause earthquakes. What you have done is provide many examples of a couple of classic techniques (or more properly that you have passed those on, i.e. I'm not say you are doing this, but the sites you got this from are).

1) Use scholarly references. Sure they can reference all the papers they want, but that does not give their conclusions any weight. Take for example the MIT Technology Review reference. Have you gone there and read that article? Its only a small page. It makes no mention what so ever of HAARP, and starts out with "Geologists have long puzzled over anecdotal reports of strange atmospheric phenomena in the days before big earthquakes. But good data to back up these stories has been hard to come by." . So this seems likely to not be a new phenomena but only a newly measured one. That would in fact be evidence against some new device causing such disturbances, but the article you paste tries to use it in the opposite role.

2) They quote people who are or were working in a technical maybe even a research capacity about something. So that is not particularly relevant and often such words are used out of context. But more importantly even if a past or present well known scientist in a relevant field says XYZ, that does not make it so. They are under just as much obligation to support their work through the same old time consuming channels as anyone else.

3) They quote people who add Phd's to their name but turns out its in a different field, or fake in the first place.

In the previous post you also said that you are only saying that IF the Japanese quake was triggered by man, it is more likely to be HAARP than an A-bomb. But is either possible? I see no evidence that it is. I haven't searched for A-bomb earthquake, but the energy released in the 9.1 Japanese quake was 600 million times the Little-boy A-bomb so you would think the pressure that was being held up prior to the release was in that same order of magnitude, so adding a 1 more A-bombs worth to that push seems unlikely to me to have any effect. But I think we agree that would have been noticed. As for HAARP I don't see any evidence at all that even suggests it can do so. Of course this begs the question of why would the US do this in the first place.

oh the quote thing. I'll just substitute curly braces for square brackets. When you hit the quote button (I don't see that the multi-quote button does anything) you get to a text editing window. The first line of the text will be the open quote that has the name and timestamps and so on. Right? (just making sure things work the same way in your env).

A simpler version would be like this

{quote name='put a name here' }

then the article, and the close quote

{/quote}

if I put that in square brackets instead of curly ones then it shows

then the article and close the quote

You can replicate those open/close pairs any where you want, though nesting them doesn't seem to work that well. You can copy and paste the full open quote string with all the time stamps and such (what I usually do) and just repeat it every time you want to start a new quote block. Stick in a close quote any place you want to close one. If you have an extra open or close or get a bracket backwards or something when you hit the previewpost button it usually will complain and show a pink error box and most of your post likely will preview without the quotes working. Extra close quotes are usually what mess me up.

I'll check back later tomorrow. Thanks for the posts, I'l look at them again later.

This has also gotten really far afield from the OP.

Edited January 20, 2013 by makecents

[Rayzur]

1) Use scholarly references. Sure they can reference all the papers they want, but that does not give their conclusions any weight. Take for example the MIT Technology Review reference. Have you gone there and read that article? Its only a small page. It makes no mention what so ever of HAARP, and starts out with "Geologists have long puzzled over anecdotal reports of strange atmospheric phenomena in the days before big earthquakes. But good data to back up these stories has been hard to come by."

Oh for heaven's sake.... Cornell University

Atmosphere-Ionosphere Response to the M9 Tohoku Earthquake Revealed by Joined Satellite and Ground Observations. Preliminary results

Dimitar Ouzounov, Sergey Pulinets, Alexey Romanov, Alexander Romanov, Konstantin Tsybulya, Dimitri Davidenko, Menas Kafatos, Patrick Taylor(Submitted on 13 May 2011)

The recent M9 Tohoku Japan earthquake of March 11, 2011 was the largest recorded earthquake ever to hit this nation. We retrospectively analyzed the temporal and spatial variations of four different physical parameters - outgoing long wave radiation (OLR), GPS/TEC, Low-Earth orbit tomography and critical frequency foF2. These changes characterize the state of the atmosphere and ionosphere several days before the onset of this earthquake. Our first results show that on March 8th a rapid increase of emitted infrared radiation was observed from the satellite data and an anomaly developed near the epicenter. The GPS/TEC data indicate an increase and variation in electron density reaching a maximum value on March 8. Starting on this day in the lower ionospheric there was also confirmed an abnormal TEC variation over the epicenter. From March 3-11 a large increase in electron concentration was recorded at all four Japanese ground based ionosondes, which return to normal after the main earthquake.

We found a positive correlation between the atmospheric and ionospheric anomalies and the Tohoku earthquake.

This study may lead to a better understanding of the response [relationship] of the atmosphere /ionosphere to the Great Tohoku earthquake,

:Preliminary results reported at EGU 2011 in Vienna, AustriaSubjects:Geophysics (physics.geo-ph); Space Physics (physics.space-ph)Cite as:arXiv:1105.2841v1 [physics.geo-ph]

(or arXiv:1105.2841v1 [physics.geo-ph] for this version)

Submission history

From: Dimitar Ouzounov [view email]

[v1] Fri, 13 May 2011 21:25:08 GMT (1402kb)

END

This is your starting point... go from here, analyze, extrapolate, contemplate, and theorize. I can say probability a thousand times if it would help... It is my opinion, based upon my understanding, briefings, knowledge and expertise, that there is a greater probability that in the event that the Tohoku earthquake was man made, it was the product of Haarp technology, versus an atom bomb.

I'm not sure that physicists, geo-physicists, bio-physicists etc would necessarily refer to a technology by name as much as they would take issue with the product of such. They are not testing haarp as a mechanism as such per se, they are looking at the product of haarp technology.... There are variations of this technology as it is, and I've actually never thought of looking for a paper or research or information contrasting say Eastlund's stuff versus what they have in Alaska, which some argue is the engendered project of his research , while others deny such. And in any case, I'm guessing you are going to have to abstract and connect the physics of what is being said, with the [probability of] the event in determining whether or not there is a correlated relationship. In that sense, you would be correct that I have not produced a paper that spells out the name HAARP in connecting this so named device to the Tohoku event, and have only referenced work that discusses the product of Haarp technology as having a relationship (correlated) to the event.

You present as an academician, (or grad student), and I understand the purity with which you approach this discussion. However you have to understand, that short of connecting the dots of physics for you, there is not likely an article (at first glance) that attaches a name brand to an event, in a way that is spelled out so clearly. Indeed, professional journals rarely (in my experience), attempt to attach name brand, [or machine] with result and instead, discuss the product or such and possible correlation between that and the result (ok I'm tired now, but hopefully you get what I am saying... or I can tease out more)

In that vein, I have indeed however, provided a paper that indicates there is a correlated relationship between the product of the machine (brand) and the result. It is indeed preliminary, and is enough to support the hypothesis that the two were connected. We of course have a chicken and egg here in front of us at this point, in terms of this article, and it nonetheless remains that the chicken and egg are in a correlated relationship.

I know I'm talking shorthand, if its too much so, I can elaborate and use more words to fill this out conceptually.

so you would think the pressure that was being held up prior to the release was in that same order of magnitude, so adding a 1 more A-bombs worth to that push seems unlikely to me to have any effect.

I'm not ready to sign off on the assumption that pressure in = pressure out.... Why are you thinking that the two have to be approximately equal? If you assume this to be a pressure event, then it seems you are hypothesizing that the pressure causing it needs to be equal to the pressure resulting? So, in contrast, in the hypothetical, if there is a fracture weakness and if there is the ability to resonate such that this fracture is further fractured, and if it is fractured at greater widths such that it can no longer sustain containment, then eventually erupts..... it would take very little energy relative to release for this to happen. You are releasing containment in any case, and I'm not sure why you are hypothesizing it would take equal amounts of pressure at both ends of this event?

They quote people who add Phd's to their name but turns out its in a different field, or fake in the first place.

The focus of interest is energy.... at some level, I'm not sure how many of the sciences are NOT involved with that. Physics is but one of many fields, and the sub specialities of physics are but a few of those involved.

This has also gotten really far afield from the OP.

Oh boy that's for sure... and now its taking way too much time... and I'm not so sure we are going to agree on this point. Not sure what your training is, meaning hard or soft science... or how many professional journal articles you've written... but its refreshing to see so much faith resting on them. I nonetheless stand by my statements and understand that you might as well. Not sure if I'll feel like digging up more information, I could call a friend.. but, I really need to go run some wire.... so probably won't.

If you would like to discuss ethnomethodology and the social construction of reality in our next soiree, please enclose your terms and parameters as well as conditions upon which we will agree to disagree... (and not drag other poor DV'rs into such tangential discussions...)

BTW I loveeee this quote thing.... hope I did it correctly such that it works.... Thanks so much for showing me how to do it.... Oh how much fun this will be now..... Thanks!!!

[makecents]

I'm a sw engineer that had a pretty clasic (physics, chemistry, math, EE, CS) education (that was a long time ago, I graduated in 75). I have never written a journal paper.

Right, you are not going to find a paper claiming HAARP might have done this, as no scientists is coming to this conclusion. I am not doubting at all that (maybe for the first time) good observations of atmospheric effects where recorded in the area of the quake in the days preceding it (as has been anecdotally notice for a many years). The Japanese paper that the MIT Tech Review points out shows this. Now maybe the atmospheric events that HAARP can generate are similar to this (I don't see that case made yet but it could be), but that in no way shape or form indicates that HAARP can CAUSE an earthquake. That is totally false logic. We see folded geological layers around large impact craters. We see folded geologic layers in mountain ranges. So we should conclude that asteroid impacts cause mountain ranges? Of course not.

Further where are the papers that even propose some mechanism that would allow HAARP (or its other similar installations) to do so. Given the staggering amount of energy involved in a quake compared to the relatively tiny amount HAARP radiates, it seems very far fetched, to me, but if experts in the fields can make the case, I'll accept it. So far no one is doing so that I can see.

My thinking about the energy release was that an amount of energy at least within a few orders of magnitude of the energy that is released, is building up prior to the release but is being held back. Then either something weakens the structure holding it back, to let it release, or the pressure goes up beyond what can be held back etc. Due to that amount being so huge compared to an A-bomb, it seems unlikely that an A-bomb could tip that balance to be greater than can be held back so its released, or to weaken the structure holding it back enough to allow a release given that said structure is strong enough to hold back 100s of millions of times the energy of an A-bomb.

On marketing what I meant was that in a journal paper, its always good to have nice graphs and be written well etc, but the bottom line is the data and the analysis and the conclusions. Does it support or reject the hypothesis. Were the stats done well, were all the things that should be considered taken into account, etc. That is what peer review is designed to figure out. But the HAARP conspiracy sites (and many others along the same lines) are just the reverse. They are not written for the scientific community but for the public and try to make it look like they are being scientific, but they are not. They are just marketing their theory to the public much like any commercial firm attempts to do.

Glad you like the quote thing and now I really am going to bed!

[Rayzur]

MakeCents... Greetings, You are blue this time

Okay, I think we are at a cross roads here and missing the point of the other. I think we might be agreeing that we disagree with each standing in their position on the matter. There are some points to which you've responded almost as if you didn't read the premise specifically in the sense that you seem to be asking me to explain the physics of what you are questioning. The physics is there and the inability to apply that does not therein negate the probability. The correlation is there absent correlation coefficient though clearly correlated at the level of significance such that its reported.

Right, you are not going to find a paper claiming HAARP might have done this, as no scientists is coming to this conclusion.

No! That is not what I was saying. Attempting the point again, professional journals are not going to cite the specific word Haarp as most physicists understand they are testing the physics of Haarp. Professional journals are not written for lay people and will not connect the dots of physics for those not trained in psychics such that they can understand what is being said as referential of Haarp technology. I cant think of a better analogy right now than to say, if you are testing the relationship between a 350 horsepower engine and distance, you're not going to write about a Ford, you're going to write about the relationship between the product of the [Ford] engine as a 350 HP mechanism... The fact that I do not call it a Ford, does not negate the relationship between a 350 HP engine and distance....(I know I know I know... very very rough analogy, but will suffice for the point]

Further where are the papers that even propose some mechanism that would allow HAARP (or its other similar installations) to do so.

I don't even understand the question. Are you asking for pictures of the mechanism? Are you reading anything else about it other than what I have posted for reference? I don't know what you mean by propose, you mean the ones they are actually using right now (and have been for almost 2 decades in some variation), or are you asking if I know of something in development? They are using it, they aren't hypothecating about its use, they are using it.... oh and btw, have no idea as to the actual extent, variation, etc consequences of its use, until they use it.... Which they are doing... alot.... and have you noticed anything unusual about say weather, hurricanes, earthquakes... Now do not go all bat spit crazy on me and even begin to suggest that I am saying that Haarp is causing all this stuff. Recall the sentences before this one, wherein I said we don't really know the actual extent of consequence until we use it... and then try to figure out the relationship between its use and an event.... we look for correlations... and when they exist, we go further.....

Not sure why you are trying to push me into a corner by refuting whether or not Haarp causes earthquakes, when I have never gone any further than speaking about probability. You're kinda starting to dip into the ole straw dog ointment yo self thar pardner.

Given the staggering amount of energy involved in a quake compared to the relatively tiny amount HAARP radiates, it seems very far fetched, to me, but if experts in the fields can make the case, I'll accept it.

Okay, deep breath... I can only assume you have not really read much of anything at all about Haarp, and not so much of what I have posted herein.... Because..... you continue to attempt injecting energy/power/magnitude dynamics into the equation, and then turn around and debate it..... when that is not the physics of that which is involved.... What is involved is the physics of resonance... which in turn has nothing to do with pound for pound equations of exchange.... You are debating a straw dog and I can't jump in here cause you're busy shadow boxing.

So far no one is doing so that I can see. With all respect (and chuckling) , this reminds me of when the kids go to fridge, open the door, look at the ceiling and then say, the sprouts aren't here, I don't see them. That does not mean they are not there. It means you are looking where they are not, and thereafter concluding they don't exist. Stop looking for pound for pound exchange and start looking at what energy is and what form it is actually being used in order to trigger an event. You read Chaos Physics yes? Look at the principles of Chaos. I'm sure you've heard of the example of the butterfly flapping its wings in Italy triggering a storm off the eastern seaboard. ITs not a pound for pound exchange... that's not even on the grid of discussion.

Does it support or reject the hypothesis.

Banging my head on table.... you are goofing with me right???? We've been talking the holy of holys formal protocol for research science going days now..... yes???? And then you throw this sentence at me????? You are goofing with me... tell me you are not serious???

And for those who might not know what I am talking about.... (banging my head a few more times) let me emphasize, in formal protocol... you do not ever ever ever ever 'support' a hypothesis. Ever. You will be laughed out of the research community for even suggesting it possible... omg....

At best, you reject the null hypothesis... and that is ALL you can do in formal protocol.

With that my friend, I think we can go on ad infinitum and will pretty much end up in the same place we are now. I think we are talking at different levels of the same question... or different places in the equation, and I don't see we will arrive at a mutual place... Which is totally cool... It appears we go at it from very different places of formality, and therein, I'm not sure we would find the same solution as we are not answering the same question...

Its all good and been a blast. Now I gotta go take something for a headache

[respectron]

Rayzor.., your knowledge blows my mind, seriously

[FlyHi]

Twisted corkscrewed radio freaks.....way above my station!!

I dare not venture 200km into the ionosphere to feel the heat resonating at such rarefied atmosphere!

No point polarising the discussion anymore....two different points of view without convergence is all too apparent

I applaud you both on a very interesting discussion....you force searching minds to venture into new fields

[makecents]

No! That is not what I was saying. Attempting the point again, professional journals are not going to cite the specific word Haarp as most physicists understand they are testing the physics of Haarp. Professional journals are not written for lay people and will not connect the dots of physics for those not trained in psychics such that they can understand what is being said as referential of Haarp technology.

But NONE of the articles (from peer reviewed sources) that you offer are making the case that a HAARP like device could trigger an earth quake or anything like it. They are only offering possible explanations for how the earthquake might have caused the atmospheric effects that were observed. Right?

I don't even understand the question. Are you asking for pictures of the mechanism?

No, I'm saying that if someone is proposing the hypothesis that HAARP could trigger an earthquake than it is up to them to come up with some mechanism by which HAARP could do this. So far I have seen no such offering.

Okay, deep breath... I can only assume you have not really read much of anything at all about Haarp, and not so much of what I have posted herein.... Because..... you continue to attempt injecting energy/power/magnitude dynamics into the equation, and then turn around and debate it..... when that is not the physics of that which is involved.... What is involved is the physics of resonance... which in turn has nothing to do with pound for pound equations of exchange.... You are debating a straw dog and I can't jump in here cause you're busy shadow boxing.

I beg to differ. To create resonance in a few billion tons (or trillion tons?) of rock, that is going to take a lot of power. Where are the papers that show that HAARP can do that, and that such an effect might be able to trigger an earthquake? So far the connection between the dots seem completely unjustified to me, and from what I can see to the scientists as well. Its only the conspiracy nuts that are making such connections, but there is no basis in science to do so.

[Rayzur]

I beg to differ. To create resonance in a few billion tons (or trillion tons?) of rock, that is going to take a lot of power.

Keem oh sab eeee .... to quote myself from past notes: "you continue to attempt injecting energy/power/magnitude dynamics into the equation, and then turn around and debate it". The way you are seeing it has nothing to do with it and I can't drag you through physics etc etc. or figure out a way to say it differently (at this point anyway... maybe in the morning)... and say it in a way that you conceptually get it....

Wait...... maybe this will work..... (very rough analogy, but we are getting closer in concept.... its late so bear with me)

If you have a crystal stem (glass) and you target it with a certain [directed] frequency,.... it will shatter/explode.... It has nothing to do with directly striking it... it has nothing to do with any "force" of impact in the sense of how much force you "mechanically " deliver in one object meeting another object with force, relative to the shattering as result. Indeed, very little energy in this case could be used to shatter an intact crystal glass....

If you continue to see the glass as the earth and insist the discussion is about an impact event vis-a-vis two opposing objects meeting and one giving... with Haarp somehow delivering a "force"/"impact somewhat equal to that force contained, you will not be able to ask questions relevant to the relationship potential (or probability) of it and an earthquake.

There are some exquisite HAARP spectrum charts available to the public for viewing. When you look at the charts, if you know how to read them what you will see is a constant ULF frequency of 2.5 Hz being recorded by the magnetometer. The chart recorded this ULF 2.5 Hz frequency as a constant before, during and after the 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck. On March 11, 2011 the 2.5 Hz ULF frequency was being emitted and recorded from 0:00 hours to about 10:00 hours – or for 10 hours. We know for a fact that the Japan earthquake lasted only a few minutes so why was the earthquake signature frequency (2.5 Hz) being recorded for 10 hours on the morning of March 11, 2011? Because a HAARP phased array antenna system was broadcasting (transmitting) the 2.5Hz ULF frequency. That is not a frickin guess, it is a documented factiod that the array was broadcasting at that time. NOT a hypothesis, a documented event at the lab in Alaska, transmitting. Go to the site for yourself and see that it was not only being broadcast for that 10 hours BUT was being transmitted constantly for 2 days prior to the earthquake.

Why does this matter (I better not be writing your frickin research paper for school... lol ) So why does the constant 2.5 Hz ULF transmission matter???

Because.....

The natural resonance of an earthquake is 2.5 Hz.

At this point you're going to have to go to the fridge and look for the sprouts by yourself, as this is turning into way deeper discussion of the actual properties of it than my off the cuff remark intended when I stated that if the event were man made, it was more likely the result of haarp than an atom bomb (the latter of which definitely involves your force thing, but has nothing to do with a haarp technology/ relationship).

Kuddos Fly for your play on words And yeah I'm with ya on that ^5...

[makecents]

Keem oh sab eeee .... to quote myself from past notes: "you continue to attempt injecting energy/power/magnitude dynamics into the equation, and then turn around and debate it". The way you are seeing it has nothing to do with it and I can't drag you through physics etc etc. or figure out a way to say it differently (at this point anyway... maybe in the morning)... and say it in a way that you conceptually get it....

Wait...... maybe this will work..... (very rough analogy, but we are getting closer in concept.... its late so bear with me)

If you have a crystal stem (glass) and you target it with a certain [directed] frequency,.... it will shatter/explode.... It has nothing to do with directly striking it... it has nothing to do with any "force" of impact in the sense of how much force you "mechanically " deliver in one object meeting another object with force, relative to the shattering as result. Indeed, very little energy in this case could be used to shatter an intact crystal glass....

Why do you think the glass starts to vibrate? Its due to sufficient power being put into the sound waves so that when they hit the glass it will start to vibrate. Of course less power is needed to cause the glass to break if its at the resonate frequency of the glass, but still a significant amount of power is needed. Why do you suppose in such demonstrations the glass is placed right in front of a good sized loudspeaker?

If you continue to see the glass as the earth and insist the discussion is about an impact event vis-a-vis two opposing objects meeting and one giving... with Haarp somehow delivering a "force"/"impact somewhat equal to that force contained, you will not be able to ask questions relevant to the relationship potential (or probability) of it and an earthquake.

There are some exquisite HAARP spectrum charts available to the public for viewing. When you look at the charts, if you know how to read them what you will see is a constant ULF frequency of 2.5 Hz being recorded by the magnetometer. The chart recorded this ULF 2.5 Hz frequency as a constant before, during and after the 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck. On March 11, 2011 the 2.5 Hz ULF frequency was being emitted and recorded from 0:00 hours to about 10:00 hours – or for 10 hours. We know for a fact that the Japan earthquake lasted only a few minutes so why was the earthquake signature frequency (2.5 Hz) being recorded for 10 hours on the morning of March 11, 2011? Because a HAARP phased array antenna system was broadcasting (transmitting) the 2.5Hz ULF frequency. That is not a frickin guess, it is a documented factiod that the array was broadcasting at that time. NOT a hypothesis, a documented event at the lab in Alaska, transmitting. Go to the site for yourself and see that it was not only being broadcast for that 10 hours BUT was being transmitted constantly for 2 days prior to the earthquake.

Why does this matter (I better not be writing your frickin research paper for school... lol ) So why does the constant 2.5 Hz ULF transmission matter???

Because.....

The natural resonance of an earthquake is 2.5 Hz.

What does that even mean? (I see the exact phrase is posted on many conspiracy sites). An earthquake is an event not a thing and thus does have have a resonate frequency. If you want to claim that the plates that ruptured in the Japanese quake have a resonant frequency of 2.5Hz you'll have to provide some support for that claim.

Further at what power level does HAARP manage to create magnetic fluctuations (these are caused by the eclectic field variations from the HAARP antennas). Well the instrument that records this (the HAARP induction magnetometer) senses magnetic field strength changes of a couple of picotesla. One pT is 1 trillionth the strength of the magnet in the voice coil of a typical home bookshelf sized loudspeaker (which is about 1 Tesla). Note that the field strength of the earth's magnetic field is around 30uT (micro Tesla). i.e. 30 million times stronger than the variations being measured.

So you are claiming that this ultra tiny variation measured in Alaska travels half way around the planet and causes an earthquake. Gee what a surprise that no scientists who are actually expert in such fields are even hinting about such things, its only the conspiracy nuts.

Edited January 21, 2013 by makecents

[Rayzur]

Why do you think the glass starts to vibrate? Its due to sufficient power being put into the sound waves so that when they hit the glass it will start to vibrate. Of course less power is needed to cause the glass to break if its at the resonate frequency of the glass, but still a significant amount of power is needed. Why do you suppose in such demonstrations the glass is placed right in front of a good sized loudspeaker?

What does that even mean? (I see the exact phrase is posted on many conspiracy sites). An earthquake is an event not a thing and thus does have have a resonate frequency. If you want to claim that the plates that ruptured in the Japanese quake have a resonant frequency of 2.5Hz you'll have to provide some support for that claim.

Obviously physics is not your strong suit. IT doesn't appear to be an aspect of your basic understanding either. I really meant it when I said I was not going to drag you through obtaining the physics knowledge necessary to connect the dots. You're going to have to do that on your own. I'm also not going to continue responding to nonsense dot connections that serve to only derail into tangential windmill jousting.

For whatever reason, you tout the purity of science, yet don't know the very basic foundation of its queries. Then you jump in the middle of a rough analogy and nit pick inconsequential detail relative to the main issue. You don't address correlations nor do you take issue with the significance of a correlated relationship. You pick a sentence featured on a conspiracy web site, and from that conclude that the use of this sentence is not valid simply because some conspiracy site quoted it? Such logic is completely devoid of any scientific protocol.

This discussion was derailed from my original remark about probability, into some convoluted debate wherein you continually demonstrate a lack of knowledge about science protocol or physics and then cite incorrect relationships or asking irrelevant straw dog questions based on disconnected or misconnected dots. Indeed, you're all over the place in formulating a cogent equation. Why would you ask me to offer support that earthquakes have a a resonant frequency of 2.5Hz... when it is common knowledge. Or, are you unaware of this factoid and think I was saying it was specific to the Japanese earthquake only. These are basic laws of science, just like E=mc2, and not just the product of this singular event.

I initially disagreed with one of your early statements. I still disagree with one of your initial statements in citing probability of a causal source being more probable than the alternative (atomic bomb). It seems you are seriously invested in winning some debate, yet not interested enough to do the basic work in formulating a cogent question or even response. You could have done a whole lot more with the (rough analogy) crystal glass discussion, yet went off on a tangent offering very primitive Telsa discussion, not well connected to the actual dots.... (and btw, continue reading Telsa. You will get there eventually if you do).

I really am done here. You are ignoring any known scientific information, theory or protocol in your replies and again, we could dance in the irrelevant disconnected details for years more than I care to. Yours are not my questions. The number of angels dancing on the head of a pin was never my question and must remain yours to sort.

And if you need to be the winner... great you won. I lost. You are the winner of whatever prize this warrants and I will be happy with consolation of remaining grounded in scientific protocol, query and knowledge. At this point, I'm pretty much going to go with the shill discussion posted earlier elsewhere, with the only question remaining, who do you work for, and are you paid well?

[makecents]

Obviously physics is not your strong suit. IT doesn't appear to be an aspect of your basic understanding either. I really meant it when I said I was not going to drag you through obtaining the physics knowledge necessary to connect the dots. You're going to have to do that on your own. I'm also not going to continue responding to nonsense dot connections that serve to only derail into tangential windmill jousting.

Insults only serve to show you have nothing else to offer.

For whatever reason, you tout the purity of science, yet don't know the very basic foundation of its queries. Then you jump in the middle of a rough analogy and nit pick inconsequential detail relative to the main issue.

So you think that the power level used to induce harmonic resonance is irrelevant to the impact of that resonance? That is obvious nonsense.

You don't address correlations nor do you take issue with the significance of a correlated relationship. You pick a sentence featured on a conspiracy web site, and from that conclude that the use of this sentence is not valid simply because some conspiracy site quoted it?

No, I pointed it out as it does not appear anywhere else that I found.

This discussion was derailed from my original remark about probability, into some convoluted debate wherein you continually demonstrate a lack of knowledge about science protocol or physics and then cite incorrect relationships or asking irrelevant straw dog questions based on disconnected or misconnected dots.

For an event to be probable, it must first be possible.

Indeed, you're all over the place in formulating a cogent equation. Why would you ask me to offer support that earthquakes have a a resonant frequency of 2.5Hz... when it is common knowledge. Or, are you unaware of this factoid and think I was saying it was specific to the Japanese earthquake only. These are basic laws of science, just like E=mc2, and not just the product of this singular event.

Wow, "a basic law of science"? Again an earthquake is an event, not an object. If this is "common knowledge" it should be easily available in numerous texts and sites on earthquakes and geology from any number of leading universities. Please point one out.

You could have done a whole lot more with the (rough analogy) crystal glass discussion, yet went off on a tangent offering very primitive Telsa discussion, not well connected to the actual dots... (and btw, continue reading Telsa. You will get there eventually if you do).

I said nothing about Tesla the man, I talked about the incredibly tiny power level of the magnetic fluctuations being measured, which I expressed (as does the HAARP site) in Teslas, a unit of course named after the man.

[makecents]

You don't address correlations nor do you take issue with the significance of a correlated relationship.

A correlation by the way can only be expressed between two series of data points, not between just 2 data points. Edited January 22, 2013 by makecents

[UNEEK]

And if you need to be the winner... great you won. I lost. You are the winner of whatever prize this warrants and I will be happy with consolation of remaining grounded in scientific protocol, query and knowledge. At this point, I'm pretty much going to go with the shill discussion posted earlier elsewhere, with the only question remaining, who do you work for, and are you paid well?

Rayzur -- Maybe both can be winners - in each one's own way -- You have my vote - Though I have read a lot over the years about HAARP I would not have been able to do a debate with you or anyone most likely about it --I have accumulated enough to at least "IN MY MIND" feel there is "some possibility" of capability -- I will leave that part as is -- I care not to be challenged by your opponent or any one else -- lol

I just wanted to say Thanks again for (lost count) how many times -- lol you have stepped up to the plate and contributed to and for the benefit of all - Although most of the information was way over my head I did at least have some knowledge about its existence and a lot about the controversial issues concerning it -- I did read every post and looked forward to them - I know a little more now than I did but still not enough to do a debate that's for sure -

Hope to see you around again soon on another interesting thread - maybe I will even be the one to start it lol UNEEK

[Rayzur]

A correlation by the way can only be expressed between two series of data points, not between just 2 data points.

Who is paying you to drive me bat spit crazy by stating absolute... poppy cock ! I'm sorry that you think I am insulting you instead of simply noting that you have no idea whatsoever about what you are talking about!!! Your referenced series of study suggests that surely you had some exposure to statistics and you must know that your statement is absolutely wrong. Even if you are talking about some esoteric notion of correlation* You are wrong!

My concern is that people will read this and believe you thinking you know what you are talking about. You don't. At least not when it comes to scientific query, protocol or statistics. Correlation is a measure of relationship between two mathematical variables or measured data values. My guess is, you read some quote somewhere and copied it incorrectly. Your sentence would be partially correct if you said between two SETS of data points, however you would also have to include between 'random' variables.

In statistics you want to quantify the relationship between two variables, measure its strength, develop an equation for predicting its outcomes and ultimately establish a testable conclusion about the queried population. (remember the discussion about about replicated results?).

Correlation is class of statistical relationships involving dependence. And indeed dependence is not sufficient to establish causation.

Dependence is referential of an event in which random variables don't meet the mathematical threshold of probabilistic independence. Correlation coefficients (remember when I used those word above), correlation coefficients measure the degree of correlation. I also referenced a a positive correlation regarding the earthquake event which in refreshing your memory is: where two variables react in the same way, increasing or decreasing together. In this case, were you to have an adequate grasp of the discussion per worldwide standardized scientific nomenclature, you would understand that the discussion was about Pearson r correlation coefficients, which is sensitive ONLY to a relationship between two variables.... Pearson r correlation coefficient looks like this:

r = n

xy - (x)(y)

sqrt[n(x²) - (x)²] · sqrt[n(y²) - (y)²]

I won't go into covariance etc,anymore and we'll just stick with basic correlation coefficients. You would run your regressions from the mean, your ANOVA, MANOVA, etc from your Pearson r findings subjected to further analysis. That can take for frickin ever. I last used factored analysis with varimax rotations, though will use orthogonal depending upon query and coefficients I get back. Depends, everyone has their favorite approach and most just go for regression from the mean... but thats a whole other discussion.

And yeah, I do this for fun sometimes. What's amazing is that the first time I ever conducted formal scientific query using correlations I tripped the University mainframe, taking it down for a bit as the data set was so large (not sure if it was the main mainframe, or the lab mainframe, actually don't know the configuration back then, if it was one or many linked... no idea). These days, I can run the full program plus plus plus.. on my laptop. And for that, I have hard and soft ware engineers to thank with deepest gratitude and fond regard.... thanks

*though I'm not sure about phase correlation or projective geometry, which in either case is specific to the inquiry and is not a statistical principle of determining if a relationship exists at the level stated for this discussion. In this, it was noted there was a positive correlation and nothing more. We're not talking about testing something like the duality midst subspaces of a vector space at this initial place of query. That would indeed involve specific equations to actually test the query.

[respectron]

Ok.., now I just feel dumb

[Rayzur]

UNEEK... thanks for the feedback! I look forward to your next post and promise myself that no matter how inane the reply in terms of standardized nomenclature, I will not reply, no matter what... I won't I won't I won't.... and have formally conceded the title to makecents as winner of this debate.... I won't I won't I won't... I just won't, someone stop me if I try... lol

Sorry guys if I've been a pain. I do get a bit attached to the purity of it all myself and am plagued by concern that people don't buy into incorrect tenants or foundation. I should have let this die a natural death and not been so into wanting to clarify down into the rabbit hole.....

UNEEK Please start another post soon.... so we can get back to earth and level ground.....

[snooz]

Rayzur, Makecents....Thank you !!! Not looking at who wins or not.Looking at your intelligent quotes and what you bring out of your brain which is a feeling for us all of " non- learned" book.... Thank you !!! And please don't hide, we are learning too..... :D

SnooZ

[Rayzur]

Ok.., now I just feel dumb

OMG I about fell off the frickin chair laughing..... omg you are too frickin funny... have I told you I love you lately

You so totally rock my friend.....

and thanks Snooz.... I'll back off this one and move on with ya'll to something much more fun and much less provocative... lol lol