Haarp attacks!

[SpringHallConvert]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

HAARP under construction, from the University of Alaska's website:

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/images/arrayC.jpg


Aerial view of HAARP from a conspiracy theorist website:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...uth/haarp4.jpg

Another image by a private source:

http://d1027732.mydomainwebhost.com/.../hpimage03.jpg

All these images from different sources all manage to show the same thing - an array of antennas. No "secret beam weapons" hid anywhere in there amongst the masts. No reason to believe any of these photos was doctored to hide weapons or other devices. Anybody can take their own photos and verify the presence and composition of the array themselves.

Sorry, but these photos are inconclusive. They are pretty to look at and I thank you for adding them to the discussion, but they don't necessarily tell the whole story. After all, you can't judge a book by it's cover.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Matthew Cline

While I've come to the conclusion that SHC is a troll, I think that his trollish point is more along the lines that you can't be 100% certain of anything unless you either have direct experience of it or you trust the words of whoever has had direct experience of it.

Which is of course how education works.

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

The same reason you are so afraid of showing evidence.

I have to ask: why apply this to HAARP?

If you want to go down the road that everything is unknowable then everything is unknowable. Why is a secret weapon using unknown science colocated with HAARP? Why couldn't it actually be under Lincoln's birth cabin or out in Nevada?

I mean if all is unknowable then a huge secret weapon using unknown science could be anywhere hidden inside anything. So why do you think it is where HAARP is?

[The Dark Lord]

Troll, why are you unable to come up with evidence that HAARP isn't controlling your "brain" right now?

[IdiotWhacker]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

HAARP under construction, from the University of Alaska's website:

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/images/arrayC.jpg


Aerial view of HAARP from a conspiracy theorist website:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...uth/haarp4.jpg

Another image by a private source:

http://d1027732.mydomainwebhost.com/.../hpimage03.jpg

All these images from different sources all manage to show the same thing - an array of antennas. No "secret beam weapons" hid anywhere in there amongst the masts. No reason to believe any of these photos was doctored to hide weapons or other devices. Anybody can take their own photos and verify the presence and composition of the array themselves.

Actually he is arguing that since we can't see what is underground, therefore it is false to assume that this is indeed correct. SHC is saying we must have proof from the inside of what it looks like in order to assess the likelyhood or not likely of weapons. Of course i doubt that SpringHallConvert has ever even went to an open house.

[SezMe]

SHC thinks HAARP is the terrestrial equivalent of this:

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Sorry, but these photos are inconclusive. They are pretty to look at and I thank you for adding them to the discussion, but they don't necessarily tell the whole story. After all, you can't judge a book by it's cover.

What part of "the story" do you believe they don't tell?

[SpringHallConvert]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

What part of "the story" do you believe they don't tell?

The part of the story that tells us exactly what HAARP does, its full capabilities, and its entire purpose.

I'm sorry, but you can't determine that from a picture.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

The part of the story that tells us exactly what HAARP does, its full capabilities, and its entire purpose.

I'm sorry, but you can't determine that from a picture.

Can you determine that HAARP isn't controlling your "brain" from the picture? Why won't you answer my questions? Is your HAARP programming preventing you from doing so?

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

The part of the story that tells us exactly what HAARP does, its full capabilities, and its entire purpose.

I'm sorry, but you can't determine that from a picture.

What WOULD you use to determine it, then?

You've posted a large number of negatives. Care to try for a positive?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Because he claimed he designed a phased array, a claim which anyone who can construct a sentence can make. I want to see pictures of his specific design. It won't prove he actually designed it, but it's better than just empty words.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Do you accept that phased antenna arrays exist?

Do you accept that technical schools and universities exist where people can learn how to design and build them?

Do you accept that the claim that he designed a phased array is not extraordinary?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Do you have any proof?

Pics or it didn't happen.

Why should I bother when:

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Because he claimed he designed a phased array, a claim which anyone who can construct a sentence can make. I want to see pictures of his specific design. It won't prove he actually designed it, but it's better than just empty words.

You have already inadvertently revealed what your response will be?

Why should I take the time and effort to go on a field trip, take photographs, and upload them when we all know that you will instantly dismiss them as "not credible"?

Tell me why I should waste my time playing your childish game, when you make no effort at all to do anything?

You are a one trick pony, and that trick is getting terribly stale and repetitive.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Who said that? Carl Sagan. A Jew. Enough said.

[Matthew Cline]

Originally Posted by Travis

Why is a secret weapon using unknown science colocated with HAARP? Why couldn't it actually be under Lincoln's birth cabin or out in Nevada?

Well, that's quite easy. If you said "There isn't a secret weapon under Lincoln's birth cabin", he'd reply "How do you know?".

[Peter Eldergill]

This is getting very boring

[TjW]

HAARP is being run to do the United States good by lowering its cancer mortality.

From "Long-term trends in cancer mortality in the United States, 1930-1998"
Cancer. 2005 Jun 15;103(12):2658.

Quote:

RESULTS:
After long-term increases or mostly level trends that date from the 1930s for some sites, death rates for cancers of the lung (in males), prostate, female breast, colon-rectum, pancreas, leukemia, and ovary were decreasing in the 1990s.

Emphasis is by me.

SHC: Prove to my satisfaction that this isn't a result of HAARP.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Peter Eldergill

This is getting very boring

It's already there.

[sts60]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Why should I bother when:

You have already inadvertently revealed what your response will be?...

You are a one trick pony, and that trick is getting terribly stale and repetitive.

SpringHallConvert's shtick is positively infantile.

He has demonstrated absolutely no understanding of any of the relevant principles, and no expertise in any applicable field. It's clear that he has not learned anything about HAARP itself.

He has no evidence for anything he says, and his claim that HAARP might be some sort of weapon is based on nothing more than an appeal to magic, and and the manifestly wrong notion that everybody else is as ignorant as he is.

His claim that HAARP may be hiding some sort of magic superweapon is utterly vapid. Anything could be hiding some sort of magic superweapon. The only reason he is claiming HAARP might be is because some grown-ups started talking about it, so he latched onto the conversation to add... well, nothing except the sound of his keyboard clicking.

He dismisses actual evidence - as in detailed descriptions and photographs of the installation, and peer-reviewed scientific papers by international scientists, as "not evidence" - which they manifestly are - because he is incapable of addressing the evidence. (He couldn't even get the types of sources right, calling static web sites and journal articles "blogs and TV".)

Now he is resorting to the trick of calling people liars when they plausibly claim expertise. He can't even get as far as FatFreddy88, who calls people liars despite their expertise. Unfortunately for SHC, but fortunately for the real world, there really are people who know what they're talking about. He's not one of them. Too bad; we tried to educate him.

SHC is a troll. He doesn't merit anyone's attention, and I won't bother addressing his infantile, clue-free rants even in quoted form any more. There are only a few trolls uninteresting and intellectually dishonest enough for me to take that step, but into the Anders Lindman/Patrick1000 bin he goes.

Attached is a small parting gift, since I have cited my relevant background in space physics, engineering, and the space industry before, and he is denying that knowledgeable people are what they say.

(Yes, Jay, that is the pilot's seat on which I'm leaning.)

[fess]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Do you have any evidence for these claims? Any Tom, Dick, and Harry can claim they are an expert.



Irrelevant logical fallacy. My level of education has no bearing on whether or not HAARP could be something other than what it is portrayed to be.



Easy, because none of you have provided any credible evidence for your claims. You simply say, "HAARP isn't and can't be a weapon of any type. Why? Because I say so! I'm an expert!".

That B.S. isn't going to work here.



Well, I just did it and I am going to keep doing it. Your arguments are without merit.



Proof?



What about when your cohorts call me names? Does that bother you? Or is it only a one-way street?

You certainly use a lot of words to say nothing. Did you address any of the technical points brought forth by others about HAARP? No, you didn’t. All you did in your post was continue your arrogant nine year old rant.

Does it bother me when my “cohorts” call you names? Well, yes it does. Some of my “cohorts” are being way too kind.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Sorry, but these photos are inconclusive.

They're considerably more conclusive than your appeals to magic.

Quote:

...but they don't necessarily tell the whole story.

They tell a more complete story than, "HAARP is just a cover for some unknown technology implementing some unknown kind of weapon." In 10 pages all you've done is handwave about vague magical possibilities and demand proof that none of them can be true.

Quote:

After all, you can't judge a book by it's cover.

That's why the experts are judging it by what's shown on its pages. You're the one stuck on superficiality.

[Alareth]

Originally Posted by 000063

Wait for it; "Show me your evidence, and I'll tell you if it's credible."

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

I'll take a look at it and let you know.

Wow, it only took 5 minutes

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Because he claimed he designed a phased array, a claim which anyone who can construct a sentence can make.

And a claim he can back up with intelligent discussion. He's done it elsewhere, as many of us know. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there exists a thing as real expertise. You are strenuously denying it, but it's there. And based on that expertise, we can evaluate claims made in the relevant field. Don't like it? Too bad; much of the real world works that way. People know things.

Quote:

I want to see pictures of his specific design. It won't prove he actually designed it, but it's better than just empty words.

You've offered nothing but ten pages of the emptiest words ever. "Something somewhere may be some kind of a weapon -- prove me wrong." What kind of nonsense is that?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

The part of the story that tells us exactly what HAARP does, its full capabilities, and its entire purpose.

I'm sorry, but you can't determine that from a picture.

Not by itself. However, when the "government" gives an detailed explanation of exactly what HAARP does down to the frequencies and power levels used and the physical dimensions of the equipment, and people afterwards - who are not the government - take photographs of the facility which show everything we would expect to see if the "government claims" are true, and don't show anything unexpected or which would suggest the government isn't telling "the whole story", that lends credibility to the explanations of the military builders and the University of Alaska as to what HAARP does. Now, is there anything which leads any credibility to any specific claim of HAARP's "capabilities" beyond what's "officially" claimed? Anything at all?

In the same way that it's "possible" HAARP may be something more than what it appears to be, it is "possible" (technically) that someone tunneled under your house over the past week and last night connected a canister of poison to your home's main water feed. It's even possible that they're in the process of connecting it as you read this, or are planning to connect it tonight or tomorrow night. So how do you justify ever drawing a glass of water or filling a pot for cooking from your tap without testing it first for poison every single time?

Something being "possible" isn't good enough. It's meaningless. Nearly anything is "possible". There has to be a more compelling reason to believe something is true before it can be considered.

[Hans]

Jay, the nonsense is that of deliberate troll

You guys are being trolled - stop feeding him

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Translation:

"We don't really know what HAARP is capable of."

* Cl1mh4224rd shrugs.

By your deliberate ill-logic, we don't really know what lime JELL-O is capable of, either. But nobody goes through life in fear of lime JELL-O (unless they have a legitimate phobia, of course).

You'll have to forgive me for not living in fear of something you can't prove exists.

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Because he claimed he designed a phased array, a claim which anyone who can construct a sentence can make.

This may come as a shock to you, but just because you pretend to be someone you're not, doesn't mean that everyone else does the same. Not everyone on the Internet lies.

[000063]

Originally Posted by 000063

Wait for it; "Show me your evidence, and I'll tell you if it's credible."

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

I'll take a look at it and let you know.

I like how he carefully phrased it differently just so he can avoid my prediction. Of course, all he's really saying is that he's the sole arbiter of what is or isn't credible, which is basically the same thing as what I said he'd say.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

What part of "the story" do you believe they don't tell?

He doesn't know, because they're aren't telling us. Duh.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by 000063

You forgot to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

You should also route it through the deflector dish for more power.

Well that explains that gigantic hole where HAARP used to be.

[PetersCreek]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

The part of the story that tells us exactly what HAARP does, its full capabilities, and its entire purpose.

Here's the problem with your so-called standard:

If the Government provides an explanation that doesn't confirm your suspicions, you'll go on claiming that they are lying.

If a disinterested party provides an explanation that doesn't confirm your suspicions, you'll claim that the Government duped/bribed/threatened/brainwashed them, or sanitized the site, or some other conspiracist nonsense.

I doubt that you'd even be satisfied with a full site excavation down to bedrock with the debris sifted and sorted for your inspection. It would be all too easy for you to claim that the entire site was a decoy, designed to divert attention from the real super secret site.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

You don't have any real evidence, and none has been offered by anybody else either. That's the problem. All you guys have offered so far is high school physics lessons, what you saw on TV, and propaganda taken from HAARP's website.



Which matches exactly what you and your government truther friends have offered - no evidence. My guesses and speculation is just as good as your guesses and speculation.

So is physics different when you study it in college?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Wrong, I am a graduate telecomunications engineer, so I know you are wrong.


Indeed, that is the problem. You are unqualified.

Incorrect, I gave my professional assment of the array, and you cannot refute it.



No, tis is what I do. I am an expert and you are simply wrong.

Your guesses and speculation are wrong. I know they are wrong. I am qualified in this very discipline. I can see the equipment present, and identify it for what it is.

Can you?


Have a squirrel.

I'm reminded of a song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K16fG1sDagU

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by tsig

So is physics different when you study it in college?

No, according to SHC physics works differently when it's practiced by the government. He alludes to unknown or suppressed technology that he seems to believe magically makes HAARP do what the conspiracy theories say, despite its overt limitations and intentions.

So apparently engineering companies have to remember to use the right set of references. If they're doing work for a government contract, they get to use government-supplied magical physics. If they're doing work for private customers, they have to use the references approved by the government for release to the masses. I've looked around my engineering offices extensively and I can only seem to find one set of fits-all references for the laws of nature. Hm.

[IdiotWhacker]

Quote:

My guesses and speculation is just as good as your guesses and speculation.

The speculation is equal and their is no dominating speculation that is better. Unless you can provide that evidence that turns that speculation into evidence, you have no case.

[000063]

Originally Posted by PetersCreek

Here's the problem with your so-called standard:

If the Government provides an explanation that doesn't confirm your suspicions, you'll go on claiming that they are lying.

If a disinterested party provides an explanation that doesn't confirm your suspicions, you'll claim that the Government duped/bribed/threatened/brainwashed them, or sanitized the site, or some other conspiracist nonsense.

I doubt that you'd even be satisfied with a full site excavation down to bedrock with the debris sifted and sorted for your inspection. It would be all too easy for you to claim that the entire site was a decoy, designed to divert attention from the real super secret site.

And if the government says something that he thinks supports his argument (Northwoods), he will use it and come up with a nonsensical excuse days later after repeated questioning, one which he will never back up.

[sts60]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

No, according to SHC physics works differently when it's practiced by the government. He alludes to unknown or suppressed technology that he seems to believe magically makes HAARP do what the conspiracy theories say, despite its overt limitations and intentions.

Which, as a number of people have pointed out, means that anything could be disguised as a secret superweapon. Me, I'd have my secret superweapon disguised as a patch of tundra populated solely by mosquitoes, and far from highways and summer school students:

"Blast! We would have gotten away with our super-secret weapon if it wasn't for you meddling kids!"

Originally Posted by JayUtah

So apparently engineering companies have to remember to use the right set of references. If they're doing work for a government contract, they get to use government-supplied magical physics. If they're doing work for private customers, they have to use the references approved by the government for release to the masses.

Ah, yes, the David C "two sets of books approach", beloved of ignorant crackpots everywhere.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I've looked around my engineering offices extensively and I can only seem to find one set of fits-all references for the laws of nature. Hm.

What's really a pain is keeping things straight when you're in a co- or sub-contracting arrangement with other companies, involving government and private customers. The last time we mixed up the Public Physics references with our Secret Magic Physics references, well... it made a helluva mess.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Do you have any proof?

Pics or it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by SpringHallConvert

Maybe you do, maybe you don't.



Is there any reason to believe the photos are real, or tell the whole story about HAARP?

I don't think so.



Not necessarily, as the antennas could be serving as a decoy to hide something else.

You don't know, you only think you do.

Right.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Not by itself. However, when the "government" gives an detailed explanation [...] and people afterwards - who are not the government - take photographs of the facility which show everything we would expect to see if the "government claims" are true...

This is the part SHC stumbles over every time. He's unwilling to admit that there might be people who have the professional knowledge and experience to be able to investigate a claim made by his designated enemy, and come to a reasonably defensible conclusion that the claims are likely true. As you said, his strategy depends on everyone being as uninformed as he. But unfortunately, not everyone is.

Sure, there's always an inductive leap. There's one of those no matter what you want to propose. But there's also a rational limit to how much FUD you can cram into it without looking like an idiot.

Quote:

So how do you justify ever drawing a glass of water or filling a pot for cooking from your tap without testing it first for poison every single time?

But you've already gone one step further than SHC; you've proposed an actual, testable scenario. Farfetched though it may be, there is a way for someone with appropriate knowledge and skill to check whether your tap water is safe to use. On the other hand, SHC hasn't even given us that. He's basically asking for people to refute ahead of time anything he could ever possibly imagine, not matter how farfetched.

We don't have to refute invisible unicorns in the backyard to come to a reasoned conclusion that the data we are able to gather independently about something are consistent with the claims being made about it.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

* Cl1mh4224rd;8210697 shrugs.
By your deliberate ill-logic, we don't really know what lime JELL-O is capable of, either. But nobody goes through life in fear of lime JELL-O (unless they have a legitimate phobia, of course).

You'll have to forgive me for not living in fear of something you can't prove exists.

That's not how SHC operates. He wants to make you dance, like when he wants be to trek out into the countryside, take photos, upload the and, as he admits, he will then claim it will be proof of nothing. I will not dance that dance.

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

This may come as a shock to you, but just because you pretend to be someone you're not, doesn't mean that everyone else does the same. Not everyone on the Internet lies.

I have posted the info necessary to verify my credentials as a telecomms engineer on this site. Including the means to verify them. I don't have to pretend anything. I really am a telecomms engineer. SHC doesn't get this.

He really is a one trick pony, to the extent that he is increasingly being referred to as OTP. I may adopt that.

[Checkmite]

Inspired by SHC, I've just discovered that Google Maps gives you honest-to-goodness turn-by-turn directions from HAARP to Area 51. Impressive.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by sts60

Which, as a number of people have pointed out, means that anything could be disguised as a secret superweapon.

Indeed, I don't see the wisdom in disguising one's superweapon as something that might look vaguely like a superweapon to a layman. And then give tours. Sheesh, even the Greenbrier disguised the door to the bunker with a High Voltage sign. In SHC's world it would have a sign reading, "Not the 'Droids You're Looking For."

Quote:

Ah, yes, the David C "two sets of books approach", beloved of ignorant crackpots everywhere.

It makes more sense when you realize that pseudoscience and conspiracism have a lot in common, and that the former is often based on presumptions of "undiscovered" or "suppressed" scientific principles such as zero-point energy, or even just real-but-obscure things like the Biefeld-Brown effect. There is the persistent belief there that non-mainstream mavericks stumble upon little-known and dramatic new scientific principles that the mainstream is keeping quiet lest they lose their hegemony.

Quote:

The last time we mixed up the Public Physics references with our Secret Magic Physics references, well... it made a helluva mess.

Were you ever able to make those invisible unicorns pink again?

[jaydeehess]

Its good to know that the US govt and the University of Alaska are performing experiments with HAARP that are designed to lower the incidence of cancer. Its understandable that this remain secret. It is a weapon in that it allows the USA to ensure better overall health of their populace compared to those of perceived enemy states. Thank the fates that I am Canadian, a resident of the single best friend of the USA

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Inspired by SHC, I've just discovered that Google Maps gives you honest-to-goodness turn-by-turn directions from HAARP to Area 51. Impressive.

well of course

how else could the seekrit phissicists get from one place to the other?

I now regret even more , my decision to switch from a physics program to an electronics diploma.
Had I stuck with it I'd have had
the chance to learn the seekrit phissicks and its applications