Isn't the skyquake thing from the jets not uncommon around the San Diego area? I remember a friend around the area telling me about this happening a few years ago.

The fact that the Navy admitted responsibility so quickly coupled with the fact that I seriously don't understand how two jets breaking the sound barrier that far away can lead to a boom that loud, suggests this is something more..

[deleted]

What about the Las Vegas garage door thing, that was weird but I don't remember the details.

It's the approaching invasion of the Mole People From the Center of Earth.

?

This may be unrelated, or super related, but I was driving down highway 99 and saw army material being transported via train south. I was in central California at the time. Several hundred yards of army vehicles.

HAARP, maybe?

some of you people would fart on a bus and blame haarp, you don't even know what the fuck it is.

HAARP is simply a deus ex machina on this sub. People blame it for anything and everything.

From what I've been able to gather on r/conspiracy, HAARP can cause earthquakes, set off volcanoes, control weather, control people's minds, cause random booms, cause nuclear meltdowns, create tsunamis, cause weird missile contrails, and control sunspots.

I think you missed the post about HAARP allowing time travel. (Yes, I am serious...)

That is one talented antenna array.

Please don't reproduce for the sake of humanity. You are extremely retarded. Please end your life now. That is all.

And for those of you you don't know what HAARP is; here's a link

Nick Begich

One of the authors.

From Wiki:

He has an honorary doctorate of medicine from The Open International University for Complementary Medicines in Sri Lanka.

Laff. Obviously this makes him an expert in matters of atmospheric physics.

The individuals who are demanding answers about HAARP are scattered around the planet. As well as bush dwellers in Alaska, they include: a physician in Finland; a scientist in Holland; an anti-nuclear protester in Australia; independent physicists in the United States; a grandmother in Canada, and countless others.

Those are all experts, obviously.

the objections to HAARP have been registered using the tools of the 1990s. From the Internet, fax machines, syndicated talk radio and a number of alternative print mediums the word is getting out and people are waking up to this new intrusion by an over zealous United States government.

MORE conclusive evidence!!!

Thanks, /r/conspiracy was getting too serious, even, dare I say it? Realistic? My tinfoil hat was getting cobwebs.

Edit: Bush dwellers in Alaska!?!?! There's bush there? This has to be from the Onion.

Now you are just trolling. Yes there is a Bush in Alaska, Bush means wilderness.

Another shill defeated by the TRUTH. No reply on my comment regarding the US patent office and PBS?

You are a joke.

Laff, not quite, so far I've shown your original link was authored by a bogus "Doctor" with an unrelated "degree" from a mail order degree mill and even then the supposed degree wasn't even in the supposed field, you've already forgotten about that, haven't you?

That has nothing to do with the PBS special or HAARP's patent. Are you illiterate or just plain stupid?

That first link I posted was just for general background information on HAARP, and there are many more specialists that speak out against HAARP, of whom you have not refuted.

You also have not refuted the WETA PBS special.

You also have not refuted: HAARP's patent.

Anyway I'm done with stupid trolls like you who have nothing better to do than spread disinfo on r/conspiracy. Go back to r/conspirtard and circle jerk with your fellow mossad cock suckers.

I have refuted the PBS 'special', it's not a PBS special. There are no facts in the supposed special, somebody lied disingenuously superimposed their musings over a bit of legitimate PBS footage in the hope that it would appear valid. I'd love it if WETA responded to my inquiry but they probably won't.

As for the patent thing there's this for starters

And of course your original link from the bogus 'doctor', etc., was phony right from the get go.

I say something, you ignore it and accuse me of not saying anything, that's a really hard thing to refute, all right.

Go back to r/conspirtard and circle jerk with your fellow mossad cock suckers.

For your future reference that actually is an ad hominem attack, you used the term incorrectly earlier. Oh, and now the Israelis are behind the plotting and schemes to rule the world, are they? This is a whole new dimension to your incoherent paranoid blithering.

Also this Brian Dunning character from Skepticism Is disingenuous as fuck. He was indicted on Fraud charges back in '08. Source

Yeah, I'm sure this is a guy we can trust...

Well its obvious you are going to parade your ignorance as the truth. So it looks like I'm finally going to have to destroy you, and your weak 'logic'. You can thank me later. Funny thing is that you got your buddies from r/conspirtard to come here and troll as well.

Here is the truth:

You haven't refuted anything, not a single fact that was presented in the PBS special. All you did was attack its production value. This is because you CAN NOT refute the facts presented, so you attack its production value, which is an irrelevant fact that attacks the author. That makes it an "ad hominem", as per wiki:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

Me telling you to resume business as usual, by continuing your r/conspirtard circlejerk is not pointing out a negative characteristic. Obviously you are too stupid to tell (now that's an ad hominem). And just in case you are too fucking stupid to realize what a characteristic is (From what you've said so far, I wouldn't doubt it), here's the definition:

1char·ac·ter·is·tic noun \ˌker-ik-tə-ˈris-tik, ˌka-rik-\ Definition of CHARACTERISTIC 1 - a distinguishing trait, quality, or property 2- the integral part of a common logarithm 3- the smallest positive integer n which for an operation in a ring or field yields 0 when any element is used n times with the operation See characteristic defined for English-language learners » See characteristic defined for kids »

Thirdly I looked at the Skeptoid website, and checked out the author. This is his educational background:

Dunning was born in 1965 in Santa Monica, California, USA. Between 1983 and 1984 he studied computer science at Brigham Young University; film and television at UCLA from 1985 to 1987 and then fiction writing at UC Irvine between 1988 and 1992. Source

So looks like some guy with a degree in film production is a totally qualified meteorologist? Lol, I find it funny that you attack the credentials of my source, yet your source only has a degree in FILM PRODUCTION, but to you that's good enough because he suits your needs.

Also that article does nothing to discredit HAARP, it once again attacks that "doctor's" credentials, but doesn't refute any of the concerns that people have about HAARP. It doesn't go into the science behind meteorology, except a quick mention on how the ionosphere is above the stratosphere and atmosphere, and the three are not interconnected(which is obviously fucking false, Mr PhD in film production). The majority of this article is an attack on the people that are trying to warn others. It lacks substance and facts.

And finally, just because you are too fucking stupid to know left from right, I HAVE NOT ignored you and accused you of not saying anything.

I ACCUSED YOU OF NOT REFUTING THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE PBS SPECIAL. You can call it what you want. Hopefully typing in all caps will get that through to your pea-sized brain.

Now that’s what I call rebuttal filled with facts, and ad hominems.

If you want to have a real debate and not bullshit (then maybe I'll treat you with respect, but so far you've lost that), refute the points laid out in that video which features PBS, and then we can go from there. But you fail to do that and create fallacious arguments to no end. Go back to r/conspirtard, you haven't convinced anyone here.

DISCLAIMER: I don't usually use ad homimens when I debate people, but I was respectful to the cuntfestering troll for too long, and all he does is twists my words and create fallacious arguments. It was a good laugh while it lasted though.

Surprise!!! I posted something about the phony 'PBS Special' to /r/conspiracy (leaving your name out), the home of free thought and truth and, guess what?

This is an unofficial, automated notification that the following post appears to have been removed by the spam filter or moderators of /r/conspiracy.

You should be ashamed.

Why, I'm not a moderator?

I consider myself destroyed, thank you.

And I'll have to give you partial credit for Dunning (did he claim to have a doctorate? I must have missed that), although he did lay out the problems with the HAARP pretty well.

I'd be more worried about "Dr." Begich, given that he deliberately used the phony diploma to impress people and, again, the alleged PBS video, which uses WETA's logo in a dishonest attempt to attain legitimacy (if you really think that was a PBS production I'm not going to argue the point further, unless, of course, WETA replies to my email). Those two aren't just examples of being unqualified to comment on the top but are examples of deliberate deception, this is a really important distinction.

One thing that's gotten lost here is the wildly improbably nature of some of the claims for the mysterious HAARP machine, such is it causing earthquakes in other parts of the world and other craziness. No, I'm not a geologist, nor am I an atmospheric physicist... say, how about we ask someone who might actually be a scientist? /r/askscience, or Slashdot???

The problem with that idea is that we'd be laughed at and generally made fun of.

Anyway, it's been fun, keep your tinfoil hat on!

Guess what? WETA responded to my email. And guess what? Your supposed PBS 'Special' is phony. Refute the facts, you say? There are no facts.

You and you pals should be concerned, if the 'evidence' for your beliefs is so weak that you have to resort to lies and deception to try to convince people then your cause is in bad shape.

No, I'm not going to reveal the person's name at WETA, just use their contact form if you want to verify this. Don't worry, if they get it removed you can just put it back and you'll be back in business! The business of, well, prevaricating.

Edit: I was wrong to accuse you of lying about this issue, I have no reason to believe you were involved with the production of the video in question. "You" in this context means people who hold the same opinion, collectively, not "you" personally.

I do apologize.

On Jul 3, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Sarah Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Dear Mr. Xxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email and your interest in WETA. I do not believe that this is a WETA program. I am working to have it removed from YouTube.

Sincerely, Sarah Xxxxxxxxxxxx Legal and Business Affairs Department WETA 3939 Campbell Avenue Arlington, VA 22206 P: (703) 998-3286 E: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx@weta.org

----- Original Message -----

From: xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:12:36 PM Subject: [Digital Media] Is this a WETA production? To: digitalmedia
Cc:

Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx sent a message using the contact form at http://www.weta.org/contact.

This is supposedly a WETA production, seems highly dubious to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnRPZOUVhJ4

Would it be possible to confirm this? Yes, this is from a tinfoil hat internet site but it's being used as "proof" in a reputable discussion and I'd like to put it to rest if it's phoney

Thanks in advance,

Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx

You crack me up; only a portion of that video was of PBS. I had said that earlier, I was asking to to debunk the facts presented in the WETA "portion" of that video. You failed to do so, and continued to attack the credibility of the "production". Either way you were unable to refute the facts presented in that particular video, whether it was from WETA or not. (either way, if someone used parts of a WETA special, w/o their approval, in a video of their own, then WETA has the right to take them down for copyright infringement. Otherwise it's public domain and WETA can't do shit.)

And here is a better "produced" series on HAARP, it has been aired by TruTv, and I can confirm this. There are many experts that all say the same thing, good luck at refuting them all: Youtube (This is just the first part, you'll have to find the others; they're probably on youtube as well).

Here is a written document by Florida International University regarding HAARP's manipulation of weather: http://www2.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/HAARP.html

See, the problem with your argument is that you don't refute any of the fact presented in the video/ article/ whatever; you just attack the characteristics of the authors' works, which doesn't help you convince anyone.

Plus explain all the DoD investment in HAARP, if it's just for 'research'?

P.S. I don't take offensive, once I've dished it out. I believe it is expected, no?

OK, which portion of the video was from PBS? There were no words, no captions, just graphics, and everything was overlaid by the same voice. There was actually no information content from PBS at all, but you keep saying you want me to refute the PBS special!

Seriously, tell me what portion was from PBS, just list the facts that WETA presented and also tell me how you decided which were a WETA production and which weren't.

I've said this before and I'm not going to say it again, PBS was used in a dishonest and deceitful attempt to lend that 'special' legitimacy, no more, no less.

I don't see how I can refute the 'facts' as presented since they're presented as, well, Facts, carved in stone, without any references. I have a trained praying mantis that can predict the stock market by traveling into the past! Can you refute that? You can't, can you?

How does it locate submarines and under ground facilities in other parts of the globe? How does it perform 'electronic sweeps for mind control of large populations"?? Do you consider those to be facts? Mind control?? Really??

It says that earthquakes and volcanoes produce EM disturbances and "it is theorized" something to to the effect that the reverse is true and somehow HAARP can cause that... who's theory? How would such a weapon be aimed? How would underground bunker detectors be aimed, all across the world? Is that 'theorized' or is it a "fact"

It refers to 'gigawatts' of power being projected into the ionosphere... where did that power come from? A gigawatt is the peak output of

"The largest unit (out of four) of the Belgian Nuclear Plant Doel has a peak output of 1.04 GW.^[10]" That's from Wiki and you can look it up along with it's reference.

It lists several other patents, why? They don't seem to deal with the topic at hand.

It quotes "The Lost Millenium" which is subtitled "How did the Atlanteans tap the free energy of the universe" (the book was apparently rereleased as "Siva!", the blurb on the cover says "A Science Fiction novel of the far past". The quote is a juicy one and very dramatic (and the voiceover says that the earth operates like a generator and in some mysterious way can be sped up and fly apart... how is this related to HAARP), and how is that a fact? And why are they quoting a sci-fi book in a supposedly science related article? Aside from the juicy quote that says what they want have the audience believe, of course.

The video is gibberish, intentionally deceptive gibberish.

Edit: You list a link from "Florida International University"...that's not actually from the university, it's from a staff member or a student... I can't find "Mizrachs" anywhere and nothing from the university itself except for a "HAARP access road".

The link says that "That still would not be as powerful as HAARP's multi-gigawatt (giga = billion) radiation capability". OK, so that means multiple, big, power plants. Where are they?? You can actually see HAARP on Google Maps (partially in low resolution, but you'd think that large power plants would show up even so, wouldn't you?). Unless they're nuke plants where do they get their fuel?

Yet Another Edit:

Ah, here's Mizrachs:. He's an "Adjunct Lecturer, Florida International University, Department of Sociology/Anthropology".

An "Adjunct Lecturer in Sociology/Anthropology" doesn't represent the University nor does he seem to be qualified to have an authoritative opinion on HAARP...

Another Edit: Re: "TruTV":

ABOUT US

truTV is television's destination for real-life stories told from an exciting and dramatic first-person perspective and features high-stakes, action-packed originals that give viewers access to places and situations they can't normally experience. Among truTV network's primetime fan favorites are the original series Operation Repo, World's Dumbest, Hardcore Pawn, Lizard Lick Towing, Disorder in the Court, Black Gold, Las Vegas Jailhouse, Top 20 Most Shocking and Bait Car.

Not exactly PBS and pretty much the definition of "sensationalize".

Hopefully the final edit:

Back to the patent: it says nothing about detecting submarines or underground bunkers, it certainly doesn't say anything about mind control. And talks about "The method of claim 2 wherein said artificial particles are provided by injecting same into said at least one region from an orbiting satellite", that doesn't sound like HAARP as it exists today does it?

Also " The method of claim 1 wherein said electromagnetic radiation is generated at the site of a naturally-occurring hydrocarbon fuel source, said fuel source being located in at least one of northerly or southerly magnetic latitudes." Also not HAARP.

Strangely, it doesn't list References, although it does list "Other References" as:

Liberty Magazine, (2/35) p. 7 N. Tesla. . New York Times (9/22/40) Section 2, p. 7 W. L. Laurence. . New York Times (12/8/15) p. 8 Col. 3..

Strange references for a scientific patent, those are more like publicity.

Also the USPTO doesn't require proof that something actually works or even if it's possible... they just look for something that is, basically, new. Long ago patents did have to be for real things, no longer.

In fact you can find patents for:

Full body teleportation system

Hyper-light-speed antenna

Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state

None of the above actually exists or are possible with the current state of physics...

Final Edit: Good news!! Turns out that HAARP does in fact transmit gigawatts of power, it's not the same thing as the plain old input power, it's a function of "effective radiated power" which involves the antennas in some mysterious fashion. So I retract one (and only one) of my objections to the sources you've come up with, that being the size and number of power plants needed to run HAARP. Source:, yes, the non-tinfoil hat Wiki page on HAARP.

And another thing...

In academia there are two sources of information, primary and secondary.

A primary source is from the guy who did the experiment, did the study, did the research (not internet research, research in the real world).

A secondary source is information that's been subject to peer review, publishing in an academic or scientific journal, cited in other research, etc..

In the later case the probative value of the information is determined by the reputation of the various people that review, publish, whatever in addition to the reputation of the original source.

The weight you give to a primary source depends heavily on the reputation of the author, researcher, experimenter in question.

For example, if the director of CERN told you that they'd discovered the Higgs Boson you'd be impressed, because he naturally could be considered to have a valid opinion of the highest order.

On the other hand, if you were told the exact same thing, in the exact same words, by Bozo the Clown, you might be skeptical.

What you've been providing me is a little like a primary source (well, actually a real primary source would tell you how the arrived at their conclusion, provide their data, cite their sources and the like, which your sources didn't do in any way, they just made statements that you're supposed to consider as hard evidence... for no good reason. In fact every PBS show I've ever seen interviews the primary character involved to some degree, your PBS article is notable in that it didn't do that. This is another clue).

So you've said I was wrong in attacking the credibility of your sources. Actually, that's the right thing to do; for example, a real PBS show would have a certain weight, while a production of random internet doods would have very little, and random internet doods deliberately pretending to be a reliable source would be entitled to no weight at all, quite the contrary, they could be considered to be frauds and their opinions could be tossed in the trash, and in fact in academia that's exactly what happens to someone who is found to be falsifying a study or whatever, the entire thing goes in the can.

The same thing applies to another source, which you present as being from the Florida International University, which would have given it some weight... only it wasn't from FIU, it was from the " Adjunct Lecturer in Sociology/Anthropology" as noted below, or possibly above, depending on how reddit formats all of my sparkling prose. And your sociologist/anthropologist did the exact same thing that the rest of your sources did, statements without anything to back them up, just presented as cosmic truisms that have nothing behind them.

PS And the video also mentions how Teller, IIRC, told about a laser like thing and then the narrator leaps to the conclusion that he really meant HAARP, um, that's quite a leap.

Edit: Here I go again, I'm almost tempted to fly all the way to Alaska and take pictures of HAARP and it's supposed massive power supply... only if I did that you and your pals would just decide I was in on the plot and discard everything that they hadn't decided just had to be true. You've already decided I was a mossad agent, in fact, so that kind of makes the whole thing moot, doesn't it?

Obviously you can do your own detective work.

HAARP exists and is used to modify weather...

Here's a PBS special on HAARP: Youtube PBS Special

And the name of which HAARP was patented under is: Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere (Which obviously indicates it is used for weather modification, and can possibly be weaponized) Source: US government's patent office

Also if you are feeling really ballsy you can request records on weather modification projects (per the FOIA) from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), which they are required to keep on record per Public Law 92-205, 15 USC § 330B, enacted in 1971.

Have fun!

I'm really surprised at the poor production values of that video, as well as the amateurish performance of the narrator, stumbling over words and breathing audibly. And I'd be happier if the lead in and closing credits were included, as they would have been in a PBS production.

I'm guessing it's a phony, I'm going to contact WETA and see if they bother answering.

I'll let you know.

Ad hominem attacks against the narrator and production value of the PBS special do nothing to prove your point. You fail to refute anything I have said so far, and resort to attacking my sources' character.

Also there is still on no reply from you on the patent for HAARP that lists how it will be used to modify weather?

You are selectively choosing what you are refuting, and doing a bad job, at that.

Let's not beat around the bush: that's not a PBS special. It's some guy on the internet hashing together clips from different sources (which they don't list, incidentally). There are some clips from a WETA programme in there, but they don't seem to have been made to address HAARP.

I was referring to the parts from WETA, the first couple of minutes are obviously not from PBS.

If you take HAARP's patent information and combine it with what WETA says, then its perfectly clear what HAARP was intended to do.

Or is the US patent office bullshitting us too?

I was referring to the parts from WETA, the first couple of minutes are obviously not from PBS.

Oh no, you can't wiggle out of this that easily. That video had one voiceover, an amateur one, and the WETA part may or may not have been about HAARP but there's no way to tell, is there? Whoever did that voiceover and whoever 'produced' that video included WETA to lend it some sort of legitimacy and you absolutely did introduce it as a "PBS Special" when it was no such thing. If you need it spelled out there would have been two voiceovers if only part of it was from PBS, there wasn't.

Lying is hard work, there's a lot that can go wrong, as you're finding out.

When I'm done with the video (which, I believe, will show that you or someone like you deliberately lied and attributed "evidence" to a reputable news source, falsely) it will help sink the supposed HAARP enthusiasts and just maybe make the front page, if not the MSM.

Then I'll address that patent issue, be patient.

Lol, you attack the production value of the video instead of refuting the facts presented on the video. Are you joking?

Refute the FACTS IN THE VIDEO, instead of ATTACKING IT'S PRODUCTION value, and then we can talk.

I think this is the second time you've tried to skirt discussing the facts, by attacking the production value of this video. Third times a charm maybe?

And yes it was a PBS special, you have very weak evidence claiming otherwise. Other than your 'intuition' of course.

Also here is a direct statement from HAARP's patent on how HAARP will be used to modify weather; try and refute that!

DESCRIPTION

1. Technical Field

This invention relates to a method and apparatus for altering at least one selected region normally existing above the earth's surface and more particularly relates to a method and apparatus for altering said at least one region by initially transmitting electromagnetic radiation from the earth's surface essentially parallel to and along naturally-occurring, divergent magnetic field lines which extend from the earth's surface through the region or regions to be altered.

This doesn't say anything at all about modifying weather! How are you interpreting this to mean "weather modification"?

HAARP heats the ionosphere in the region directly above it. That doesn't mean it modifies weather.

It says atmosphere in the title of the patent, not just ionosphere...

Why are you selectively picking the data which suits your argument?

Well you said that that paragraph is a direct statement about modifying weather, which it isn't. Unless I'm missing something.

Like I said, look at the video I posted. Also how do you think lighting happens? When the charge in the ionosphere is grabbed by the opposite charge in the ground. Is lighting not part of weather?

Geez so many trolls today...

So is your assertion that HAARP can create lightning in and around the HAARP facility? Maybe...

No, I was just using that as an example to demonstrate how the ionosphere is part of the weather.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough...

Either way did you watch that video?

Lightning actually occurs when there's an excess of charge in clouds. The ionosphere is much, much higher than that. Regardless, it's still a leap from that to saying HAARP modifies weather, even if it could create lightning near the HAARP facility. That would sound more like pedantically splitting hairs on the definition of "weather modification."

No, I didn't watch the video. I much prefer to read about these things.

Actually the charge in those clouds originates from the ionosphere, and is passed through the different spheres down to the atmosphere. Either way here's a link that you can read on how HAARP affects the weather: http://www2.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/HAARP.html.

I can "alter" a bathroom wall with a magic marker. That doesn't mean I have far-reaching control over the properties of that wall.

This thing sounds like a big microwave. What precisely do you think it's capable of doing to "the atmosphere?"

You're right, it's much more likely that it's a mass mind control device and causer of earthquakes, than a narrator whose full of shit.

Dude, it's been an hour, hold your horses.

I'm saying the supposed PBS video isn't from PBS, they have standards, that video doesn't, so that's not an ad hominem attack on PBS because it's not a PBS production. For an amateur production it's... well, it's still not very good.

Stay tuned, give me some time, OK?

PBS is a public broadcasting system, they certainly take amateur productions.

I have seen much worse quality of video on PBS than that.

It shouldn't take you more than an hour to refute the patent on HAARP, which clearly states that it will be used to modify weather and how.

But I'll give you all the time in the world if you need it, hopefully HAARP won't have caused an earthquake in your area by then.

Believe it or not I actually have other things to do, calm down.

Like browse reddit?

Hi, red-lister.

So wait, in order to maintain the conspiracy, they put the true intent in plain to read English, then released it? You can't say the Government is smart enough to cover things up, yet stupid enough to leave facts in public documents.

Holy crap, I didn't realize you were that same troll from r/conspirtard.

I see you've come to r/conspiracy to troll me further. You are pathetic.

There is no point in talking to you any further.

You seem to have confused "trolling" with "asking straightforward questions about apparent contradictions."

Government just admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin didn't happen. Obviously at this point they don't care.

And also all of the letters in Jesse Ventura's "63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to See" are all public domain.

So yes, they are collectively very imbecilic.

Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere (Which obviously indicates it is used for weather modification, and can possibly be weaponized)

This does not at all indicate that it can be used for weather modification. Explain yourself.

Facepalm yourself; How is weather not part of the atmosphere?

How is the ionosphere weather?

I said atmosphere.... Please don't twist my words.

HAARP excites the ionosphere with high-energy radio waves. Hence they "modify" the ionosphere, and then look at the results. This is why the patent refers to modifying a region of the earth's atmosphere.

Could you please lay out for me how this modifies weather? I think you mentioned something earlier about causing earthquakes as well. I'm more curious about how / why you think HAARP causes earthquakes.

Holy shit son you just got SERVED.

Nah man, HAARP is HAARP

sfzs

Awesome

Lol, you attack the production value of the video instead of refuting the facts presented on the video. Are you joking?

Refute the FACTS IN THE VIDEO, instead of ATTACKING IT'S PRODUCTION value, and then we can talk.

I think this is the second time you've tried to skirt discussing the facts, by attacking the production value of this video. Third times a charm maybe?

And yes it was a PBS special, you have very weak evidence claiming otherwise. Other than your 'intuition' of course.

No, I was just using that as an example to demonstrate how the ionosphere is part of the weather.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough...

Either way did you watch that video?