Some weeks ago I posted some small articles in consideration of the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, and also joined in the ongoing discussions on Facebook concerning the sudden deaths of birds over Arkansas. The rumor mills were rife at the time with speculations that the strange animal deaths were somehow related to HAARP or HAARP-like technologies being tested or actually used.
While searching for follow-up stories, I ran across this interesting post:
The poster, Rt Hon. Lord Stirling (of Evansville, Indiana!), notes in the article a surge of HAARP activity immediately prior to and after the Haiti quake. This, of course, is not corroboration that the two are connected. Indeed, to my knowledge there is nothing in the Eastland patents that form the basis of HAARP that suggests a usage such as earthquake generation.
What interests me about the article is that it does propose an interesting methodology: can the Haiti and Chile earthquakes, the various stories of dead animals, and so on, be correlated to HAARP's output, and, for that matter, the output of similar technologies elsewhere, e.g., the "European HAARP"? Can the appearance of strange cross-hatched cloud formations taken by satellites over Australia and elsewhere also be correlated to such output? In other words, can we find such correlations as to diminish the chances we are looking at mere coincidence?
The post also suggests a rudimentary methodology: (1) correlations of HAARP output to anomalous weather patterns/cloud formations, etc (2) correlations of HAARP output to earthquakes, and (3) correlations to animal deaths that otherwise cannot be rationalized. Of course the same would have to be undertaken for the output of Europe's version of HAARP.
Such a study - while being an enormous undertaking - would be intriguing from any number of points of view, not the least of which being that should such correlations be discovered, it would be a way of illustrating the capabilities and uses to which such technologies could be put, and from there, one might be able to "reverse engineer" the basis on which the various modes of deployment were achieved. It's definitely food for thought, and perhaps grist for someone's mill.