While I've made it clear on this site that I'm not satisfied that there is enough hard data on the Japan quake to argue conclusively that it was induced, there are a number of sites stating this case, one of the most interesting of which is the following:

HAARP Magnetometor shows Japan quake was induced

This same data has popped up on quite a number of other sites as well, and that's the problem: we need more. The article is an exercise also of assertion based on threadbare evidence: one lone HAARP graph is used to argue a doozie of an assertion: the quake was artificial.

My own approach remains what it was: we have to look at a wide spectrum of data of all different types before we can conclude, even as a prima facie case, that the earthquake and tsunami may have been induced, though, as I've said elsewhere, I definitely lean to that view.

We need data, good data, on (1) the quake's epicenter as nearly as can be determined, by a variety of seismological sources; (2) the output not only of HAARP during this time period, but, if obtainable, from the other HAARP-like arrays elsewhere in the world, including Europe's (i.e.,, Germany's EISCAT), including frequencies of broadcast and the power and so on, (3) the wider political context, and finally (4) a good analysis of the initial explosion at the nuclear power plant, which, when I saw it, did not look right and still does not.

As I've noted elsewhere, the political context was for me the most deciding factor I've seen to date that argues, in my opinion, for an artificial inducement; however, the problem here is, that the initial scenario that I was toying with in my mind, that it may possibly have been a strike by the Anglo-American bankster-elite crowd against a Japan looking increasingly like it was severing ties to the Western bloc and reorienting itself - to coin a deliberate pun - to the other Asian powers, China, Russia, India, fails in the light of recent revelations regarding a possible hidden nuclear weapons program taking place in Japan, and at that facility. In other words: why would that elite strike at its own plans and facility.Other political scenarios suggest themselves, but again, none of them are terribly plausible.

So I am still left sitting on the fence, to this day, though as readers will understand, I continue to look at the whole puzzle; while I am sitting on the fence, in my guy, something about the whole thing still does not feel, or smell, right at all. It was, like Haiti and Chile, a "convenient" quake...


Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Thomas on April 15, 2011 at 9:46 am

    Maybe the reason the explosion (the 1st one?) at the Japan nuclear
    power plant looked very odd, is that it wasn’t scalar-based, or
    a conventional hydrogen explosion, but rather a nuclear explosion,
    to some degree.

    Dr. Christopher Busby, a chemical physicist and advisor to the BBC
    in this interview:


    at the mark

    explained to the host that in his professional opinion, there was
    a nuclear explosion at the Japanese plant, but that the evidence
    is not yet in hand. He said he would need the xenon isotopes ratio
    to prove that it was a nuclear explosion and that is information
    the authorities are not yet releasing. (no surprise there)

    He said something else that was enlightening and that was
    the Chernobyl plant disaster was caused by a nuclear explosion
    and he claims to have the proof for that…

    • Thomas on April 15, 2011 at 9:48 am

      at the mark of 12:50

  2. James on April 15, 2011 at 4:51 am

    I think it is safe to say as Joseph has pointed out many times and what Jon has stated is that the current understanding in physics in the open sense has been limited for reasons that the knowledge in full would be less than optimal in the wrong hands perhaps….

    • Concerned Friend on April 15, 2011 at 6:03 am

      And assuming it is already in the wrong hands? At lease if it were out in the open we would know how to properly defend ourselves.

  3. sj smith on April 15, 2011 at 4:38 am

    I’ve had the HAARP Magnetometer on my desktop since Dr. Leuren Moret provided it a few weeks ago.
    The big news now is what the leaking from the nuclear reactors are doing in the ocean.
    Sodium contacting fuel rods is said to create a reaction that cannot be stopped.
    This is a frightening presentation with clips from an old NRC film-
    It is also questioning the impact of the quake on large dams.By the time any conclusions are reached on all of this conjecture, it probably won’t matter.

  4. Jon on April 14, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    The arguments about HAARP and other such EM weaponry that are based on mainstream electromagnetics (EM) will be wrong, period.

    Regular EM is 150 years out of date with physics, and does not take into account the induction of energy flow from the non-observable (vacuum) to the observable realm. It is simply not an accurate model of reality.

    Harmonic resonance and EM flow from the vacuum DO NOT depend on simple heating effects or direct transfer of power in the sense which most people are used to thinking about it. This is why all the arguments about the safety of cell phones and related technology focus on “heating” – because they know that the dangerous effects will not show up in that model.

    Bearden has made the case quite well for how such “scalar” technologies work, and even how we currently (pun intended) misunderstand the workings of regular electric circuits. Tesla, Kron, and others have experimented with and discussed this realm (as much as they were allowed), and Barrett’s work with Layton’s higher level geometry analysis of Tesla’s circuits show quite clearly that there is FAR more going on in electric circuitry than the standard model shows. Barrett is well known for his work in phased array radar and related areas, which is a direct connection with scalar EM.

    This is proven science from the hard literature, which Bearden cites and often reproduces on his site (including Whittaker’s 1903 and 1904 papers in full).

    You will never understand scalar or related EM technology with the standard model, so it’s a waste of time to try.

    “When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail…..”

    But that mindset doesn’t really work very well (kind of like our society).

  5. nagoya on April 14, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    For what it’s worth, a large percentage of conspiracy researchers in Japan think it was a nuke, or nukes. An example of this is from the Japan Independence Party’s founder’s web site:


    The graphics show a seismograph of a nuclear test, as well as for a “normal” earthquake. Above that is one for 3-11.

  6. Brycemeister on April 14, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    Tesla famously used the principle of resonance, with a small black box, on a building. It was sound, but the principle is to a degree similar. It’s been known to science for awhile, that electromagnetic energy plays a part in earthquakes. So, to Russell Wagner, the idea is this: it’s not necessary to generate all the energy yourself, even though the HAARP installation in Alaska can generate an enormous amount of energy. All that’s really needed is an understanding of the frequencies involved, and then use that knowledge to tap into the biggest power source there is-the earth’s own electromagnetic field. For instance, the fulcrum, invented thousands of years ago, possibly in paleolithic times, is a simple device that enables a human being to use a small amount of kinetic energy-their muscular strength, to move considerably greater mass than they can do on their own.

    If this is what happened, then these imbeciles are playing with something they do not understand-like nukes, where the ability to build and deploy a nuke does not require any particular understanding of what one is playing with. Such as an equation, that ascientist came up with during the Manhattan Project-there’s a slim chance that one single nuclear explosion, regardless of megatonnage, can set the entire atmosphere off on a chain reaction. The other scientists tried to disprove the equation, the numbers, and why they worked out that way-and couldn’t.

    They went ahead anyways, hoping that that particular number doesn’t occur, given the right set of conditions.

    • Kent on April 14, 2011 at 6:40 pm

      Back in the early to mid fifties there was a very real concern that an
      atmospheric chain reaction might occur. It was a topic in magazines
      and I remember seeing a television program where the scientists used
      ping pong balls to demonstrate the reaction. Don’t know how they did it,
      but yeah, it was a fear.

    • Christine on April 14, 2011 at 8:19 pm

      math is irrelevant, the problem is nuclear chemistry so to speak.

      you can’t blow up an atmosphere that isn’t made out of uranium
      gas or something like that.

  7. MattB on April 14, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    If the quake was caused by some form of scalar weapon, then energy won’t be the problem-control would be.

    If you have a look at how many quakes have occured in the region that have a magnitude of 6-6.5 you will see quite a few. I wonder if this is a ‘safe’ release of energy for a potential quake weapon?

  8. James on April 14, 2011 at 10:58 am

    The output energy necessary to induce a quake however massive in magnitude was NOT in burst mode with one release. This is may be an important thing to remember. Again,
    What Resonance can accomplish should not be underestimated.
    The destruction of the plant appears that of level of power that is fundamental alteration of matter at the atomic level. Appeared well collimated rebound wave which would not occur with uncontrolled explosion just from hydrogen.

  9. Dan Pendleton on April 14, 2011 at 10:40 am

    I still hold your view, Joseph however, with evidence now that a DEW was used to bring down WTC (the tops of 1and 2 were reduced to nano particles) I am beginning to see how much power is apparently available for these devices. If the power this takes is unfathomable, how about the power to reduce the tops of WTC buildings to dust? How much does that take?

    I am “leaning” in the direction of a triggered or induced event but like you, I’m not convinced. Much more evidence is needed.

  10. Russell Wagner on April 14, 2011 at 6:01 am

    All very interesting to talk about, but as an electrical engineer & military officer (USMC. 22 yrs) who worked with RF based weapons systems, I would like to introduce a reality check here – the Japan earthquake is equivalent to the total energy usage of the United States for 300 years at present levels. Put another way, it’s about 4,400 times larger than the largest nuclear test ever conducted (Soviet Tsar Bomba, 1962, 52 MT I think). Finally, from a hurricane perspective, it released about 35,000 times as much energy in a couple of minutes as a large hurricane does over its lifetime. In short it released a tremendous amount of energy.

    I know of NO platform, including every “HAARP-like” array in the world, acting in concert, that can cause something like this. Admittedly, I am not a geologist, and maybe the geology of the ocean bed may be an issue here, but this kind of power is simply not available for aomething like this.

    • Joseph P. Farrell on April 14, 2011 at 7:21 am

      This is my principle problem with it as well. I think the Tsar Bomba was about 57 megatons though I have seen occasional figures of around 67. THhe design of the bomb was actually for 100 megatons.

    • Thomas on April 14, 2011 at 9:17 am

      @ Russell Wagner,
      I’m not a seismologist or an RF weapons expert,
      but isn’t the method of operation of HAARP
      to act as a “trigger” ?
      How much energy does it take to pull a trigger,
      yet look at the results once a trigger is pulled.
      I was under the impression that the theory behind HAARP
      working as an earthquake inducer – was it projected resonant frequencies
      (ELF) which acted on the tectonic plates, thus causing a slippage…(?)
      But the power produced by the earthquake
      would in no way match the power output of HAARP acting as a catalyst.

    • Christine on April 14, 2011 at 1:30 pm

      The theory is that something of smaller energy, can like when
      you use a lever to move something much heavier, trigger a
      larger energy thing that is already unstable. Exactly the relationship
      between the ionosphere, weather, earthquakes, and maybe ground
      target points that have some fault to geomagnetic system coupling,
      isn’t clearly known.

  11. lee on April 14, 2011 at 5:54 am

    so no haarp. no et’s. and your new books seems to suggest no reason to believe in religion. then what do you say yes to,Joseph?

  12. Stephen on April 14, 2011 at 5:43 am

    I was listening to Project Camelot and they had a guest on Keith M. Hunter and he explained how the Japan quake happened, (using hyper dimensional phyisics model) and how you can predict earthquakes anytime in the future if you have the right computer model. With that you have a advantage and you can make a small one bigger using things like Harp and have your pieces in place to accomplish your objectives. He was interviewed on Freedom radio, he’s very knowledgeable.

  13. Greg Parent on April 14, 2011 at 5:18 am

    We must always look at how much the “alternative” reaction is itself disinformation. I posted an op-ed piece written for the Japan Times by George Soros for this very reason. Whose interests are furthered by the “HAARP” noise, I ask?

    Joseph, you yourself have intimated a realignment going on behind the scenes. Soros has called a meeting–which on the surface resembles a Bilderburg or CFR get together–for the purposes of discussing a new alignment of interests.

    What say you?

    • Joseph P. Farrell on April 14, 2011 at 8:12 am

      A good question… I was unaware of this and my first reaction would be to ask, Whom did he invite to his conference? and what will the reaction of the more traditional Bankster crowd be?

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events