Two regulars of this community, Ms. P.H. and Mr. V.T. both sent this article to me, so, for that, a big thank you. I have to admit when I first started reading, I couldn't figure out why they had. After all, the closure of HAARP was not big news, and I had already blogged about it before, and even suggested that the reason HAARP was being closed was because they had moved on to better and more efficient methods for accomplishing the same thing, i.e., weather modification. Back then, I noted that the ionospheric heater facility in Gakona, Alaska, would be contracted out to DARPA (the Diabolically Apocalyptic Research Projects Agency) for "experiments" before it was shut down for good.
The HAARP facility has been, in its own unique way, a mirror to our culture, reflecting its concerns and memes with some accuracy. Very early on in its career, Dr. Nick Begich and Jean Manning, whose book Angels Don't Play this HAARP exposed its possible uses as a missile defense and weather modification/control technology. This, of course, was roundly denounced as more conspiracy theory crackpottery by the lamestream media, notwithstanding that it was simple physics that Begich and Manning were talking about: play around with an electromagnetic dynamic system like the Earth's ionosphere by creating vast regions of plasma and so on within it, and,yes, one could create huge areas of low pressure and literally steer weather systems around. Perhaps...perhaps one might also set up unique standing waves within the Earth itself along fault lines, or stimulate piezo-electric effects in rocks along faults lines... The speculations grew, and even Dr. Bernard Eastland, author of some of the first ionospheric heater patents, expressed doubts in a couple of interviews about his own project, and what it might be capable of.
As noted, all of this was dismissed with a laugh as the sheerest nuttery, it was "conspiracy theory." I remember even a well-known American "conservative" talk radio host issuing a pronouncement ex cathedra on the whole matter.
Infallibility is a fragile thing, however, as the following article from The Anchorage Daily News makes clear:
Oh really!? I had to read that one more time just to make sure I had really read it:
"Responding to questions from Sen. Lisa Murkowski during a Senate hearing Wednesday, David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for science, technology and engineering, said this is "not an area that we have any need for in the future" and it would not be a good use of Air Force research funds to keep HAARP going. "We're moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the HAARP was really designed to do," he said. "To inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it. But that work has been completed."
"Comments of that sort have given rise to endless conspiracy theories, portraying HAARP as a superweapon capable of mind control or weather control, with enough juice to trigger hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes.
"Scientists say all of that is nonsense, and that the degree of ionosphere control possible through HAARP is akin to controlling the Pacific Ocean by tossing a rock into it."
This is quite an admission, for in effect, what Mr. Walker is admitting to is (1) Yes, HAARP was for manipulation and control of the ionosphere, and (2)that "work" was completed, in other words, they learned all they needed to know, and (3) they've moved along from proto-type technologies to "practical" technologies. There really isn't any other viable way to construe his remarks.
So enter the scientismist once again, with bland assurances that no real or practical degree of ionospheric control is possible. And, they're right. Trying to control the weather is like trying to manipulate the Pacific by tossing a rock into it... but I am bold to suggest that what they're saying here is not "it's impossible" but rather "it's just possible if one knows how to leverage the system," if I may borrow a clue from finance, who borrowed it from...well... Archimedes of course.
And if those revisionist meteorologists who hypothesize that many storms are not principally thermal but rather electromagnetic and electrodynamic in nature are correct, then Mr. Walker's admissions ought to give everyone pause.
See you on the flip side...