- Other Issues
- September 22, 2010
- 15 minutes read
The Devil?s HAARP: weather weapons and recent ?natural? disasters
n 1997 the US Space Command declared war on the world by committing America to “full spectrum dominance” by 2020, “to close the ever-widening gap between diminishing resources and increasing military commitments”. This doctrine was approved and expanded by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2000. For Dick Cheney’s Project for the New American Century, however, it did not go far enough. The doctrine was expanded further by the Obama administration, from dominating “land, sea, air and space” to doctrine, ideology and cyberspace. Everything America and its pillars (Britain and Israel) do must, therefore, be understood within the context of “full spectrum dominance”.
In 2003 the United States Air Force Space Command announced a “vision call[ing] for prompt global strike space systems with the capability to directly apply force from or through space against terrestrial targets”. In order to achieve this, the air force has to control “natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counter-space control”, hence “weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary,” thereby allowing the US to “own the weather” and master “the science of chao”, as the US Air Force explained in 1996. Britain’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) revealed in 2010 that far from reversing these trends, “Weather modification will continue to be explored”.
A decade earlier, in 1999 the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy warned that, “despite the existing conventions”, referring to the UN General Assembly Resolution banning environmental warfare, “military research is ongoing on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated for example by the Alaska-based HAARP [High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program] system”, putting into practice then Secretary of Defence William Cohen’s suggestion that “electromagnetic waves” could alter the climate and control earthquakes and volcanoes remotely”1. This was compounded by a Czech military paper, which stated that “HAARP can ionize and heat the atmosphere significantly affecting the airflow, and thus should cause storms, tornados and extreme heat or frost”, going on to say that “it can be anywhere in the world to create artificial lightning, stronger than any natural [lightning]”.. The latter point was confirmed by the US Air Force paper:
Possible mechanisms to investigate would be ways to modify the electropotential characteristics over certain targets to induce lightning strikes on the desired targets as the [generated] storm passes over their location. … Even if power levels achieved were insufficient to be an effective strike weapon, the potential for psychological operations in many situations could be fantastic.
“BAE Systems designed and built the [HAARP] facility,” according to the war corporation’s website, “operating software, and controls under a series of contracts valued at more than 250 million US dollars from the Office of Naval Research”. HAARP, according to its Alaska website, “employ[s] the capability of stimulating to a varying degree small, localized regions of the ionosphere”, causing an ionospheric lift, “in order to study methodically, and in a detailed manner what nature produces randomly and regularly on a much larger scale”. That is only HAARP Alaska, however, and that is only what they are telling us. According to the website, there are HAARP facilities in Latin America and Tajikistan, about which nothing is known, and, unlike HAARP Alaska, they are not open to selected members of the public.
This means that HAARP is funded by the Pentagon, contracted to (and designed by) private war corporations, developed through America’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, and owned by the US Air Force and Navy – yet we are expected to believe that it is not a weaponized military application. This official position cannot be taken very seriously, especially given that those agencies are committed to “full spectrum dominance”.
“The ionosphere is the part of the atmosphere between space and the earth in which electrically charged atoms, or ions, reflect radio waves,” BAE explained in a news release, “making long-distance radio communication possible”. This is achieved by irradiating the ionosphere in order to send Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) waves down to submarines and other earthbound appliances. According to HAARP, it is also designed to “x-ray” the earth in order to find oil, gas, minerals, hidden submarines and subterranean bunkers. The tomographer Brooks Agnew explained how:
In 1983 I did tomography with 30 watts, looking for oil in the ground. I found 26 oil wells over a nine State area, and 100 per cent of the time was accurate, with just 30 watts of power beaming straight into solid rock.2
The resulting vibrations give mineral tomographers information about what is under the surface. HAARP, however, by its own admission, uses 3.6 million watts, with the aim of producing an apocalyptic 100 billion watts3. Testifying to the European Parliament in 1998, the physicist Rosalie Bertell
described the background to HAARP… If radiation is projected into the ionosphere, huge amounts of energy can be generated and used to annihilate a given region… [HAARP] enables communications to take place with submerged submarines and can, in theory, create geomagnetic pathways to guide particle beams which could then deposit large amounts of energy anywhere on the globe. In simpler terms, HAARP, with its power of intimidation, of delivery or denial of electrical energy on a global scale and its control of communications, is an element of a system which could control the global village in some frightening ways.
In 1998 a European Parliament committee demanded that the US yield its HAARP secrets, which, of course, it refused to do. In 1999, the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection published a Report on the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy, incorporating a Draft Resolution, which read:
The military are developing ever more powerful weapons which inflict widespread and devastating damage on the environment. A modern war entails greater environmental destruction than any other environment-destructive activity… [Article 27 of the Draft Resolution] considers HAARP by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States administration [then Clinton’s] to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks… [HAARP] could result in changes in weather patterns. It could also influence whole ecosystems… Another damaging consequence of HAARP is the occurrence of holes in the ionosphere caused by the powerful radio beams. The ionosphere protects us from incoming cosmic radiation. The hope is that the holes will fill again, but our experience of change in the ozone layer points in the other direction. This means substantial holes in the ionosphere that protects us… If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy. HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a given area than any other conventional transmitter. HAARP has links with 50 years of intensive space research for military purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control the upper atmosphere and communications. This kind of research has to be regarded as a serious threat to the environment, with an incalculable impact on human life. Even now nobody knows what impact HAARP may have. We have to beat down the wall of secrecy around military research, and set up the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects, and parliamentary control.
The Resolution was delayed until 2003, and subsequently dismissed: HAARP “for Arctic Europe is a military programme. The [European] Commission has no competence, nor indeed the expertise, to carry out the examination requested by the Parliament”. In other words, everyone got paid off and/or threatened. In 2000, Rosalie Bertell informed The Times (London) that America and Britain “are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapour rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods”, which the US Air Force recommended in 1996, and the MoD tacitly reaffirmed in 2010. Bertell has also stated that
[i]t would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States… The ability of the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be “sold” to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer.
Or simply not mentioned at all. The topic is completely off the media agenda: Rok Golob, a social scientist at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, wrote that “[g]eophysical weapons today is a taboo topic that is often only superficially treated,” going on to explain, rather ominously, how
Geophysical weapons are an important aspect of the true integrity of modern warfare, which, in addition to all the most modern weapons also use the scheduler Earth and the natural processes as a weapon… Many scientists believe that a possible cause for ecological disasters are secret and unpunished geophysical weapons in use. This view is confirmed by a number of warnings from international organizations such as NATO, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the official documents the Ukrainian and Russian parliament on the dangers of Geophysical weapons [and now the EU]. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to US President Carter, and J.F. McDonald, Science Advisor to Lyndon Johnson, have published a document on geophysical weapons, which were described as having the real possibility of negative effects on the civilian population.
Compounding Golob’s research, particularly in relation to using natural cycles, a Czech military intelligence article explained how, “Under certain meteorological conditions (which are constantly changing, but they can be predicted) ionofé?e can “steal” a large amount of electromagnetic energy that is there due to ions located in difficult to imagine quantities”. The resulting amount of electromagnetism can be directed against earthbound targets, as the EU commissions have warned, making it the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.
According to a pro-HAARP article in Wired magazine, which otherwise dismisses all of the above as a conspiracy theory, “A Russian military journal warned that blasting the ionosphere would trigger a cascade of electrons that could flip [the] Earth’s magnetic poles. “Simply speaking, the planet will ‘capsize’,” it warned.” HAARP is “so strong it could trigger earthquakes. And by dumping all those radio waves into the ionosphere, HAARP could turn a miles-wide portion of the upper atmosphere into a giant lens.”4
On the subject of the “giant lens”, shortly before the Haiti, Chile, China, Japan, and New Zealand earthquakes in 2010, “strange lights” were reported in the skies above many of those countries (these from the China earthquake in 2008 (see Video 1 and Video 2). Writing about something else, Wired noted how, “At about 125 miles up, HAARP’s waves can energize free electrons, which collide with neutral atoms to produce a glow like the aurora borealis”5, which would explain the lights observed prior to the 2010 earthquakes. In 2010, Haiti, which has been subjected to centuries of brutal French and American colonial intervention, was hit by a devastating earthquake which killed 200,000 people. Russian Intelligence reported that
[s]ince the end of the decade of the 70s in the last century, the US “advanced a lot” in the state of its earthquake weapons and, according to these reports, they now use equipment with Pulse, Plasma and Tesla Electromagnetic and Sonic technology together with “shock wave bombs”.
This would be consistent with the “experiments” conducted by the psychopaths at HAARP.
According to the Russian report, the State Department, USAID and the US Southern Command began its work of “humanitarian invasion” by sending at least 10,000 soldiers and contractors, to control Haitian territory, rather than the UN, after the devastating “experimental earthquake”.
It should be noted that, although Obama’s Quadrennial Defence Review 2010 does not mention geophysical weapons or weather modification, it does clarify the new doctrine of militarizing aid relief, thereby giving the US a pretext to occupy a given country:
extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defence support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.
One official source that does mention such weapons is the MoD’s Strategic Trends Programme 2010, which states that Directed Energy Weapons
will be capable of discrete target discrimination, producing a strike beam or field of electromagnetic energy, acoustic energy or atomic scale particles to cause disruptive or damaging effects, at near instantaneous speeds, to equipment, infrastructure or personnel. They will [emphases in original] have widespread employment including: hand emplaced “suitcase” devices; and ground, sea and air-based systems, with applications that include engine disablement and infrastructure attack [emphasis added. These are consistent with HAARP].
“As regards the final result of the tests of these weapons, the [Russian Northern Fleet] report warns that there is a US plan to destroy Iran through a series of earthquakes”. “It can’t reach Iran, if that’s your question,” quipped one of HAARP’s developers, “Dennis Papadopoulos” – not his real name – speaking to Wired. This statement, buried at the end of an otherwise propagandistic article, is a tacit admission that HAARP is indeed a weapon, otherwise why say such a thing? “Papadopoulos” added: “But if I put HAARP on a ship, or on an oil platform, who knows?”6
Why would “Papadopoulos” and his psychopathic colleagues need to put a HAARP facility on a sea platform when they could establish a HAARP facility in a country near to the one they wish to destroy? Contrary to the HAARP Alaska facility, which is partly open to the public, there are numerous HAARP facilities, according to the official website, one of which is in Tajikistan, which is near Iran and borders China. This is in keeping with the statement of “Papadopoulos” about building a facility near Iran in order to “reach” it.
Furthermore, Britain’s Ministry of Defence had already written about using unspecified new weapons (possibly neutron) in “outfacing irresponsible nuclear powers and in opposing demographically strong nations”. The most “demographically strong nation” is China. Afghanistan separates China from Iran, and is occupied by Britain and America. Tajikistan, which borders Afghanistan and China, is close enough for a HAARP facility, assuming “Papadopoulos” is right, in order to attack China (which suffered an earthquake and flood in 2010), and to attack Iran, especially given Tajikistan’s poverty, lack of defence, and weak government. As noted above, HAARP Alaska’s website explained how
[a]ll of these installations have as their primary purpose the study of the ionosphere, and most employ the capability of stimulating to a varying degree small, localized regions of the ionosphere in order to study methodically, and in a detailed manner what nature produces randomly and regularly on a much larger scale.
In other words, HAARP can and does cause natural disasters – they claim on a miniscule level and “to a varying degree”. Not wanting to limit their deterrence capabilities, the Russians have built several HAARP facilities. As the US Air Force noted in 1996, the “beauty” of “owning the weather” and mastering “the science of chaos” is that nobody can prove if the given event is anthropogenic or not. Added to which, Obama announced an increase in US exports at a time when Russia is banning exports after its unprecedented droughts in 2010. Wreck another country’s economy with a weather weapon, and force it to borrow from the IMF (as we have seen with Pakistan), in order to get them to purchase American exports.
The circumstantial evidence is getting too much to ignore. In 2010, we have had: a “sink hole” form in the ground in Guatemala; landslides in Guatemala and Italy; severe droughts in Russia; forest fires in Russia and Bolivia; floods in China, Taiwan, Pakistan, Niger and Mexico; a hurricane which missed Mexico; a hurricane which hit Burma; a volcanic eruption in Iceland; and earthquakes in Haiti, Chile, China, Japan, and New Zealand; added to which Britain’s Ministry of Defence anticipates how new technologies could create “disastrous outcomes, planned and unplanned” – note the word planned – the culmination of which is a “doomsday scenario” meaning “the end of the world, or at least of humanity”.7 What use is “full spectrum dominance” if there is nothing left to dominate?