Tuesday, 29 September 2009

Questions in UK parliament re HAARP

HAARP Programme  21 Oct 2002 : Column 57W

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the HAARP programme; and what contribution Britain is making to it. [75022]

Dr. Moonie: The Ministry of Defence is fully aware of the HAARP project. However the MOD has made no specific assessment of the project for defence purposes nor has it contributed towards it.

                 ****************************************

Paul Flynn (Newport, West): In June, a group of scientists from America packed a container with uranium, loaded it on a train in Austria and sent it through Turkey and across the sea to America. They landed it on the American coast, and it is now lodged in the heart of New York. They did that to make the point that although the container went through border controls and tests—it was active uranium, so it should have been detected—no one detected it.

We should ask what is the greatest risk. There is no safe course ahead, but we must find the least perilous course. We all felt a chill of fear when we saw the pictures of the chemical weapons protection suit that has now been issued to frontline health service workers and when we heard that they have had smallpox injections.

One of my worst experiences during my 15 years as a Member of Parliament was when someone from the city of Newport came back from the Gulf war in a body bag. As a supporter of the Gulf war and of all the other military actions taken by the present and previous Governments, I find myself deeply unhappy with the present proposals because we are taking the wrong course.

What frightens me, as I am sure it frightens everyone, is the terrible nature of biological weapons, which make no distinction between warrior and civilian, young and old, Christian or Muslim. There could be terrible destruction, with diseases that have been dormant since medieval times being unleashed. We know that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons, but what is the risk? I believe that the greatest or only risk—the only conceivable situation in which he is likely to use the weapons—will arise if there is a military invasion of his country. We have heard today that he is a wicked, evil man. He is indeed, but he is not a suicidal maniac.

Every time that Saddam Hussein has attacked a group of people, he has done so in the certainty in his own mind that he was going to win. When he attacked the Kurds in Halabjah, he knew that the rest of the world was not interested and would not help them. When he attacked Iran, he was again certain that the Ayatollah was a weak leader whose country was in chaos, and he was sure that he would have an easy victory. He attacked Kuwait in the belief that the American ambassador had given him an assurance that the Americans would not intervene. Under what circumstances would this man, the great survivor, attack another state? Under what circumstances would he use his weapons of mass destruction?

I do not know of any plausible scenario except one, and it is the one that we are walking straight into. If he is defeated and is in one of his palaces, like Hitler in the Berlin bunker, he might use his biological weapons—not by using his ramshackle missiles, which are useless and cannot be sent far, but by doing a deal with his

17 Oct 2002 : Column 540

ideological antithesis, al-Qaeda. In those circumstances, he might well do that, and the horror that we all dread might take place.

The change in the world situation resulted not from what happened on 11 September but from the election of George W. Bush. We should examine the right-wing fundamentalists who are now in government in America and their plans for a new American century, which were drawn up before they took office. They are now fulfilling those plans, which did not start last September. They started when Bush was elected, with a rogue state creation programme.

When Bush took office, the situation between North and South Korea was one of rapprochement. It was going very well, but George W. Bush immediately cancelled a meeting that had been arranged by Madeleine Albright. He tried to turn that rapprochement into antagonism. A mythology was spread about the danger of missiles from North Korea hitting Seattle, when the North Koreans had great difficulty in targeting its missiles on South Korea. He made sure that the situation deteriorated.

The position in respect of Iran was an improving one over many years. There were visits from representatives from western countries, but President Bush has made sure that the situation has grown far worse. With Iraq, there was stability for almost 10 years. Iraq had been contained by the bombing programme, which I fully supported. The inspectors left because they were fed up; they believed that they were close to finding significant weapons, but left because they believed that there was going to be bombing of the sites that they could not inspect. There might have been some justification for action then, but there is no justification now.

The plans from PNAC—the project for the new American century—make alarming reading. They were drawn up not last year, but in 2000. One of them speaks of the American armed forces as

 

Xthe cavalry on the new American frontier."

The blueprint supports a document written by Wolfowitz and Cheney—Pearl and Rumsfeld are also involved—that says that the US must

 

Xdiscourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

They talk of regime change not only in Iraq but in Syria and Iran. However, their greatest target is China, which they see as the next state that might challenge them as a new world power.

In an extraordinary speech, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested that we could become a vassal state of America by abandoning a dearly cherished policy of this country, and of almost all Council of Europe countries—our opposition to capital punishment. Suddenly, we should accept that.

The Americans have said that they regard the United Kingdom as

 

Xthe most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership."

That was and is Bush's policy. He has used the dreadful events of 11 September to accelerate that policy. Most people have forgotten the events that occurred before then.

The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood made an interesting point, although we would take his expert views on South America a little more seriously if he had

17 Oct 2002 : Column 541

not been an apologist for certain aspects of Pinochet's actions. The hon. Gentleman referred to Colombia. The United States' attempt to impose its failed policies of drug prohibition on a vassal state had dreadful results, leading to continuous chaos and at least three armies, two of which were funded by drugs. What if we apply that policy to Afghanistan? We went in because the Taliban were protecting al-Qaeda. That was a justified objective, and it was successful up to a point. However, another objective was to eliminate the drugs trade from Afghanistan. At the time, as the United Nations has reported, the Taliban had reduced by 92 per cent. the growth of poppies in their areas, whereas the Northern Alliance had increased by 300 per cent. the growth of poppies in their areas.

Our victory in Afghanistan, if that is what it was, did not decrease the use of drugs and the growth of the drug trade, but if we had gone in with the same policy as the Americans pursued towards Colombia, the drug trade would have expanded in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and the country formerly known as Burma, now Myanmar. The worry is that by following the policies of the United States we will see the Colombia-isation of a whole area of mid-Asia.

I have another concern that is discussed only rarely. We have heard of star wars, but other weapons are being planned and may exist. A very interesting one is HAARP—the high frequency active auroral research programme. The Americans view it as having innocent intentions, but it terrifies the Soviet Union and many other countries because its effect has been described as boiling the ionosphere. Terrible weapons might exist beyond the ones of which we are aware.

It is significant that the document on the project for a new American century refers to combat likely to take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes. It says that advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. The people who wrote that and believe that it is the future are in charge of the only superpower in the world. It is a tragedy that we have not taken a more critical stance and challenged them in the way that leaders of other European countries have done.

Finally, I thought that the best speech that I have read, possibly in my life time, on how to deal with the world, how to deal with the third world and how to guarantee peace was made by the Prime Minister at last year's Labour party conference. I urge him to take some time off to read his own words. We should take the least dangerous course, not the most dangerous one.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=haarp&ALL=haarp&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=21017-27_spnew3&URL=/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo021017/debtext/21017-27.htm

           **************************************************

The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some contrails are actually chemicals or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public. Versions of the chemtrail conspiracy theory circulating on the internet and radio talk shows theorize that the activity is directed by government officials. [1] As a result, federal agencies have received thousands of complaints from people who have demanded an explanation. [2] The existence of chemtrails has been repeatedly refuted by government agencies and scientists around the world. [3]

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Chemtrail_theory

         ***************************************************

Brussels, 9th February 1998

 

[Start of Doc][Previous][Next]

The HAARP Project and nonb-lethal weapons

 

The HAARP project and non-lethal weapons.


Experts alarmed - public debate needed.

The hearing on the HAARP project and non-lethal weapons was held in connection with a European Parliament own-initiative report, to be drawn up by Maj Britt THEORIN (PES, S), on the possible use of military resources in environmental strategies.

Non-lethal (or non-deadly) weapons - a varied scenario
As Peter TRUSCOTT (PES, UK) said in his introduction, "There is an invisible line between what is acceptable and what is suspect". This is the nub of the issue.

Non-lethal weapons constitute a trend in military thinking which has developed since the end of the Cold War. The world is dealing with a different sort of crisis, which is less easily identifiable and less easy to manage with traditional methods and weapons - hence the desire to master the violence by means other than the same violence. Non- lethal weapons are compared by some authors to "straitjackets" and defined as "any action capable of modifying the behaviour of the adversary while avoiding his annihilation". This appears to be a significant element of crisis prevention but can be - and is - also used in civilian situations (e.g. crowd control).

Mr Luc MAMPAEY, a researcher at GRIP, the Brussels-based European institute for research and information into peace and security, said he believed the expression "non-lethal weapons" was semantically contentious. He argued that the term had reassuring connotations. It was the politically correct term, and one which could delude the public into thinking that nowadays a clean war was possible and hence morally acceptable. In fact, as he himself and the Red Cross representative, Mr Robin COUPLAND (Geneva), pointed out, the dividing line between deadly and non-deadly weapons was not clear. Some weapons might result in death, while others could incapacitate their victims permanently or temporarily. Mr COUPLAND was quite categorical: the term "non-deadly", he said, was ultimately a marketing slogan.

The problem of definition "by default" led all the experts to stress that there was no single type of non-lethal weapon and that a careful distinction must be made between the various types, from the simplest to the most sophisticated. These new weapons covered a broad spectrum of technologies, from optical systems with a dazzling or blinding effect, through sound and electro- magnetic waves, chemical, medicinal, adhesive, slippery, super-caustic and acidic substances, biological agents, bacteria and micro-organisms, to rubber bullets and electric-shock batons.

Dangers to health and the environment

The effects on health and the environment were also described as variable. Any weapon designed to disrupt an organism, as well as weapons capable of affecting an organism indirectly, by chemical or biological means, or optical, acoustic or neurological stimuli, could become fatal under certain conditions. Adhesive foam, it was said, could also have extremely dangerous side- effects.

Only if a precisely calculated dose were perfectly delivered could it be guaranteed that sensory (or xenobiotic) stimuli would not have irreversible, or indeed, fatal effects. In practice, this perfect control over the degree of disruption was the first thing likely to go by the board under extreme conditions, where the desire for a swift and decisive solution would rapidly override considerations of ethics or toxicology.

The risk of abuse in democratic societies

However, it was argued, health and environmental issues were not the only concerns raised by the use of non-lethal weapons. Mr COUPLAND expressed concern about an overlap of civil, police and military applications. He was also afraid that these weapons might be used not to replace conventional weapons but in addition to them.

In Mr MAMPAEY's view, as non-lethal weapons developed, links were bound to be created between military and law-and-order operations, which, he said, would enable certain current conventions to be bypassed. There was a danger of growing militarisation of domestic police forces, which would have access to more sophisticated weaponry. This could raise problems in any state which was supposed to be based on the rule of law and to be mindful of human rights and individual freedoms.

The HAARP project

Tom SPENCER (EPP, UK), chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said that the United States had been invited to state its viewpoint on this matter to the hearing. Although the US had declined an initial invitation, Mr SPENCER reiterated his offer, saying that the Americans could send a representative to address the committee in future if they wished.

Ms Rosalie BERTELL, from Toronto (Canada), is one of the best-informed experts about HAARP (the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme), a programme which has been developed by the US military.

She described the background to HAARP. The ionosphere is a high-altitude layer of the atmosphere with particles which are highly charged with energy. If radiation is projected into the ionosphere, huge amounts of energy can be generated and used to annihilate a given region.

The HAARP project involves the manipulation of the earth's ionosphere, whose natural role is to moderate energy transfer from the sun to the earth and is used as a missile trajectory and as a reflector for radio communication. The aim of HAARP is to control and manipulate the ionosphere so as to enable the manipulator to wipe out communications at will on a global scale, or to make them resilient in the event of a nuclear war.

It also 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.

According to Dr Nick BEGICH, an expert from Alaska and author of one of the leading publications on the subject*, the HAARP programme would allow such concentrations of energy to be attained that an entire region of the planet could be deprived of water. Electromagnetic waves can cause earthquakes or tidal waves. Mr SPENCER pointed out that, under international conventions, any actions leading to climate change were prohibited.

Mr BEGICH said that in his eyes the project was purely and simply "Star Wars technology". Moreover, it was a secret project, as the US Congress had refused to finance Star Wars. The USA, he claimed, had allocated 91 million dollars to the main programme, to which must be added the related programmes. Over the last 50 years, he said, certain levels of security had been developed which were protected from public scrutiny. State secrets were acceptable in themselves but if they involved such major repercussions for human beings and the environment they must be made public. In his view, the international community should be allowed to evaluate the risks of the HAARP programme.

Eurico DE MELO (EPP, P) said he regarded the revelations as terrifying and said that there was a need for a campaign to inform the public about it.

Winding up, Magda AELVOET (Green, B) told the hearing that there was a saying: "War is too important to be left to the generals". She feared we had forgotten this truth.

Further information: Etienne BASSOT - tel. 284 47 41

* Angels Don't Play This Haarp, Advances in tesla technology, Earthpulse Press, USA, 1995

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/press/sdp/backg/en/1998/b980209.htm

                         ****************************

European Parliament Resolutions as Passed

 
RESOLUTIONS PASSED JANUARY 28, 1999:
 
Below are the resolutions passed by the European Parliament.
In my personal opinion, these are VERY watered down with
respect to the current state of neuro-influence devices, 
however, they give a slim hope that someday, esteemed
politicians and media may give lip service to this highly
invasive technology.  Eleanor White
 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Resolution adopted by the European Parliament, 28.1.99
Environment, security and foreign affairs
A4-0005/99
 
23.     Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new
'non-lethal' weapons technology and the development of new
arms strategies also covered and regulated by international
conventions;
 
24.     Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral
Research Project) 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 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 connected with the HAARP
programme currently being funded in Alaska;
 
25.     Requests the Scientific and Technological Options
Assessment (STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific
and technical evidence provided in all existing research
findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature and degree of
risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global
environment and to public health generally;
 
26.     Calls on the Commission to examine if there are
environmental and PUBLIC HEALTH implications of the HAARP
programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to
Parliament with its findings;
 
27.     CALLS FOR AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION INTRODUCING A
GLOBAL BAN ON ALL DEVELOPMENTS AND DEPLOYMENTS OF WEAPONS
WHICH MIGHT ENABLE ANY FORM OF MANIPULATION OF HUMAN
BEINGS;
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.raven1.net/europar.htm
             *********************************

H.A.A.R.P.

It's not only greenhouse gas emissions: Washington's new world order weapons
have the ability to trigger climate change.

By Michel Chossudovsky - Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa and TFF associate, author of The Globalization of Poverty, second edition, Common Courage Press

The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's climate can now be
modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons." Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the World's climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes.

HAARP IS A MASS DESTRUCTIVE WEAPON - NOT PART OF ANY NEGOTIATIONS

From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of "environmental warfare" alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases.

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the Hague Conference on Climate Change (CO6) (November 2000) have raised the broad issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)" as relevant to an understanding of climate change.

The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and American business lobbies has centered on Washington's outright refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets under the 1997 Kyoto protocol.(1) The impacts of military technologies on the World's climate are not an object of discussion or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing debate on climate change serves Washington's strategic and defense objectives.

"WEATHER WARFARE"

World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that "US military scientists are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include
the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods."(2)

Already in the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book "Between Two Ages" that:

"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised... Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm. "

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of "unconventional weapons" using radio frequencies. He refers to "weather war," indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already "mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s." (3) These technologies make it "possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves]." (4)

A simulation study of future defense "scenarios" commissioned for the US Air Force calls for: "US aerospace forces to 'own the weather' by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications." From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. (5)

THE HIGH-FREQUENCY ACTIVE AURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM - HAARP

The High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokoma Alaska-jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy-is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere".

Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich-actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP-describes HAARP as: "A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere (upper layer of the atmosphere) by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything-living and dead." (6)

Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet." (7)

MISLEADING PUBLIC OPINION

HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." (8) Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.(9)

According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, HAARP is part of a integrated weapons' system, which has potentially devastating environmental consequences: "It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature.

The military implications of combining these projects is alarming. 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. (10)

In addition to weather manipulation, HAARP has a number of related uses: "HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding the atmosphere with high-frequency rays. Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains, and effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out. (11).

More generally, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World's electro-magnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of "electronic weapons" which US military researchers consider a "gentler and kinder warfare". (12)

WEAPONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER

HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). From military command points in the US, entire national economies could potentially be destabilized through climatic manipulations. More importantly, the latter can be implemented without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war. The use of HAARP-if it were to be applied-could have potentially devastating impacts on the World's climate.

Responding to US economic and strategic interests, it could be used to selectively modify climate in different parts of the World resulting in the destabilization of agricultural and ecological systems. It is also worth noting that the US Department of Defense has allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence and monitoring systems on weather changes. NASA and the Department of Defense's National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working on "imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards, earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate change" with data relayed from satellites. (13)

POLICY INERTIA OF THE UNITED NATIONS

According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

"States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction." (14).

It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1997 bans "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." (15) Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines "environmental modification techniques" as referring to any technique for changing-through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes-the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space." (16) Why then did the UN-disregarding the 1977 ENMOD Convention as well as its own charter-decide to exclude from its agenda climatic changes resulting from military programs?

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACKNOWLEDGES IMPACT OF HAARP

In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj. Britt Theorin-Swedish MEP and longtime peace advocate--, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program.(17) The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament: "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; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to give evidence to the public hearing into the environmental and public risks [of&] the HAARP program." (18.)

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". (19) Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington.

FULLY OPERATIONAL

While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, scientific findings suggest that it is at present fully operational. What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US military to selectively modify the climate of an "unfriendly nation" or "rogue state" with a view to destabilizing its national economy. Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF and World Bank "economic medicine" imposed on the Third World and the countries of the former Soviet block has largely contributed to the destabilization of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have supported the interests of a handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to impose genetically modified (GMO) seeds on farmers throughout the World.

It is important to understand the linkage between the economic, strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the above context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program (whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas. Surely national governments and the United Nations should address
the possible consequences of HAARP and other "non-lethal weapons" on climate change.

NOTES

1. The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by an average of 5.2 percent to become effective
between 2008 and 2012. See Background of Kyoto Protocol at
http://www.globalwarming.net/gw11.html.

2. The Times, London, 23 November 2000.

3. Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999.

4. Ibid.

5. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final
Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ (emphasis added).

6. Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, The Military's
Pandora's Box, Earthpulse Press,
http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html. See also the
HAARP home page at http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/).

7. See Briarpatch, January, 2000. (emphasis added).

8. Quoted in Begich and Manning, op cit.

9. Air University, op cit.

10. Rosalie Bertell, Background of the HAARP Program, 5
November, 1996,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm

11. Begich and Manning, op cit.

12. Don Herskovitz, Killing Them Softly, Journal of
Electronic Defense, August 1993. (emphasis added). According
to Herskovitz, "electronic warfare" is defined by the US
Department of Defense as "military action involving the use
of electromagnetic energyƒ" The Journal of Electronic
Defense at http://www.jedefense.com/ has published a range
of articles on the application of electronic and
electromagnetic military technologies.

13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999.

14. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York,
1992. See complete text at
http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html, (emphasis
added).

15. See Associated Press, 18 May 1977.

16. Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed,
States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21,
p. 27.

17. European Report, 7 February 1998.

18. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99,
14 January 1999.

19. EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between
Environment and Defense, European Report, 3 February
1999.

Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, November, 2000.

All rights reserved.

áPermission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms contact the author at chossudovsky@videotron.ca, fax: 1-514-4256224.

Michel Chossudovsky
Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N6N5

Voice box: 1-613-562-5800, ext. 1415

Fax: 1-514-425-6224

E-Mail: chossudovsky@videotron.ca; (altern. E-mail: chossudovsky@sprint.ca)

>áááááááá On the Globalisation of Poverty and the Financial Crisis:

>áááááááá "Seattle and Beyond: Disarming the New World Order"

>áááááááá http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/seattle.html

>áááááááá Global Poverty in the Late 20th Century

>áááááááá http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/chossu.htm

>áááááááá http://www.transnational.org/features/chossu_worldbank.html

>áááááááá http://www.transnational.org/features/g7solution.html

> ááááááááhttp://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/eco/

>

http://heise.xlink.de/tp/english/special/eco/6099/1.html#anchor1

Recent articles on Yugoslavia at:áá
http://emperors-clothes.com/artbyauth.html#C 

NATOÕs Reign of Terror in Kosovo http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/yugo_archive/
19990816mcpaper.htm

Overview of the War: http://www.transnational.org/features/Yuoverview.html 

On the role of the KLA: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/2743/1.html 

Breakup of Yugoslavia:  http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/022.html

All on
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/pandora/haarp.html
             ********************************

European Parliament Acknowledges Impacts Of HAARP


CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAARP

POLICY INERTIA OF THE UNITED NATIONS

http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Climate-Change-Weapons.htm

It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1997 bans "military or other hostile useof environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects."15 Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention. The Convention defines "'environmental modification techniques' as referring to any technique for changing--through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes--the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space." 16

Why then did the UN --disregarding the 1977 ENMOD Convention, as well as its own charter, decide to exclude from its agenda climatic changes resulting from military programs?

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACKNOWLEDGES IMPACTS OF HAARP

In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj Britt Theorin --Swedish MEP and longtime peace advocate--, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program.17

The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament:

"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...; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give evidence to the public hearing into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program." 18.

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". 19 Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington.

FULLY OPERATIONAL

While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, scientific findings suggest that it is at present fully operational. What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US military to selectively modify the climate of an "unfriendly nation" or "rogue state" with a view to destabilizing its national economy.

Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF and World Bank "economic medicine" imposed on the Third World and the countries of the former Soviet block has largely contributed to the destabilization of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have supported the interests of a handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to impose genetically modified (GMO) seeds on farmers throughout the World.

It is important to understand the linkage between the economic, strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the above context, climatic manipulations under the HAARP program (whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas. Surely national governments and the United Nations should address the possible consequences of HAARP and other "non-lethal weapons" on climate change.




killing agriculture

http://www.truthmovementaustralia.co...p=15123#p15123

http://www.truthmovementaustralia.co...p=15221#p15221

  All on
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=5585
               *****************************
 

Parliamentary questions 29 April 2004

E-1446/04

WRITTEN QUESTION by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: HAARP project and Commission follow-up to the resolution adopted by Parliament in 1999

In its resolution of 28 January 1999 on the environment, security and foreign policy (A4-0005/99)(1), Parliament stated that the HAARP project was manipulating the environment for military ends (recital R) and called for there to be a STOA examination of HAARP, as a global concern (paragraph 24), in order to assess the impact on the local and global environment and on public health in general.

In paragraph 26, Parliament called on the Commission to examine the possible environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings. Five years later, I am not aware of the existence of any such report.

Would the Commission explain what initiatives have been taken regarding this affair?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2004-1446+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
 
                   ****************************
 

ARE ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPONS BEING USED IN YUGOSLAVIA?
31 March 1999

During an interview yesterday on Vancouver's CKNW Radio with Stirling Faux, I was told that they had seen a report from the Russians that a B2 stealth bomber had dropped an Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP) weapon in Yugoslavia. Made by Los Alamos Laboratories, it apparently produces a similar effect to a large nuclear weapon in disrupting electronics and communications in order to weaken the enemy's ability to retaliate for some time, but without the destructive power and radioactive fallout. However, I haven't seen any further report of this.

If true, then we are witnessing another field trial for new US weapons. Also, it means that, sensibly, the Russians have a sophisticated intelligence-gathering capability in Yugoslavia, to get first-hand information on how NATO is performing. I saw a report that the first people to inspect the downed F117 Stealth fighter-bomber were a Russian "trade mission"...

Rob Green
Chair, World Court Project UK


ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPONS

SUMMARY:

Electro-Magnetic (EM) weapons are one of the newest and most serious military developments in the world today. Enormous secrecy surrounds their development, which is helped by the fact that they rely on the complex physics of non-ionizing radiation and on bio-electromagnetics. They can be broadly broken down into two categories - those aimed at the environment and those aimed at living systems, or in reality the human central nervous system. In the case of the environment, very large quantities of energy can be literally 'broadcast', like radio, to create certain special environmental effects - radical changes in the ionosphere to affect communications, and possibly even the weather, as well as reflection to earth to perform such feats as x-raying the earth to find underground installations, possibly large transfers of energy to power equipment, or to apply destructive forces anywhere on earth, including EMP effects (Electro-Magnetic Pulse, associated with nuclear explosions), and simpler tasks like submarine communication, using very long waves. The more sinister aspect concerns the ability to use low energy density waves of particular frequencies and special waveforms to literally 'tune into' the human central nervous system (CNS), something that has been achieved in the laboratory, according to publicly available scientific literature. This might be done on an individual scale, to temporarily or perhaps permanently alter psychological states, so as to elicit certain behaviours from human beings. It is alleged that many victims have been tested involuntarily for decades now with this technology. It is also suggested that these weapons have been used in some actions, most especially the Gulf War and against the Greenham Common women in the UK. In this case they would have a mass effect, in that they are aimed at large groups. This use is sought not only by the military, but, alarmingly, by the police forces as well, clearly for the purpose of controlling unruly domestic populations. Once achieved, sule, or unstoppable. The subject came to the attention of the Green Group in 1996, and we have slowly developed a knowledge base and large archive in this highly specialized area. Several special meetings culminating in a Foreign Affairs Committee Parliamentary Hearing have been held at the European Parliament as a result, and finally the Group managed in early January '99, with the help of interested Members in other Groups, to have Parliament pass a resolution referring very critically to this subject. This subject also has very serious implications for standard setting for non-ionizing radiation, because the levels of exposure at which one can manipulate the human being are very low indeed, since it is the tuning and the waveform which matter, not the levels, which is the reason that Russian exposure standards are apparently 1000 times lower than the US standards. Setting standards suited to the use of mobile phones and power lines, so as to avoid the long term health effects, while very desirable indeed, may not even be low enough to prevent the use of these weapons, and may even legalize their use, something the Greens must be very careful of, since we have been responsible for this subject to date in the European Parliament (Lannoye, Belgium and Tamino, Italy). Ideally, for now, we should exclude military sources, specifically weapons, as opposed to communications equipment, from EU legislation on non-ionizing radiation altogether.

It is worth comparing the standard setting processes for non-ionizing and for ionizing radiation, as they are remarkably similar. The military, via the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), played a major role in originally setting ionizing standards at ridiculously high levels by burying or ignoring the science, leading to the need for continuous reductions in the acceptable exposure levels. Something similar appears to happening with non-ionizing radiation, in that a very similar unelected 'independent' advisory committee (ICNIRP - International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) has offered advice in this area, which is accepted blindly by the European Commission, despite the fact that, once again, much of the science is being ignored, and the precautionary principle, for some odd reason, seems not to apply. The fact that two of the US representatives on ICNIRP are associated with the military has echoes of the past, and is most suspicious. The focus of public attention so far has been a project in Alaska called HAARP (High frequency Active Auroral Research Program), which is a massive 'array' transmitter designed to manipulate the ionosphere for military purposes - communications effects, earth x-rays, and possibly weather manipulation (despite conventions banning this). But the range of uses of this basic technology is very wide, much wider than its predecessor, ionizing radiation (nuclear). The primary difference is that electromagnetic waves can be 'tuned' so as to have certain effects on living systems, whereas the 'chaotic' nature of ionizing radiation does not facilitate this and the result of exposure to it is normally direct damage only. As stated above, scientists have been able to 'tune' EM to facilitate remote direct communication with the central nervous systems of living creatures, and they are of course especially interested in using this fact to manipulate human beings. According to their own official documentation, the military and the police themcontrol populations. They were used in a crude form by the Soviets against the US Moscow embassy in the '60s with fatal consequences for the ambassador himself, and it is believed that they were used in what is called a 'superfence' against the Greenham Common women, and also to demotivate the Iraqi troops during the Gulf War. The Soviets tried in the 70s to prevent an arms race in this area by means of a Convention, but the US rejected these efforts, and has moved ahead very rapidly, also within NATO, into a dominant position. Unless this development is stopped, we are entering an Orwellian '1984' type scenario, which could potentially permanently transfer enormous power to those in control of the technology. It must also be seen in the wider context of the one-sided arms race currently underway, where the US is re-arming, by continuing with 'Star Wars', and is aiming to be totally dominant in 'Space Power' by 2020. Electromagnetic weapons play a key role here, alongside ABMs, lasers and particle beam weapons.

GROUP POSITION:

We are of course totally opposed to the development and deployment of these weapons. We regard the unsuccessful attempts in the 70s of the former Soviet Union to have these weapons controlled by a UN Convention as having been a major missed opportunity, which has now led to a new arms race in this field. We have sought to renew the attempt to have a Convention to outlaw these weapons and the research that leads to them, primarily that concerning external manipulation of the human central nervous system. We are alarmed that, already, the US is moving towards deployment of ABMs, in Alaska for example, in breach of the 1972 ABM Treaty (possibly arguing that the USSR no longer exists!), and is also developing weather modification weapons, which would breach the 1977 UN ENMOD Convention. Adherence to these existing Treaties is absolutely essential from our point of view.

POSITIONS OF OTHER GROUPS:

The focus for debate so far in Parliament on this issue has been provided by a report on the environment and the military, authored by Swedish Socialist and peace activist Maj Britt Theorin. She referred to this very sensitive matter in a rather passing fashion in her draft report, having met, during a Parliamentary hearing on the matter, some of the main activists on the issue, and having also apparently met some anonymous scientists. Enormous pressure was imposed on the rapporteur Mrs Theorin, we believe via her 'scientific' advisers, and she opposed every attempt to strengthen the resolution on this subject. At some points the PPE divided, and important Green amendments were lost, such as our call for a convention banning the human CNS research!. The Left (GUE/NGL) followed the Socialists, while the Liberals were mixed, but helpful on this question to some extent. In the end, we achieved a quite remarkable Parliament resolution on January 28th, damning the US for not being willing to even come to discuss the matter with the Parliament, and in particular attacking the HAARP project in Alaska, calling for a Parliament STOA study on it, while also calling in rather vague terms for a ban on the manipulation of human beings.

INITIATIVES TAKEN BY THE GROUP:

Being a very difficult subject, as it is (or seems) so new and very technical, and seemingly science fiction, it has been necessary to move carefully and not too quickly. We began in 1996 with two special Green Group meetings, one showing an excellent BBC Horizon documentary on HAARP, and involving experts like Dr Rosalie Bertell from Canada, and Dr Nick Begich from Alaska, author of the best-selling book on HAARP, as well as MEPs like Tom Spencer and Carlos Pimenta, to make Members aware that this was no science fiction. That led to the Parliamentary Hearing on HAARP and 'Non-lethal' Weapons in February last year, in the Foreign Affairs Committee. The culmination so far was the Theorin report, and the considerable success in adding references on this sensitive subject, by adoption of our amendments, and some by the PPE.

FUTURE PLANS:

Not much has happened since the adoption of the Theorin report and resolution, and cahnges in the Memberhip of teh Parliament in Jne may mean having to start again to some extent. However, the media have now started to take the matter more seriously since Theorin. The STOA study should be produced in the next year. Green Ministers will now be urged to act on the matter. The new Group will have to face this new issue after the election to decide how to proceed.

Pol D'Huyvetter


The Electromagnetic Bomb - a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction

Carlo Kopp
Defence Analyst
Melbourne, Australia
Carlo.Kopp@aus.net

http://www.cs.monash.edu.au/~carlo/

High Power Electromagnetic Pulse generation techniques and High Power Microwave technology have matured to the point where practical E-bombs (Electromagnetic bombs) are becoming technically feasible, with new applications in both Strategic and Tactical Information Warfare.

The development of conventional E-bomb devices allows their use in non-nuclear confrontations. This paper discusses aspects of the technology base, weapon delivery techniques and proposes a doctrinal foundation for the use of such devices in warhead and bomb applications.

Full article

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/kopp/apjemp.html

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/kosovo/elmag.htm
         **********************************

Briefings

These are based on the briefings I prepared for a UK Parliamentary environment lobby group meeting on 18th July 2005. Additional information on HAARP and mind control compiled 24th July. 

Michael Nield

 

 Briefing on Chemtrails

 

The only reference to chemtrails I have found is in Kucinich's HR2977. There is nothing in the UK or EU parliaments. This is not surprising. The spraying of these huge condensation trails at high altitude can be attributed to ordinary aircraft. Unlike the HAARP project, the military does not even have to admit that the programme even exists because there are no visible bases or equipment which would give it away. According to a world expert on the subject Will Thomas of Canada, the public are met with the same response from their governments: these are just ordinary condensation trails or contrails. Besides Kucinich's Bill, which he has back-pedalled on, there is nothing except our own photographic and video evidence of the phenomenon.

 

However, since the European Parliament and the Russian Parliament believe that the US government is deploying geophysical weapons, the use of chemtrails is for weather modification would certainly seem plausible.

 

The big give away of chemtrails is their deployment in close formation forming a grid or series of x's across the sky. This can be quite spectacular. At other times a solitary trail will be delivered but last for hours whilst it spreads out.

 

I recommend watching the documentaries by Clifford E. Carnicom, Aerosol Crimes (available  www.carnicom.com) and by Will Thomas, Chemtrails: Mystery Lines in the Sky, (available at www.willthomas.net)

 

 Briefing on Congressman Dennis Kucinich and The Space Preservation Acts

 

1.107th Congress

 

HR1160 To terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication System of the Navy.

 

2.107th congress (first session)

 

HR2977 Space Preservation Act of 2001

 

3.107th Congress (second session)

 

HR3616 Space Preservation Act of 2002

 

4.108th Congress

 

HR3657 Space Preservation Act of 2003

 

5.109th Congress

 

HR2420 Space Preservation Act of 2005

 

The first Bill HR1160 refers to the use of extremely low frequency communications used by the Navy. However, one of the major areas of interest in active ionospheric research at the HAARP facility is the generation of frequencies below approximately 5 kHz. Kucinich was one of 18 co-sponsors of this Bill.

 

The second Bill, which was sponsored by Kucinich in October 2001, HR2977, lists all the secret and exotic technologies he learned about via his position on the House Armed Services oversight committee. These include mind and mood control technologies, tectonic weapons (i.e. to generate earthquakes), chemtrails, weather modification and other environmental weapons.

 

The third, fourth, and fifth Bills sponsored by Kucinich remove all references to exotic technologies. The weaponry referred to is exclusively space-based weaponry, operating at altitudes of above 110km. This would exclude chemtrails delivered by aircraft and HAARP which is land-based although it targets the ionosphere (90-600km). The exotic weapons systems in HR2977 are defined as being land-based and sea-based as well as space-based.

 

These amended versions are only opposing President Bush's public shift in space-based weapons policy which was to withdraw from the 30 year old Anti-Ballistic missile Treaty in 2002. The new policy envisages weapons systems that can attack enemy satellites and intercept missiles. These are not secret weapons.

 

It seems that within four months of drafting HR2977, Kucinich was given a sharp slap on the wrist and warned off debating secret weapons. Interestingly there were no co-sponsors of HR2977 but there are many co-sponsors of the subsequent sanitized versions.

 

I have not been able to find any records of Kucinich publicly commenting on exotic weapons after HR2977.

 

 Briefing on HAARP and the US Congress

 

I couldn't find anything on HAARP in the US Congress website thomas.loc.gov other than Kucinich's Bills. There are references to HAARP in various defence appropriations Bills.

 

However, Dr Nick Begich has an article on his website entitled Star Wars, Star Trek and Killing Politely which references comments by the US Secretary of Defense, William Cohen. In 1997, in a news briefing, Cohen said:

 

Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves (1)

 

(1)Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, April 28, 1997. Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy at the Georgia Center, Mahler Auditorium, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.

http://www.earthpulse.com/haarp/starwars.html

 

 Briefing on the European Parliament resolution on HAARP

 

The driver behind international concerns about HAARP is Dr. Nick Begich from Alaska. He wrote the book Angels Don't Play This HAARP:Advances in Tesla Technology, which is 230 pages of detailed information, in 1995.

 

His article On the Trail Towards New Science attached, recounts his attendance at a public hearing of the European Parliament 5th February 1998. His principal contact was Tom Spencer, the  Conservative MEP who chaired the Foreign Affairs Committee. I attach the notes from that committee meeting from the EU website. Entitled Background Information 09-02-98 The HAARP Project and non-lethal weapons, it is worth reading in its entirety. Tom Spencer invited the Americans to attend to discuss HAARP, but they declined. Dr Begich and Dr Rosalie Bertell described how HAARP could be used as a weapon to,

 

disrupt electronic communications worldwide by acting upon the ionosphere

cause earthquakes and tidal waves

deprive areas of the world of water through weather modification.

 

Unfortunately, the procedures of the European Union do not require such meetings to be minuted. This information is merely a summary of what was discussed.

 

I attach some background information on Tom Spencer. He left politics in 1999, but it seems that he is a very prominent environmentalist. The information was take from his personal website.

 

The hearing contributed to the report written by Swedish MEP Maj Britt Theorin for the Foreign Affairs Committee entitled Report on the environment, security and foreign policy A4-0005/99. It was published 14th January 1999 after it received an endorsement or "opinion" from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection.

 

I attach an edited version of this report which includes only the relevant passages on HAARP and non-lethal weapons.

 

The report includes a motion for a resolution by the European Parliament, an explanatory statement, and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment.

 

The resolution requested

 

that an independent panel of scientific experts scrutinize the legal, ethical and ecological impact of HAARP

that the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel of the European Union assess the impact of HAARP

that the European Commission and the governments of Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Russian Federation examine the environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings.

an international ban on chemical, electrical and sound weapons which can manipulate the human brain.

 

The passage on HAARP in the explanatory statement is entitled HAARP - a weapons system which disrupts the climate. It describes HAARP as a weapon that can

 

heat up the ionosphere and focus large amounts of energy on a particular area by creating artificial lenses

serve as an anti-missile system by focusing electrical energy on a moving target

allow better communications with submarines

disrupt global communications

manipulate global weather patterns

penetrate the earth for the purposes of tomography (ie x-raying and mapping the earth).

 

The Opinion of the Committee on the Environment was that

 

HAARP was a serious threat to global environment and human health

the European Commission should urge the US, Russia and all other countries involved with these type of weapons to desist, and to devise and international treaty to ban them.

there should be an international ban on chemical, electrical and sound weapons weapons that can manipulate the human brain.

 

In response to this report, the European Parliament passed a resolution on the environment, security, and foreign policy on 28 January 1999. I attach an edited version.

 

The Parliament,

 

regards 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.

Regrets the refusal of the US to send any representatives to the public hearing.

Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to examine HAARP.

Calls on the Commission to examine if there are environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its finding.

Calls for an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human being.

 

European Parliamentary Questions

 

On 28 April 2003,  Hiltrud Breyer (MEP) put a written question (E-1453/03) to the Commission asking what progress it had made on the resolution passed four years earlier. Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission replied on 3 July 2003, that,

 

The High frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP) for Arctic Europe is a military programme. The Commission has no competence, nor indeed the expertise, to carry out the examination requested by the Parliament in paragraph 26 of its Resolution.

 

On 29 April 2004, Paul Lannoye (MEP) put the same question to the Commission, but there has been no reply. Apparently the question has "lapsed" under rule 185. I do not understand what this means.

 

This is the latest information I have been able to find on the website of the European Union.

 

 Briefing on HAARP and the UK Parliament

 

I have searched the UK Parliament website, which includes Hansard, and have found one MP who raised the issue. On 17th October 2002, Paul Flynn MP for Newport West, raised the subject of HAARP during a Commons debate on defence. He pointed out that HAARP boils the ionosphere and that there might be terrible weapons that we are not aware of. On 21st October 2002 he put a Parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Defence, Dr. Moonie:

 

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the HAARP programme; and what contribution Britain is making to it.

 

Dr. Moonie: The Ministry of Defence is fully aware of the HAARP project. However the MOD has made no specific assessment of the project for defence purposes nor has it contributed towards it.     

 

Paul Flynn MP has an article on his website which I attach. The article summarizes the book by Dr. Begich, Angels Don't Play this HAARP.

 

It concludes with the statements of the Russian Parliament which called upon President Putin to press the US to abandon the HAARP programme. The Duma also said that there are two other stations in Greenland and Norway which could be used in conjunction with HAARP. The one in Norway is called the EISCAT (European Incoherent Scatter) which is jointly funded by research councils of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Japan, France, the United Kingdom and Germany.




 Additonal Information on HAARP and Mind Control

 

Extracts from chapters 22 and 23 of Angels Don't Play this HAARP,

by Dr. Nick Begich www.earthpulse.com

 

"The predominant brain wave frequencies indicate the kind of activity taking place in the brain. There are four basic groups of brain wave frequencies which are associated with most mental activity. The first, beta waves, (13-25 hertz of pulses per second) are associated with normal activity when a person's attention is directed outward, toward normal activities. The high end of this range is associated with stress or agitated states which can impair thinking and reasoning skills. The second group, alpha waves (8-12 hertz), can indicate relaxation. Alpha frequencies are ideal for learning and focused mental functioning. The third, theta waves (4-7 hertz), indicate mental imagery, access to memories and internal mental focus. This state is often associated with young children, behavioural modification and sleep/dream states. The last, ultra slow, delta waves (0.5-3 hertz) are found when a person is in deep sleep. The general rule is that the brain's predominant wave frequency will be lowest, in terms of pulses per second, when relaxed, and highest when people are most alert or agitated.

 

"External stimulation of the brain by electromagnetic means can cause the brain to be entrained or locked into phase with an external signal generator. Predominant brain waves can be driven or pushed into new frequency patterns by external stimulation. .....

 

"In combination with specific wave forms the various frequencies trigger precise chemical responses in the brain. The release of these neurochemicals cause specific reactions in the brain which result in feelings of fear, lust, depression, love, etc. All of these, and the full range of emotional/intellectual responses, are caused by very specfic combinations of these brain chemicals which are released by frequency-specific electrical impulses. ..... The work in this area is advancing at a rapid rate with new discoveries being made regularly. Unlocking the knowledge of these specific frequencies will yield significant break-throughs in understanding human health. Radio frequency radiation, acting as a carrier for extremely low frequencies (ELF), can be used to  wirelessly entrain brain waves. This is what HAARP could do in certain of its applications; however, the side effects of this on humans are not explored in the HAARP records but do appear in other government documents referred to in this book. .....

 

".... The power levels to achieve a measure of control of brain activity is very small- from 5 to 200 microamperes- which is thousands of times less than the power required to run a 60-watt lightbulb. We are talking about very, very low power requirements. The trick for influencing brain activity is in the combination of frequency, power level and wave form. What has taken place over the last two decades, and most particularly in the last several years, represent huge moves forward. ....

 

".... According to HAARP records, when the device is built to full power it can send VLF and ELF waves using many wave forms at energy levels sufficient to affect entire populations.

 

" Dr Jose M. R. Delgado, M.D., has researched the human brain and published his results in professional papers since 1952. .... He found than by inducing electrical current in the brain of his subject, he could manipulate behaviour. Delgado discovered that he could create a number of effects from sleep to highly agitated states of consciousness. His later work was done wirelessly, with his most advanced efforts developed without electrode implants used at all. ....

 

".... John Heckscher, HAARP program manager, made clear in an interview that the frequencies and energies used in HAARP were controllable and in some applications would be pulsed in the 1-20 hertz range. ....

 

".... The HAARP system creates a huge coherent controllable electromagnetic field which could be compared to a Delgado EMF, except HAARP'S doesn't fill a room, it potentially fills a region the size of a large western state and possibly, a hemisphere. Basically, the HAARP transmitter in this application will emit energy of the same level of the Earth's, which is fifty times more than what was needed in the wireless experiments of Delgado. What this means is that if HAARP is tuned to the right frequency, using just the right wave forms, mental disruption throughout a region could occur intentionally or as a side effect of the transmissions. "

 

Further applications of HAARP described by Begich

 

Cyclotron resonance

 

HAARP can have significant effects on living cells, causing chemical reactions and physiological responses. This concept has been explored by the US Naval Medical Research Center. They found that resonant frequencies could enhance the biological effects of naturally occurring chemicals, thereby creating the same reaction as if a drug had been administered. The military application of this would be to administer a tiny amount of a toxic substance on the battlefield and then enhance its effect with resonant frequencies. This technique is clearly described in US Air Force documents, but it is not disclosed in any of the documents associated with the HAARP project.

 

The same technique can be used to heal diseases or create them. Delgado conducted experiments to heal bone fractures, induce genetic deformations, and alter the immune system. These effects can be achieved with very small amounts of controlled power.

http://www.policestateplanning.com/briefings.htm

 

Also try this site

Beneath the Debate on Climate Change: Weather Warfare and the Manipulation of Climate for Military Use

 

by Michel Chossudovsky on

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3653

 A little here

 

"Weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary... In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels."

(US Air Force, emphasis added. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report,
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ )


Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, ... and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare, (...)Recognizing that military ... use of such [environmental modification techniques] could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare, Desiring to prohibit effectively military ... use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind. ... and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective, (...) Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military ... use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

(Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, Geneva: 18 May 1977, Entered into force: 5 October 1978, see full text of Convention in Annex)


The ongoing debate on Climate Change focusses exclusively on the impacts of global warming. The debate on climate change centers on formal measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. 

The recent publication of a report by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, presents a catastrophic picture of climatic disruptions. "Its recommendations are based on stabilising carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at between 450 and 550 parts per million - which would still require a cut of at least 25 per cent in global emissions, rising to 60 per cent for the wealthy nations."

The underlying consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions constitute the sole cause of climate instability.Neither the governments nor the environmental action groups, have raised the  issue of "weather warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)." for military use.  

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use  is no longer part of the UN agenda on climate change.

In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned  "military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects." (AP, 18 May 1977).  Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention.

The Convention defined "'environmental modification techniques' as referring to any technique for changing--through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes--the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or of outer space." (Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27)

The substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

"States have... in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (...) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction."

(UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992.
 
http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html).

In February 1998, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the U.S based weather warfare facility developed under the HAARP program.  The Committee's "Motion for Resolution" submitted to the European Parliament:

"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...; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration... to give evidence to the public hearing ...into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program." (European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999).

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacked the required jurisdiction to delve into "the links between environment and defense". Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington. (see European Report, 3 February 1999).

The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, has never considered relevant. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.

Ironically, the Pentagon, while recognizing its ability to modify the World's climate for military use, has joined the global warming consensus. In a major study (pdf) , the Pentagon has analyzed in detail the implications of various global warming scenarios. 

The following article entitled The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction:Owning the Weather for Military Use was first published in September 2004 


The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: Owning the Weather for Military

by Michel Chossudovsky,

27 September 2004


What are the underlying causes of extreme weather instability, which has ravaged every major region of the World in the course of the last few years?  

Hurricanes and tropical storms have ravaged the Caribbean. Central Asia and the Middle East are afflicted by drought. West Africa is facing the biggest swarm of locusts in more than a decade. Four destructive hurricanes and a tropical rain storm  Alex, Ivan, Frances, Charley and Jeanne have occurred in a sequence, within a short period of time. Unprecedented in hurricane history in the Caribbean, the island of Grenada was completely devastated: 37 people died and roughly two-thirds of the island's 100,000 inhabitants have been left homeless; in Haiti, more than two thousand people have died and tens of thousands are homeless. The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Cuba, the Bahamas and Florida have also been devastated. In the US, the damage in several Southern states including Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and the Carolinas is the highest in US history.

A study released in July 2003, by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) places the blame, without further examination, at the feet of global warming:

"These record extreme events [high temperatures, low temperatures and high rainfall amounts and droughts] all go into calculating the monthly and annual averages which, for temperatures, have been gradually increasing over the past 100 years," the WMO said in its statement (CNN, July 3, 2003, http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/07/03/wmo.extremes/ )

While global warming is undoubtedly an important factor, it does not fully account for these extreme and unusual weather patterns.

Weather Warfare

The significant expansion in America's weather warfare arsenal, which is a priority of the Department of Defense is not a matter for debate or discussion. While, environmentalists blame the Bush administration for not having signed the Kyoto protocol, the issue of "weather warfare", namely the manipulation of weather patterns for military use is never mentioned.

The US Air Force has the capability of manipulating climate either for testing purposes or for outright military-intelligence use. These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes. In recent years, large amounts of money have been allocated by the US Department of Defense to further developing and perfecting these capabilities. 

Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally... It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence  purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, ... and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power. (US Air Force, emphasis added. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ emphasis added)

While there is no firm evidence that the US Air Force weather warfare facilities have been deliberately applied to modify weather patterns, one would expect that if these capabilities are being developed for military use, they would at least be the object of routine testing, much in the same way as the testing of new conventional and strategic weapons systems. 

Needless to say, the subject matter is a scientific taboo. The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, is never considered as relevant. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.

Ironically, the Pentagon, while recognizing its ability to modify the World's climate for military use, has joined the global warming consensus. In a major study (pdf) , the Pentagon has analyzed in detail the implications of various global warming scenarios. 

The Pentagon document constitutes a convenient cover-up. Not a word is mentioned about its main weather warfare program: The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska --jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy.


TABLE 1:  Unusual Weather Patterns (2003-2004)

Alex, Ivan, Frances, Charley and Jeanne (August-September 2004): Four destructive hurricanes and a tropical rain storm occur in a sequence, within a short period of time. Unprecedented in hurricane history in the Caribbean, the island of Grenada is completely devastated: 37 people died and roughly two-thirds of the island's 100,000 inhabitants have been left homeless, in Haiti, more than two thousand people have died and tens of thousands have been made homeless. The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Cuba and the Bahamas have also been devastated. 

In the US, the damage hitting several Southern states including Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and the Carolinas is the highest in US history.

Brazil  March 2004:   The first-ever hurricane formed in the South Atlantic, striking Brazil with 90 mph winds and causing up to a dozen deaths. "Meteorologists were left scratching their heads in bewilderment as the familiar swirl of clouds, complete with a well-defined eye, appeared in an oceanic basin where none had been spotted before." (WP, 19 September 2004, See also http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/brazil_hurricane.shtml )

Japan, China and the Korean Peninsula: "Japan has suffered its highest number of typhoon strikes on record, and the storms -- which hit at the rate of one a week for much of the summer -- wreaked havoc in Taiwan, China and the Korean Peninsula." (ibid)

China (August 2004): Typhoon Rananim, the worst in 48 years, has killed at least 164 people and injured more than 1800 in China's Zhejiang province. Rananim is confirmed by China's meteorological authorities to be the strongest to hit the Chinese mainland since 1956. It is estimated to have disrupted the life of some 13 million people, http://www.cma.gov.cn/ywwz/englishread.php?recid=39616

United States May 2003 : 562 tornadoes hit the United States, the highest in recorded history, far exceeding the previous monthly peak of 399 in June 1992.(CNN, July 3, 2003, http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/07/03/wmo.extremes/ )

India, early 2003: a pre-monsoon heat wave caused peak temperatures of between 45 and 49 degrees Celsius (113 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit), killing more than 1400 people.(Ibid)  

Sri Lanka, "heavy rainfalls from Tropical Cyclone 01B exacerbated already wet conditions, causing flooding and landslides and more than 300 fatalities." (Ibid)

Western Europe Summer 2003: experienced extremely high Summer temperatures. "Switzerland experienced its hottest June [2003] in at least 250 years while in the south of France average temperatures were between 5 and 7 degrees Celsius (9 to 13 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the long term average. England and Wales also experienced their hottest month since 1976." (Ibid)

**************************

21st Oct 2002 Parliamentary Question

HAARP Programme

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the HAARP programme; and what contribution Britain is making to it. [75022]

Dr. Moonie: The Ministry of Defence is fully aware of the HAARP project. However the MOD has made no specific assessment of the project for defence purposes nor has it contributed towards it.

*******************************************************

See also

http://www.earthpulse.com/src/category.asp?catid=1

HAARP

In an Arctic compound 200 miles east of Anchorage, Alaska, the Pentagon has erected a powerful transmitter designed to beam more than a gigawatt of energy into the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Known as Project HAARP (High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program), the $30 million experiment involves the world's largest "ionospheric heater," a prototype device designed to zap the skies hundreds of miles above the earth with high-frequency radio waves.

Why irradiate the charged particles of the ionosphere (which when energized by natural processes make up the lovely and famous phenomenon known as the Northern Lights)? According to the U.S. Navy and Air Force, co-sponsors of the project, "to observe the complex natural variations of Alaska's ionosphere." That, says the Pentagon, and also to develop new forms of communications and surveillance technologies that will enable the military to send signals to nuclear submarines and to peer deep underground.

60 Greatest Conspiracies first reported on HAARP more than a year ago. Since then, inquiring Internauts have blamed the peculiar project for everything from UFO activity to major power outages in the Western United States, to, most recently, the downing of TWA Flight 800. (The Pentagon maintains that the HAARP array has been inactive since late last year.) Some have dubbed it the "Pentagon's doomsday death ray." Though many of these theories are, well, creatively amplified, an assortment of more grounded critics--environmentalists, Native Americans and Alaskan citizens among them--argue that the military does indeed have Strangelovian plans for this unusual hardware, applications ranging from "Star Wars" missile defense schemes to weather modification plots and perhaps even mind control experiments.

The HAARP complex is situated within a 23-acre lot in a relatively isolated region near the town of Gakona. When the final phase of the project is completed in 1997, the military will have erected 180 towers, 72 feet in height, forming a "high-power, high frequency phased array radio transmitter" capable of beaming in the 2.5-10 megahertz frequency range, at more than 3 gigawatts of power (3 billion watts).

According to the Navy and Air Force, HAARP "will be used to introduce a small, known amount of energy into a specific ionospheric layer" anywhere from several miles to several tens of miles in radius. Not surprisingly, Navy and Air Force PR (posted on the official HAARP World Wide Web Internet site, an effort to combat the bad press the project has generated), downplays both the environmental impacts of the project and purported offensive uses of the technology.

However, a series of patents owned by the defense contractor managing the HAARP project suggests that the Pentagon might indeed have more ambitious designs. In fact, one of those patents was classified by the Navy for several years during the 1980s. The key document in the bunch is U.S. Patent number 4,686,605, considered by HAARP critics to be the "smoking raygun," so to speak. Held by ARCO Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), the ARCO subsidiary contracted to build HAARP, this patent describes an ionospheric heater very similar to the HAARP heater invented by Bernard J. Eastlund, a Texas physicist. In the patent--subsequently published on the Internet by foes of HAARP--Eastlund describes a fantastic offensive and defensive weapon that would do any megalomaniacal James Bond super villain proud.

According to the patent, Eastlund's invention would heat plumes of charged particles in the ionosphere, making it possible to, for starters, selectively "disrupt microwave transmissions of satellites" and "cause interference with or even total disruption of communications over a large portion of the earth." But like his hopped up ions, Eastlund was just warming up. Per the patent text, the physicist's "method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere" would also:

  • "cause confusion of or interference with or even complete disruption of guidance systems employed by even the most sophisticated of airplanes and missiles";
  • "not only... interfere with third-party communications, but [also] take advantage of one or more such beams to carry out a communications network at the same time. Put another way, what is used to disrupt another's communications can be employed by one knowledgeable of this invention as a communications network at the same time";
  • "pick up communication signals of others for intelligence purposes";
  • facilitate "missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion" by lifting large regions of the atmosphere "to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection of same."

If Eastlund's brainchild sounds like a recipe for that onetime Cold War panacea, the Strategic Defense Initiative (AKA "Star Wars"), it's probably no coincidence. The APTI/Eastlund patent was filed during the final days of the Reagan administration, when plans for high-tech missile defense systems were still all the rage. But Eastlund's blue-sky vision went far beyond the usual Star Wars prescriptions of the day and suggested even more unusual uses for his patented ionospheric heater.

"Weather modification," the patent states, "is possible by... altering upper atmospheric wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of particles which will act as a lens or focusing device." As a result, an artificially heated could focus a "vast amount of sunlight on selected portions of the earth."

HAARP officials deny any link to Eastlund's patents or plans. But several key details suggest otherwise. For starters, APTI, holder of the Eastlund patents, continues to manage the HAARP project. During the summer of 1994, ARCO sold APTI to E-Systems, a defense contractor known for counter-surveillance projects. E-Systems, in turn, is currently owned by Raytheon, one of the world's largest defense contractors and maker of the SCUD-busting Patriot missile. All of which suggests that more than just simple atmospheric science is going on in the HAARP compound.

What's more, one of the APTI/Eastlund patents singles out Alaska as the ideal site for a high-frequency ionospheric heater because "magnetic field lines... which extend to desirable altitudes for this invention, intersect the earth in Alaska." APTI also rates Alaska as an ideal location given its close proximity to an ample source of fuel to power the project: the vast reserves of natural gas in the North Slope region--reserves owned by APTI parent company ARCO.

Eastlund also contradicts the official military line. He told National Public Radio that a secret military project to develop his work was launched during the late 1980s. And in the May/June 1994 issue of Microwave News, Eastlund suggested that "The HAARP project obviously looks a lot like the first step" toward the designs outlined in his patents.

Eastlund's patent really trips into conspiratorial territory in its "References Cited" section. Two of the sources documented by Eastlund are New York Times articles from 1915 and 1940 profiling Nikola Tesla, a giant in the annals of Conspiratorial History. Tesla, a brilliant inventor and contemporary of Edison, developed hundreds of patents during his lifetime, and is often credited with developing radio before Marconi, among a host of other firsts. Of course, mainstream science has never fully acknowledged Tesla's contributions, and his later pronouncements (he vowed that he had developed a technology that could split the earth asunder) have left him straddling that familiar historical territory where genius meets crackpot. Not surprisingly, fringe science and conspiracy theory have made Tesla something of a patron saint. Whenever, talk radio buzz or Internet discussion turns to alleged government experiments to cause earthquakes or modify weather, references to government-suppressed "Tesla Technology" are sure to follow.

Of course, mainstream science has never fully acknowledged Tesla's contributions, and his later pronouncements (he vowed that he had developed a technology that could split the earth asunder) have left him straddling that familiar historical territory where genius meets crackpot. Not surprisingly, fringe science and conspiracy theory have made Tesla something of a patron saint. Whenever, talk radio buzz or Internet discussion turns to alleged government experiments to cause earthquakes or modify weather, references to government-suppressed "Tesla Technology" are sure to follow.

Judging from the APTI patent, Tesla was a major inspiration for Eastlund ionospheric heater. The first New York Times article, dated September 22, 1940, reports that Tesla, then 84 years old, "stands ready to divulge to the United States Government the secret of his 'teleforce,' with which, he said, airplane motors would be melted at a distance of 250 miles, so that an invisible Chinese Wall of Defense would be built around the country." Quoting Tesla, the Times story continues: "This new type of force, Mr. Tesla said, would operate through a beam one hundred-millionth of a square centimeter in diameter, and could be generated from a special plant that would cost no more than $2,000,000 and would take only about three months to construct."

The second New York Times story, dated December 8, 1915, describes one of Tesla's more well-known patents, a transmitter that would "project electrical energy in any amount to any distance and apply it for innumerable purposes, both in war and peace."

The similarity of Tesla's ideas to Eastlund's invention are remarkable, and by extension the overlap between Tesla and HAARP technology is downright intriguing. Apparently, APTI and the Pentagon are taking Eastlund's--and by extension, Tesla's--ideas seriously.

Eastlund seems to agree. As he told one journalist/conspiracy pathfinder: "HAARP is the perfect first step towards a plan like mine. ...The government will say it isn't so, but if it quacks like a duck and it looks like a duck, there's a good chance it is a duck."

http://www.spinspace.com/biophysics/haarp.htm

 

Ionosphere Research Lab
Sparks Fears in Alaska

SITKA, ALASKA -- Public outreach doesn't always unfold according to plan. Just ask University of Alaska plasma physicist Joseph Kan. Last fall. Kan traveled to Gakona, a tiny town 300 kilometers southeast of Fairbanks, where the Department of Defense (DOD) is constructing the world's most powerful ionospheric research laboratory. His mission was to chat with townspeople about a $90 million program known as HAARP, or High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program -- an ambitious effort to study the roiling ionized gases of Earth's upper atmosphere. Kan was expecting technical questions, but instead he says he got an earful of "fears" about the facility. One person described seeing a mysterious "green glow" above the site; another claimed that it was making caribou walk backward and having a "mind-bending effect" on local residents.

Confusing caribou was not exactly what the military had in mind when in the late 1980s it decided to build the research facility at a DOD-owned site near Gakona. The project is designed to probe 50-kilometer patches of the ionosphere --the layer of charged gases that begins about 80 kilometers above Earth's surface and extends out beyond 400 kilometers -- with a powerful beam of high-frequency radio waves. When completed, HAARP will allow scientists to study fundamental physical and chemical processes in the ionosphere, and the military to develop and enhance long-range radio communications, surveillance, and navigation systems.

But the project has come under fire from a diverse slew of critics, ranging from local residents worried about their health to activists who charge that the military is planning to use HAARP for a variety of top-secret, sinister purposes. Last year, tor instance, anti-HAARP activist Nick Begich, son of a former Alaska congressman, published Angels Don't Play This HAARP, in which he argues that the military plans to use HAARP to manipulate weather patterns and jam the thoughts of millions of people worldwide, among other claims. All this is putting the project's backers on the defensive. While HAARP project director John Heckscher of the Phillips Laboratory in Boston vows that anti-HAARP activists won't stop the project, he allows that they may succeed in delaying its launch, which is scheduled for 2002.

The Gakona facility originally was established by the U.S. Air Force and the Office of Naval Research as an over-the-horizon radar station, part of the Distant Early Warning System for monitoring Soviet aircraft and missiles. When the Cold War ended, the military scrubbed the radar facility, and with the help of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, chair of the defense appropriations subcommittee, won the federal funds to begin transforming it into an ionospheric lab.

For U.S. plasma physicists, HAARP is a dream come true. Re-creating ionospheric processes in earthbound laboratories is notoriously difficult. Space has no walls, so as soon as charged gases like those in the ionosphere hit a barrier of some kind, the experiment is effectively over, says Cornell University physicist Michael Kelley, chair of the U.S. Ionospheric Interactions Program steering committee. With its focused beam of high-frequency radio waves, HAARP will excite, or "heat," ions and electrons in the ionosphere, much as the sun does. This will allow scientists to observe in a controlled fashion the complex physical processes that occur naturally. Says Kelley, "Very little space science is manipulative. But the normal scientific method is done by cause and effect; this is our tiny tool to help us do that."

The DOD is equally enthusiastic about the project. The ionosphere reflects radio signals and so provides long-range capabilities for military and civilian communications, navigation, surveillance, and remote-sensing systems. But it also distorts and absorbs the signals. Researchers hope that a better understanding of how the sun interacts with the ionosphere will enable them to develop and enhance these crucial space-based systems.

One application the military is particularly interested in exploring with HAARP is the use of Extremely Low Frequency ( ELF) signals for communicating with submerged submarines. Unlike conventional radio waves, ELF signals can penetrate several kilometers below the ocean surface, allowing subs to receive transmissions without risking detection by coming close to the surface. The military already operates an ELF system with two transmitting antennas, one in Michigan and one in Wisconsin. Unlike these facilities, HAARP would not transmit such signals from the ground. Instead, its many powerful antennas would be able to generate ELFs at an altitude of about 80 kilometers. By tapping into the supercharged portion of the ionosphere over the Arctic, called the electrojet, HAARP scientists are hoping to create a virtual transmitter in space that would allow the Navy to communicate with subs worldwide.

But anti-HAARP skeptics claim that the military has even bigger plans for the project. HAARP's somewhat menacing appearance surely hasn't helped resolve its public-relations problem: 48 21-meter radio antennas now loom behind the Gakona facility's barbed-wire fence, and, when completed, the 9-hectare antenna farm will be stuffed with 180 towers. In his book, Begich, who is the informal spokesperson for the loosely knit anti-HAARP coalition, writes that all this technology is part of a DOD plan to raise a Star wars-type missile shield and devise technologies for jamming global communications worldwide. Physical chemist Richard Williams, a consultant for the David Sarnoff Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, further argues that HAARP could irreparably damage the ionosphere: "This is basically atmospheric physicists playing with the ionosphere, which is vital to the life of this planet." Also, he asserts that "this whole concept of electromagnetic warfare" needs to be "publicly debated."

The HAARP critics have asked for a public conference to discuss their concerns and hear more details about the science from the military. They have written hundreds of letters to Alaska's congressional delegation and have succeeded in getting the attention of several state legislators, who held legislative hearings on the subject last year.

Many scientists who work on HAARP are dumbfounded by the charges. "We are just improving on technology that already exists," says Heckscher. He points out that the Max Planck Institute has been running a big ionospheric "heater" in Tromsø, Norway, since the late 1970s with no lasting effects. U.S. scientists don't have good access because the United States did not join the Norwegian consortium. Also, the United States already operates two other small ionospheric heaters, at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico and at HIPAS, operated by the University of California, Los Angeles, 325 kilometers down the road from HAARP in Chena Hot Springs, Alaska. The HAARP facility, with three times the power of current facilities and a vastly more flexible radio beam, will be the world's largest ionospheric heater.

Still, it will not be nearly powerful enough to change Earth's climate, say scientists. "They are talking science fiction," says Syun-Ichi Akasofu, who heads the University of Alaska's Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks, the lead institution in a university consortium that made recommendations to the military about how HAARP could be used for basic research. HAARP won't be doing anything to the ionosphere that doesn't happen naturally as a result of solar radiation, says Akasofu. Indeed, the beam's effect on the ionosphere is minuscule compared to normal day-night variations. "To do what [the critics] are talking about, we would have to flatten the entire state of Alaska and put up millions of antennas, and even then, I am not sure it would work."

Weather is generated, not in the ionosphere, hut in the dense atmosphere close to Earth, points out University of Tulsa provost and plasma physicist Lewis Duncan, former chair of the U.S. Ionospheric Steering Committee. Because HAARP's radio beam only excites and heats ionized particles, it will slip right through the lower atmosphere, which is composed primarily of neutral gases. "If climate modifications were even conceivable using this technology, you can bet there would be a lot more funding available for it," he jokes.

Critics also charge that the HAARP project is suspect because--having been funded directly by Congress--it has never undergone a formal, scientific review process. Mitch Rose, Stevens's chief of staff, counters that the critics shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. "Let's face it, the DOD has a good budget, and they have the resources to support this type of program.... We are hoping that HAARP will be a harbinger for a different Silicon Valley for Alaska."

Whatever economic benefits HAARP bestows, they won't be felt for a few more years: While Congress has budgeted $15 million in the FY '97 budget for HAARP, Heckscher says that all the legislative hearings, requests for information, and piles of letters have slowed the project down. Still, the University of Alaska's Kan hopes the controversy will prove to be a boon for physics: "I see this as a tremendous opportunity to educate the public about physics and auroral studies."

[Photo: see HAARP Website] Antenna farm. Gakona will sprout 180 transmitters. Map of Alaska.  

Lisa Busch   http://jya.com/haarp.htm

Lisa Busch is a science writer in Sitka, Alaska.