Black Spirituality Religion : Is This Present Coronavirus Outbreak a Part of Biblical Prophecy (the Pale Rider)?

[frankster]

Please link me to a working model at scale. Please and thank you.

Please link me to successful tests of radio waves from thousands of miles away causing an earthquake. Again. Please and thank you.

I am Going to link you to something that US Military wishes to keep secret....lol
I can only provide you with what's in the public domain and available to me and you.

The point about politics was that it doesn't always matter if something is technically possible. People often imagine that if the government CAN do something, then it's taken as the same as if they are doing it. Other factors are often rarely considered by conspiracy theorists, such as the ability to keep secrets, the funding of the operation, the oversight of the funding, etc. People think that a bunch of shady people can just walk into a room, have a meeting to casually discuss population control, and then easily have whole departments of the government, working with fully independent companies and scientists, in order to execute such schemes. That's just not how the government works. Imagining it can work that way is part of the problem.

Hitler did it.
The US did It to the Indians
Zionist are doing it as we speak
need I go on

And again... why would the military EVER turn over a WMD type of weapon into civilian hands with public tours. This is not at all comparable to a Navy battleship because it doesn't have live ammunition. When the military decomissions a boat or something to use as a museum, they basically take the teeth out. So if that didn't happen, is it possible it never had WMD teeth to begin with?

Intrepid aircraft carrier also now have public tours.....decommissioned.

Similar question... but with people.

How do you discredit someone who is credible? Like with Flat Earth... NONE of those guys are credible on the subject and yet that doesn't stop multiple people from claiming they know. So aside from discrediting them, and showing pictures of the planet that they will "discredit" by simply attacking the trustworthiness of government... what do you do?

Simply bad press and call all of his achievement into question...

In-Depth: Did Robert Malone invent mRNA vaccines in San Diego?​

Because this idea that the government isn't trustworthy is true, but then how far do you take that? Do you stop trusting scientists? This is why I attack conspiracy theories in general. It's not because I love the government and Obama is my BFF. And I do think 911 may have been an inside job. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/959504/belief-september-11-inside-job-conspiracy-us/) But there is a connection between every conspiracy and it is simply the measurement of how much we fear the government. That is the foundation of every (government) conspiracy theory. Is there a deep state? Was the moon landing faked? Are the Illuminati secretly controlling the world? Are there lizard men posing as humans? It's a rabbit hole.

Do your research to the best of your ability....with an eye to history of people politics and money.

 

[frankster]

If you asked "can you magnify light into a beam and change its direction" I would say yes.
If you asked the same thing but said without glass/mirrors, this is where I would struggle. We know how to do certain things so that knowledge is a constant. Without those constants I don't know how the equation still works.

Ionosphere you can bounce refract/reflect certain frequencies off of it.....no need for glass/mirrors.

And yes and no. That's how warfare "worked". We're in the information age now. The most effective military strategies are now in my field. Causing physical destruction land or buildings is one thing. Causing damage to networks and stealing data is a different level. Then there is digital spycraft. Things are changing without everyone in the world noticing. It's not about big weapons killing armies but rather small weapons/drones, targeting individuals.

Yes.....But every countries still buys Guns and explosives for manufacturers

HAARP could be easily taken out by Russia; even though Russian military force leaves MUCH to be desired. If you really wanted to create next gen weapons, what I would personally recommend is a Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) followed by a number of satellites that would only go into orbit after the EMP has done its job. And then that would simply direct microwave energy from space. Or maybe satellites that collect space junk and turn it into flaming projectiles. But again... we're not in the age of James Bond super weapons. We're in a more "elegant" age when it comes to modern warfare. Once you pull out your germs, nukes, or death stars, everyone else pulls from their own hat.c

Yes and very likely they already have that in place....Since HAARP in Alaska is decommissioned as a military facility.
The New Theory around HAARP is that it is now scale down to fit on a Naval vessel.

https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/nahb-community/docs/councils/bsc/concrete-home-technology-briefs/IS309-concrete-homes-technology-brief-no10.pdf

Disruptive, sure. But it would not be very effective as a weapon since those structures are built with hurricanes and earthquakes in mind.

All it needs to be is disruptive....if it accomplishes that then its fulfilled it capabilities.

HAARP is 90s tech. Considering it hasn't been used in any war since,

Some say it was used in Syria

that seems like significant lead time to produce a counter signal (which is how noise-cancelling headphones work). Again... as with any WMD where and how would they use it? Would they use it against civilians? Obama caught a lot of heat over the use of drones because of "collateral damage".

If No one believe its possible or workable....then no one would ask questions when its used

Which president (besides Trump) do you think would be willing to press the button and send hurricanes and tornadoes that will kill non-combatant men, women, and children? Again, we're just not in that James Bond super weapon era and this is largely the reason why. It's simply not efficient to cause that much destruction and death vs whatever goal you have in the region and whatever relationships that threatened politically and diplomatically.

Truman did...
IDF is killing civilians as we speak.
The Nazi Blitz kill mostly civilians.

 

[frankster]

well if you call it an "exotic machine" it's easier to believe it does exotic things.

From what I found, it is simply a generator that produces energy without moving parts. To be honest, I find this article a little suspect. Seems like it was posted more to promote a website than anything else. Such as it is with a site where anyone can post on.

I definitely know there is more than one way of skinning a cat. However, this post smells of sci-fi; especially the part about artificial lighting. Again, small scale, yes (tesla coils). Large scale with large implications... No.

Of Course it is suspect....
All official sites with such type of info has been sanitize or threatened.
Sketchy site that are suspect are allowed to have these type of info it helps to discredit the info...

I hope I am all caught up.....if I have failed to respond to any post with regard to this thread please let me know.

 

[IPXninja]

Thanks


No...not with a magnifying glass
With array of Antennas like a HAARP or a parabolic reflectors


Good...that is an example of concentrated Radio Waves..
Depends on how much space you want to affect....you not trying to affect the entire ocean but a relatively small part.

So it is even easier to heat

HAARP Explained - Inventor Dr Bernard Eastlund​

The above quote reminds of when Einstein Famously said Nuclear energy will never be realized/obtained....less than a few years later this most eminent scientist was proven

10 impossibilities conquered by science

From heavier-than-air flight to black holes and teleportation, we round up 10 things that were once believed to be physically impossible – but have now become reality

www.newscientist.com

There is almost always a solution....where there is a will there is a way.

First I want to thank you for presenting a good case. Thank you, also, for presenting the best example of a person who seems to be a credible proponent of HAARP's military or environmental capabilities.

A lot of people might have tried to avoid this in order to protect their belief and just used debate tactics to distract. But you have a lot of integrity and I really appreciate that.

With that out of the way...

My goal was to try to match the level of your integrity by trying to first support Dr. Eastlund's position. It's too easy to start with debunking. But just for the record, what did I say from the beginning?
1) not enough power
2) signal loss over greater distances (requiring more power)
3) not enough equipment/capacity (which handling more power would require)
= the problem is with SCALE

This was just off the dome; not coming from any external source or research. With all that being said, when I first started reading about Eastlund's life and accomplishments he does appear to be credible, his research/ideas are in the right sector, and it doesn't look like he's that wrong in theory. At least from my position. Because again... I don't have the pedigree to debate him (RIP). Like I said, I don't have the numbers for how much power you'd need to do these things. I just know you'd need a lot; way more power than what you'd need to play Beyonce's new album to Russia.

Bernard J. Eastlund Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications - Justia Patents Search

USPTO patent applications submitted by and patents granted to Bernard J. Eastlund

patents.justia.com

Around this point is normally where conspiracy theorists stop. They grab on to the possibility of something without looking at the cost or the viability of the actual application. Here, we can see Dr. Eastlund's very real patents. They seem to be all based on heating which is related to the general field he was in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Eastlund). So everything checks out and lines up to this point. So from here, I wouldn't fault you or anyone else for considering this to be valid evidence supporting the weather modification claims.

However...

Transmitter 16 is powered by power generator means 17 which is preferably comprised of one or more large, commercial electrical generators. Some embodiments of the present invention require large amounts of power, e.g., up to 109 to 1011 watts, in continuous wave or pulsed power. Generation of the needed power is within the state of the art. Although the electrical generators necessary for the practice of the invention can be powered in any known manner, for example, by nuclear reactors, hydroelectric facilities, hydrocarbon fuels, and the like, this invention, because of its very large power requirement in certain applications, is particularly adapted for use with certain types of fuel sources which naturally occur at strategic geographical locations around the earth. For example, large reserves of hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) exist in Alaska and Canada. - https://patents.google.com/patent/US4686605

This is what Eastlund says in his own patent. This didn't copy well. It's not "1011 watts". It's 10 to the 11th power which = 100,000,000,000. The Bold area in this number represents the megawatt range that HAARP operates at. So, unless I am mistaken, this is an order of magnitude less than what Eastlund was describing.

According to the Wikipedia article:

One of Eastlund's patents (US4686605 A) described an adaptation of concepts first proposed by Nikola Tesla. Eastlund's "Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere", described as "grandiose", proposed a 40-mile square radio transmitter that used Alaskan natural gas to generate current to create electromagnetic radiation that would excite a section of the ionosphere.

note: I would have liked to have found this myself instead of relying on a quote.

So after this, I did what I normally do which is google X person debunked. That led me here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/bernard-eastlunds-connection-to-haarp.248/

And so here again... we see that the issue is scale. (I actually feel pretty good about my limited knowledge)

A further disconnect in this conspiracy claim is that Dr. Eastlund's patent was for a speculative and unproven device approximately one million times as powerful as HAARP. The patent does not mention HAARP, and none of its drawings remotely resemble anything built at HAARP. For perspective, HAARP's antenna array measures about 1000 feet on a side. A device such as that imagined by Dr. Eastlund would have been 14 miles on a side, with one million antenna elements, compared to HAARP's 180.

Also, reading the actual patent, the following is also true:

Eastlund did NOT invent HAARP. HAARP is just an ionospheric heater research facility. Eastlund's own patent describes such ionospheric heating as having gone on well before the 1985 patent:

When I said the temp of the ionosphere fluctuates (from 200 Kelvin (or -99 degrees Fahrenheit) to 500K (or 440 degrees Fahrenheit).), you said:

So it is even easier to heat

But what I was trying to get you to see is that these naturally occurring fluctuations do not produce a bunch of weather effects. So the question again, is how much would you have to heat an area to surpass the temperatures it already experiences? We're talking about a part of our atmosphere that receives varying amounts of solar radiation. When there's a solar flare, the ionosphere is what absorbs it. That is a LOT of energy. That doesn't make it "easier" to heat. It just means its more resilient to heat. The sun has virtually limitless power so heating the ionosphere "wirelessly" is not a problem.

Further, if the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don’t affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can either. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near vacuum of the rarefied, but electrically charged region of the atmosphere above about 60-80 km (a little over 45 miles), known as the ionosphere. The ionosphere is created and continuously replenished as the sun’s radiation interacts with the highest levels of the Earth’s atmosphere.

But you need a power source equal to the task of what you're proposing. This is why I keep saying that just because something is theoretically possible, and even if demonstrated on a small scale, doesn't mean it's possible on a large scale without the required energy. And the number of HAARPs transmitters are not enough to handle that load. 3.6MW is not enough power. Compare this to energy a single bolt of lighting can produce?



So we're nowhere near the levels of energy that it would take to significantly impact the weather or anything else through the ionosphere.

The HAARP website says, “Since the ionosphere is, inherently, a turbulent medium that is being both ‘stirred up’ and renewed by the sun, artificially induced effects are quickly obliterated. Depending on the height within the ionosphere where the effect is originally produced, these effects are no longer detectable after times ranging from less than a second to 10 minutes.” Once again, local changes to the ionosphere resulting from HAARP are many orders of magnitude less than those global changes caused by variations in the Sun’s energy output. According to the HAARP Environmental Impact Statement, there are no significant impacts to the ionosphere, and therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

And since Tesla was mentioned, there also seems to be confusion as to how Tesla's own work and statements have suggested.

Liberty Magazine, (2/35) p. 7 N. Tesla. (http://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art11.html)

I want to state explicitly that this invention of mine does not contemplate the use of any so-called " death rays." Rays are not applicable because they cannot be produced in requisite quantities and diminish rapidly in intensity with distance. All the energy of New York City (approximately two million horsepower) transformed into rays and projected twenty miles, could not kill a human being, because, according to a well known law of physics, it would disperse to such an extent as to be ineffectual.

This is what I meant by all of HAARP's power being able to broadcast music to China but not much else. Because the power you'd have to use to broadcast that signal, even with beam-forming tech, would be more than what HAARP can produce. So even if HAARP could generate some cataclysm in Alaska, that doesn't mean it could affect China or Russia. And neither country has used any political means to denounce or treat HAARP as a threat. Why? Because they're scientists would also tell them the same things I'm telling you.

So... Let's review: HAARP
1) doesn't have enough power
2) is unclassified and open to the public
3) is used by non-government research scientists
4) is not viewed as a threat to our enemies
5) doesn't operate in the same layer of atmosphere that could impact weather
6) debunked as a weapon by Tesla
7) isn't doing more heating than the sun

 

[ogoun]

Based on what is playing out in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict....I beg to differ.

So if you are saying man is cruel or evil....then I said that a while back
Here is the quote and your response:

One will rarely lose money taking the over on the malevolence of man.


Are you saying i have not posted articles and videos in defense of my assertions with links?
or
are you saying those articles are no credible?


No


So your experience negates the Vietnamese scientists opinions of watch they lived through?


for clarity:- in your opinion Does cloud seeding results in rainfall?
Are you then saying that the US did not seed the clouds over Vietnam?
or
if they did it did not that resulted in more rainfall over a longer duration?


Come straight..... your sarcasm is confusing and misleading.


Are you hiding behind satire...


The Tobacco industry for 1 kept secret the harm smoking causes for years before a whistle blower let it all out.


If you have to change the definition of what a vaccination is in order to include this new form of injection...that means it does not fit within the old paradigm of what a vaccine is.....Hence to me it is not a vaccine butt a medical device pretending to be a vaccine.

Here is two reasons why I hesitate.....can you spot when I official is deflecting in other words lying.

'I Apologize For Being Rude': Bill Cassidy Grills Walensky On CDC Vaccination Rate​

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on vaccine hesitancy: 'Trust science​

You tell me?


cool....I did provide but will provide more if our conversation continues.

To your first nit:
See the top list where you begged to differ? You seem to have been confused bout what malevolence means. I chose to help you out instead of calling ya out on it.
And now you come back and snipe at me about it like I did wrong? Ok if you want to go there...........ya think you the only person that's ever noted the evil man can sink to? because ya said so gives ya some kind of copy right on the thought? or that it some kind of big revelation?

Two: Rain makers.
No you have not given any creditable links to back your assertions. The first link, a vid, was information on the existents of the program 'Popeye' and was the only listing that gave any numbers (estimates) of any kind, 1 to 9 inches. The next I think was from the DOD through the desk of Dean Rusk then the Secretary of State for appropriations funds of the project with ESTIMATES of a general looking to polish the star on his collar. The third link was for a paper that has science in its title name but that is all. And the article listed no sciencific thought at all and had not one scientist signatory attached to the paper. But just a rehash of the assumption that seeding had these x y z effects. All the while given as an after thought oh yeah, the bombs and painting the country orange may have played a role.
Some proof.

For your edification here is what actual scientists think about cloud seeding and a little more up to date at that, 2021.

Eight States Are Seeding Clouds to Overcome Megadrought

But there is little evidence to show that the process is increasing precipitation

www.scientificamerican.com

Golly I dun't know why they can't just fire up those ions and fix their problem for them.

Nit three; clarity.
Okay, to be clear whether or not seeding over Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam caused any rain is besides the point because after delivering 3 x's the air ordnance than in all of WWII including burning the country with phosphorus and napalm, aftering painting the country/ies orange its just as likely that even the historical mean average annual rain fall would have cause devastation in an ecosphere that evolved over thousands of years to accept those rains and the population grown there for generations to come to depend on and use that rain. In fact even if the upper limits of the hoped for ESTIMATES had been reached, without the destroyed ecosphere it would have just likely soak it up and carried on.
So you think my sarcasm is confusing as well as misleading? How so?
Imagine your supply line has not only been disrupted completely and exposed why would you repair it or even think about reusing it (as that was given as some kind of proof seeding worked)? You're completely in the open and because all around has been voided of any cover at all but you go on the repair the damage and a Huey shows up on the horizon sporting one of these little evil things https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M134_Minigun............where ya gonna run to? Where ya gonna find cover?
The VC may have been willing to die for their cause but they didn't have a death wish.

N. Four:
And no, I don't use satire or sarcasm to hide behind. In that particular case it was an attempt to help you see how ridiculous your comparison was. And was much kinder than what my first thoughts were.

No. Five::
No! No! and no again. The tobacco industry did not keep 'the secret' hidden.
The first warning came from outside of and quite apart of the industry in the early to mid 50's and fully in the public conscience by the late 50's and early 60's.
What the tobacco industry DID do was use their political weight in Washington to keep the FDA's nose out of it til (emm) 62?, 63? Then there after ran a propaganda campaign to muddy the waters. But the dangers of smoking had been known and public knowledge well before that.

Six:
If definitions of what is considered good medicine didn't change with the science we'd still be practicing blood letting and giving out arsenic and mercury as medicine.
Enough said bout that.