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

[IPXninja]

Sorry for barging in.....had a little extra time


It is already being done is my theory...
The fact that I cannot find explicit proof is because its secret/proprietary....But without a doubt I have produce enough proof to move it from the theoretical to the practical and even to the rudimentary as in early/beginning phases/stages.
Cost is relative to the technology being used...that we do not know.

More than welcome! I appreciate the extra time. I really enjoy our conversations. You have a very good head on your shoulders. Even if I disagree on this I still hold you in very high regard.

as far as it being done already...

At scale though? What I mean by theory also extends to scale models.

Let's say you can 3D print a cup. Can you 3D print a car? Can you 3D print a house? The answer to both questions is Yes. But then if that's the case why isn't everything 3D printed? What are the challenges that come with scale? The GAO video you posted seems to back that point, talking about the difficulties of bringing new tech into actual use.

I would also argue that there is also a political component because one tech can seriously depreciate the previous generation which may be supplied by a different company with more political capital to spend. All of these variables help to dictate what's actually practical and cost-effective.

The military, for example, has a big budget, but not an infinite budget just like the power we generate isn't infinite and both have to be distributed.


3 main points...
1) There is a bunch of actual data being produced that talks about what HAARP has actually accomplished
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015RS005883 (information produced by the military with 19 citations.)
2) Non-government people have access to HAARP for research (typically not the level of secrecy or proprietary limitation one would expect of a WMD)
https://haarp.gi.alaska.edu/2022openhouse (Self-guided 90min tour of the facilities.)
3) Non-gov Scientists completely debunk the possibility

These all link together to form what I think is an ultimate defense against this conspiracy theory. It's not about dismissing any one thing, but all these things together. For example, if you want to argue that I'm drinking the government kool-aid you have every right to use your distrust of government to discount them as a source. However, I'm also listening to scientists... the experts. Who else does that leave? Once you eliminate all the people who are credible on this issue, who's left? If I have to also distrust scientists in order to believe the conspiracy then, IMHO, the conspiracy theory fails. And if HAARP is the weapon you believe it to be AND that the data from the government is a lie, then where are the scores of scientists from around the world, with no allegiance to our government, who are saying it? If the only folks saying it are conspiracy theorists and they haven't even a little credible support in the scientific community after 20 years of these questions, isn't that, in itself, an answer?

Scientists just tried to see inside an asteroid with radio waves from this HAARP array

Some people think HAARP was built to trigger natural disasters, but it may, in fact, help to save Earth one day.

www.space.com

 

[IPXninja]

Yes....but it not focused or concentrated.
I remember when solar powered electricity was sci-fi now its mundane and easily explained as science....
Focus the rays of the sun and you can burn down a house....come on
Focus Radio Waves and you cook your meals....you guys are smarter than this - the media propaganda is doing a job on you both
My apologies for sounding flippant...in a rush - always comes off that way - sorry.

No harm done. You have been so reasonable in your communications that it's not that easy to take it the wrong way.

But yes... we are smarter than that. We understand what concentrated energy can do. But that's also WHY I'm saying there are drawbacks that you also have to consider. One being heat.

For example, you mentioned focusing the rays of the sun. How? a magnifying glass? If you put a magnifying glass over photovoltaic cells you will probably overload them. What I do know is that the energy production of solar panels loses efficiency when there is more heat. So the simplest answer to question of "can I use a magnifying glass to generate more electricity" is not always the right one.

And yes, we all have microwave ovens, but in that scenario the heat generated is the whole point. That's what we want. And HAARP does cause a momentary change in temp, but you have to weigh that as you would a drop in the ocean... using relative scale.

Google: Due to fluxes in solar radiation, temperatures in the ionosphere vary from 200 Kelvin (or -99 degrees Fahrenheit) to 500K (or 440 degrees Fahrenheit).

Professor Fred Menk, for example said: “HF (High Frequency) radio transmissions are concerned with interaction with ionised particles – electrons – in the ionosphere, above 100 km altitude. Weather at ground level is driven by geophysical effects, mostly solar heating, into the neutral atmosphere much nearer the ground,” he said in an email.

“.. There is a vast number of HF transmitters globally which direct medium or high power signals to the ionosphere. These are used for long range radio broadcasting and other purposes such as surveillance (radars) and monitoring the state of the ionosphere.

“There is no possibility of any of this impacting on daily weather. Any such suggestion is nonsense.”

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/haarp-weather-control-conspiracy-is-off-in-the-clouds/

AAP FactCheck asked Professor Bruce Ward, an ionosphere researcher at the University of Adelaide, if there was any possibility that HAARP could impact weather.

“Categorically no,” he replied in an email.

He concurred with Prof Menk, adding: “The weather we experience is in the troposphere… the weather in the troposphere is driven by solar heating of the land and sea.”

He said: “The amount of energy involved in ionospheric heaters such as HAARP is many orders of magnitude smaller than that involved in solar heating of the earth’s surface and is constrained to a minuscule area. To have any effect on the weather there would need to be some physical phenomena that transferred the energy to the lower atmosphere in a highly non-linear fashion (ie magnify it enormously).”

- end quote -

I Feel like this is pretty much exactly what I've been saying. I think people get really paranoid (not you) when it comes to hearing that something uses a massive amount of power, and so this paranoia enables more sci-fi ideas because we've all seen shows like Star Trek and Doctor Who. But the actual energy required to do some of the things people theorize would be incredible and more than what HAARP is capable of.

 

[IPXninja]

To create these pulses, they used an exotic machine called a magnetohydrodynamic generator, originally developed by the Soviet military as an energy source for advanced weaponry. The machine is powered by rocket engines that blast exhaust gases between the poles of an extremely powerful magnet. Just as moving a wire through a magnetic field creates a pulse of current, this jet of charged gas creates an intense but short-lived electric field.

By sticking two electrodes four metres into the ground a few kilometres apart, the geologists directed the electromagnetic pulses-effectively a blast of artificial lightning-into the Earth. Throughout the years of trials the mountains rumbled with weak tremors, but no one thought that unusual in an area prone to quakes.

That changed in 1993, when Nikolay Tarasov, a seismologist at the Institute of Earth Physics in Moscow, began a study to pin down how nuclear explosions influence earthquakes. He had developed a statistical method to determine whether seismic activity in a given area had gone up or down after a blast. To get some background data he turned to seismic records from his colleagues in central Asia. Much to his surprise, Tarasov realised that the seismic activity following these electromagnetic pulses was no fluke.

In fact, the results were staggering. The electromagnetic pulses were brief-lasting 10 seconds at most-and the total energy input was a modest 10 million joules, about the power of a single flash of lightning. But the total seismic energy released afterwards was up to a million times greater than the energy they had put in.

The quake machine

Geologists seem to be no closer in trying to predict earthquakes. But how about stopping them in the first place? Seismologists are looking at inducing quakes to release some of the pent-up energy and prevent some of the deadliest earthquakes.

www.eurekalert.org

Remember there is always more than One way to skin a cat.....meaning this is how the Russians are doing - Americans are using a different method.


That's by design.

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.

 

[IPXninja]

What how do you disagree with?


Well that is how warfare or Battles work...
You either attack from sea and project your weaponry
Or you invade(beach head) capture a piece of ;and and while under attack set up and project your weaponry


Yes that is almost always the case....a direct attack - whether surprise or announced.


Really if one directs a hurricane or earthquake to hit Jamaica are you saying it would not be disruptive?


Sure they can be.....but are you prepared to and do you have the technology capable of doing so


Cool well now you may soon be hearing about Earthquake causes by either Radio or Sound waves emanating from an antenna array or some similar device on board a Navy ship.

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.

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.

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.

hurricane or earthquake to hit Jamaica are you saying it would not be disruptive?

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.

Sure they can be.....but are you prepared to and do you have the technology capable of doing so

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

 

[IPXninja]

I'll take a flyer at vaccine question though; just spitballing here cause I ain't going to research it but I'd say they had to have it reclassified as a vaccine because MRI was an entirely new way to make a vaccine. So in order for it to be classified a such they had rewrite the criteria for what could be counted as a vaccine. Just a guess off the top.

This is pretty much nail on head, but substitute MRI with mRNA

What are mRNA vaccines and how do they work?: MedlinePlus Genetics

mRNA vaccines use a piece of mRNA that corresponds to a protein on a virus. Vaccines for COVID-19 are the only mRNA vaccines authorized or approved by the FDA.

medlineplus.gov

" All vaccines introduce into the body a harmless piece of a particular bacteria or virus, triggering an immune response. Most vaccines contain a weakened or dead bacteria or virus. However, scientists have developed a new type of vaccine that uses a molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA) rather than part of an actual bacteria or virus. Messenger RNA is a type of RNA that is necessary for protein production. Once cells finish making a protein, they quickly break down the mRNA. mRNA from vaccines does not enter the nucleus and does not alter DNA."

previous definition of vaccine:

Introduction

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov