Talk:High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program

The Criticism section needs major repair.

It is clear from reading that the Criticism section has suffered some serious, long term blanking; I looked back through 2009 and could not find the missing section, but in 2007 there was a clear description of the criticisms of the project, a section missing now. Now, two sections open with rebuttals to critics, rebuttals which speak in vague terms without clearly delineating the criticisms being rebutted. I ask that editors familiar with this page fix it. ThuranX (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to fix this by re-ordering the subsections, and making some other small changes. —AlanBarrett (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral TRUTH - neither claims as harmful or harmless can be substantiated. If there are classified harmful purposes they sure as hell won't be validated on Wikipedia. It is extremely unlikely that harmful purposes would be published in unclassified form prior to deployment of a fully working prototype weapon system since this would not be a pork barrel mass production weapon.

The main public material basically admits the main function of HAARP being researched is as an antenna. Why would the US military be interested in big over the horizon capable antennas? Communications is a clear starting point. But there is no way for the general public to know if HAARP is also intended for use as a big antenna in conjunction with a weapon system like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System. I would guess that if such a function is compatible, HAARP will be used that way. Reflecting parts of an EMP pulse from a remote nuclear detonation for a few microseconds to burn out electronics without physical devastation or lethal radiation at the target area...maybe. I would guess the reflection would be only at certain frequencies.

HAARP is however almost guaranteed to have research into denying enemy communications and control as well as enabling our own as the two functions are basically militarily inseparable. The wild rumor I heard which cannot be easily disproved is that HAARP is the antenna for radiation affecting the human brain. Ask some MRI people about brain effects of certain frequencies. However, Wikipedia will not be the first place to confirm that or any other material the turns out to be true but classified simply because Wikipedia policy is to stay legally safe.

Geophysical weapon? Well maybe as an antenna for predicting earthquakes if they can pick up the VLF geo-frequencies. That would be of military value in timing a first strike. But as always mentioned by scientific minds, the power transmission requirement to cause earthquakes is far too ambitious for the 21st century even for "Tesla resonant science". To create resonance you first have to repeatedly vibrate the multi-quadrillion ton slabs of the earth crust at least a millimeter and that is megatons each time. Easier to drop the equivalent in bombs directly on your enemy.65.26.139.168 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Environmental/biologic effect of using HAARP

I was wondering if anyone was conducting research on the effect done on the environment and biology surrounding HAARP. To my knowledge, bees are distructed by RF signals so that they avoid any broadcasters/transmitters to produce honey. Abdulka (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There was an article in Pakistan daily recently that alleged that the program was responsible for the current cold weather crisis in the northern hemisphere. There is no word about how exactly the tropospheric temperature inversion was achieved, but they did say that this event has left the world vulnerable to the G1.9 body (although what the two have in common I have no idea). Article can be read here. Tigey (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More material removed

I've taken out Hal Lindsey (a known crank) and the reference to Physics and Society. The latter is a real journal, published by the American Physical Society, but examination of an online copy of the cited article (see here) discloses that it is in reference to EMF risks from power transmission lines. There's no mention of HFAAP. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've also removed the "power emitted" section since the only searchable claim in that section, the phrase "immersion heater in the Yukon River", only appears on conspiracy sites and cannot be traced to any actual source. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the article a bit in an effort to make it more a useful reference tool. I see from its history it's been mostly built up as a vehicle for conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Guys

Keep up the good work shutting down anyone with an alternative viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.74.168 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

EU not mentioned in controversy?

I recently heard a report by the CBC on this program and while I don't have the time or motivation to research conspiracy theorists points on this subject I thought it odd that the Russian Duma is mentioned in the controversy section of this article while the EU's comments are not. The EU is just as significant a political body as the Russian Duma and is regarded more highly in the West regarding honesty, transperancy etc. So I think it is noteworthy for the article. What do the other editors think?--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez and HAARP

I'm editing a caveat to the Criticism section. The one Spanish-language paper that is reporting the "Chavez said the US did it" line didn't source their accusation from Chavez himself. Instead, they cited an opinion paper that was put on the ViVe (the state-run television outlet) website. The ViVe website by-lined it with RNV, which is the state-run radio outlet. The only mention I can find on the RNV page is an opinion piece written by Marco Gonzales Chevige, who, if I remember correctly, is a reporter from Apporea (an independent Venezuelan pro-Chavez e-zine.) So, this opinion article got sent through the echo chamber and was wrongly attributed to Chavez...unless the media automatically equates every single thing from the state-run sources to be mouthed by Chavez himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.139.229 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article says Chavez was "widely (Fox news, Anchorage news, etc.) reported to say it". That does not imply he actually said it. The lengthy explanation of who published what first is WP:OR, and will be removed (unless you have independent sources that describe the error). - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian newspaper O Globo confirms that [1]. According to them, "Chávez says US provoked Earthquake in Haiti during weapon test". Chávez quoted a report by the Russian Marine and pointed to some "evidences" of previous knowledge of the earthquake by US military. I hope that Wikipedia won't become just another branch from American media, assuming that all mainstream information is unquestionable and everybody with a different opinion are crazy conspiracy believers. It amazes me how the "conspiracy theories" are increasing nowadays... some decades ago, they used to take years to be called that. Nowadays, any information which is not alligned with mainstream media is labeled as a "conspiracy theory" one second after being broadcasted... are we sure this is the most responsible thing to do? I'm sure it's not the most democratic thing to do... peace to you all. Dornicke (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, strictly citing the Anchorage news story, we have conspiracy web sites and some Venezuelan media as the source of the Haiti quake rumor. That should satisfy everybody and be more accurate to boot. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)