Obelix Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 If you seriously want to know about this and want some contact info at the Uni then I can probably provide it. I'm fairly open to the possible dangers, mainly because I know how the system works and what the effects of it are. To make a reasonable assessment of the dangers you have to understand the system however which is not a position that I think you are yet in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe9T Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) I can learn and attempt to understand, but anything that can destroy incoming missiles by doing something high up in the ionesphere must be quite powerful. That is something not denied by HAARP website. I would love to gain unbiased opinions and yes i do need to understand like the majority of the planet rather than just accept without any question this debatable "research" programme named HAARP. Edited June 16, 2011 by Joe9T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I can learn and attempt to understand, but anything that can destroy incoming missiles by doing something high up in the ionesphere must be quite powerful. That is something not denied by HAARP website. I would love to gain unbiased opinions and yes i do need to understand like the majority of the planet rather than just accept without any question this debatable "research" programme named HAARP. You have evidence they can destroy such missiles? I mean proper evidence not some crapfest on some youtube video site? Arquiva http://www.arqiva.com/ doesn't deny they can destroy incoming missiles on their website. Neither do I for that matter. Does that automatically mean that we can? I don't feel it is necessary to deny that I can resurrect people. By your logic I must therefore be the Messiah and this is the Second Coming? Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe9T Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I cannot believe that you are not believing HAARPS own website and the purpose according to them why this system is in place. I shall not waste any more time with numpties who wont even believe the original line not the so called conspiracy line. I shall do my research minus your recommendations thankyou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Where does it say the purpose of haarp is not to destroy missiles? Or to destroy them? Since you are not willing to engage in debate I withdraw my offer to assist you then. I have no time for closeminded fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe9T Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 From the "official" website: "HAARP is a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis on being able to understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defense purposes. "Can HAARP be used for military purposes? HAARP is not designed to be an operational system for military purposes." Is NOT designed, but that's not to say it couldn't be used for military purposes. Well, I hope this research facility is safe, but i suppose we shall only find out in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 So it says nothing about missiles then. Thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I can learn and attempt to understand, but anything that can destroy incoming missiles by doing something high up in the ionesphere must be quite powerful. That is something not denied by HAARP website. I would love to gain unbiased opinions and yes i do need to understand like the majority of the planet rather than just accept without any question this debatable "research" programme named HAARP. No missiles dropping on population centres? Anyone would think that it was a bad thing from what you insinuate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Looks like AR5 is going to be a load of greenwash, as they are refusing to apply their conflict of interest policy to the authors. http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/18/pachauri-no-conflict-of-interest-policy-for-ar5/ Yesterday, IPCC chairman Pachauri told Oliver Morton of The Economist at an IPCC event in Brussels that conflict of interest policies would not not apply to AR5 authors. IPCC thereby sabotaged recommendations from the Interacademy Council and announced its plans to evade the conflict of interest policies passed at the 33rd IPCC plenary only a month ago... I like one of the quotes on the piece... He’s saying AR5 is so utterly corrupt there’s no way to salvage it before it’s time to write AR6. Nice to agree with Pachauri at least once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 i saw this and thought of this thread. very interesting. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/20/3248032.htm?section=justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now