First, HAARP can and is used to guide "or steer" large rotating storm systems
Prove this. Give me something to investigate. Don't just say this. This is dogshit without something to go on.
HAARP uses intense high powered RF from large arrays focused into a single point in the ionosphere
Great, explain the energy budget.
the reverse use of sympathetic resonance principle called destructive interference
Go deep. Explain this. Provide papers, PDFs, youtube videos. I'm OK with spending MONTHS on this, but, give me what I need to understand this. Otherwise, this is just yakkity bullshit (sorry to come off as so crucial).
we know it can transmit at various frequencies
OK, which ones
Again, none of this is rocket science there is tons of documentation on the subject but I just got home from work and don't feel like doing everyone's homework for them.
Oh? Just home from work, are you? WELL, get settled on in, hey, and drop us a note when you're comfy, sport, OK? Right, you will be back on GAW when you're ready to do exactly that. I have permanently removed your account, pending your reply. Pls use modmail
"I'm not here to do someone's homework for them" NO, YES, YOU ARE. We all are. That's what "here" is. GAW is an elite research board, not a digital daycare for low effort skaters. That attitude, above, will get someone moved to the sidelines ALL DAY. This is not a game. Hit the Q telegram groups if you're not here to work. The mod team answers only to our highest effort posters and we have absolutely no hesitation to "de-clutter" the board.
C5 is providing the discipline we currently lack as a group to cite resources when making claims.
Harsh? Possibly, what else will get people's attention to the problem at hand?
imho it goes deeper than just HAARP, it's about efforts to undermine GAW.
PDW was easily inundated with yahoo's to subvert it, we have a much stricter code of conduct here, so it's that much harder to subvert, it needs to be subtle.
With that in mind, how do the mods identify and tell the difference between a well-meaning frog and a schill sent to disrupt us?
Is this level of scrutiny going to be applied next time someone on this site claims Hillary or Barr or Hunter is in fact a white hat or that arrests are going to be made on a certain date?
This whole site is based on wild speculation. How many times has there been a stickied post calling for some very very highly unlikely event to take place with no pdfs, scientific papers or anything to back it up with the exception of a Mickey watch or other twitter pic? Just cause you disagree with the person doesn't mean they are a bad actor.
Seed the clouds with radio reflective particles the size of dust motes, the water in the clouds condenses around them to make rain, so the whole cloud system can be steered by pulses of RF beams. Spin them round to make them stronger and steer them to wherever you want. It take a lot of infrastructure to do this, expensive infrastructure.
Prove this. Give me something to investigate. Don't just say this. This is dogshit without something to go on.
Great, explain the energy budget.
Go deep. Explain this. Provide papers, PDFs, youtube videos. I'm OK with spending MONTHS on this, but, give me what I need to understand this. Otherwise, this is just yakkity bullshit (sorry to come off as so crucial).
OK, which ones
Oh? Just home from work, are you? WELL, get settled on in, hey, and drop us a note when you're comfy, sport, OK? Right, you will be back on GAW when you're ready to do exactly that. I have permanently removed your account, pending your reply. Pls use modmail
I'm not joking around
C5
Huh? Did you just remove this dude's account because you haven't received his response citing his sources yet? What the heck?!?
"I'm not here to do someone's homework for them" NO, YES, YOU ARE. We all are. That's what "here" is. GAW is an elite research board, not a digital daycare for low effort skaters. That attitude, above, will get someone moved to the sidelines ALL DAY. This is not a game. Hit the Q telegram groups if you're not here to work. The mod team answers only to our highest effort posters and we have absolutely no hesitation to "de-clutter" the board.
C5 is providing the discipline we currently lack as a group to cite resources when making claims.
Harsh? Possibly, what else will get people's attention to the problem at hand?
imho it goes deeper than just HAARP, it's about efforts to undermine GAW.
PDW was easily inundated with yahoo's to subvert it, we have a much stricter code of conduct here, so it's that much harder to subvert, it needs to be subtle.
With that in mind, how do the mods identify and tell the difference between a well-meaning frog and a schill sent to disrupt us?
THAT is literally insane!
Is this level of scrutiny going to be applied next time someone on this site claims Hillary or Barr or Hunter is in fact a white hat or that arrests are going to be made on a certain date?
This whole site is based on wild speculation. How many times has there been a stickied post calling for some very very highly unlikely event to take place with no pdfs, scientific papers or anything to back it up with the exception of a Mickey watch or other twitter pic? Just cause you disagree with the person doesn't mean they are a bad actor.
Yes.
Making cyclones is a proven science.
Seed the clouds with radio reflective particles the size of dust motes, the water in the clouds condenses around them to make rain, so the whole cloud system can be steered by pulses of RF beams. Spin them round to make them stronger and steer them to wherever you want. It take a lot of infrastructure to do this, expensive infrastructure.