Talk:High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

Wait why does the critism section say CLAIMS to be a weapon? Look at the patents listed on this Wikipedia site, Some of the patents are labled as patents for weapons, so how can it just be claimed to might be a weapon? --24.103.173.3 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not proven to be a weapon. As for claims that "parts" are "weapons," I'd say we need some sources for that. Some of the parts are probably used in weapons, but that's very different. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the classified HAARP project predates the 1993 start date of this particular location. The mere existence of conspiracy theory papers in the 1970s-1980s can validate that an unreleased aspect of the HAARP program exists. Yes plenty of conspiracy theories are not very plausible in scientific terms (go high in the sky to produce earthquakes). However, those theories that deal with electronic jamming, layer trapped EMP as a limited anti-electronics defense, and emergency global wartime communications are quite plausible special configurations the HAARP. (I would suggest taht modern EMP shielding may have obsoleted the EMP shield if that was once a function.) The declassification of the site does point to a mature weapon system that has entered a phase in which it is considered of only secondary importance. However, the current basic research focus can have very important application to military systems and once analyzed and suggested for application may no longer be consider unclassified material -- just as the nuclear properties of the table of elements is unclassified but applied in nuclear weapons is both classified and awesomely destructive and lethal. The budget of teh construction of teh site combined with the operator is still quite suggestive. Certainly no strictly civilian research station would have cost so much for such a narrow area of research. HAARP is not investigating quantum mechanics or subatomic structure in general space, but is a specific application area of EM waves in the upper atmosphere. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And this is relevant to editing the article why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2011 (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)

well these antenna are very directional. So power really is directed skyward. A tiny tiny portion radiates parallel to the ground but drops off rapidly with the square of the distance from the antenna array. So bees etcetera must pass over or very close to the antennas to receive direct radio radiation. Plus there are limited number of bees in Alaska most of the time. Reflected radio waves are possible but precision multiple reflections are still at the mercy of nature as to where they first hit. I doubt precision remote attack on bees is a primary military application though random accidental and even unrecognized electronic plummeling of bees might be possible.72.182.15.249 (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Bees and birds are impacted (pun intended) by conventional radar installations, as well. But, again, why does this relate to editing the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2011 (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)

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)

do you have any quotable information on this? Sud Ram (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I do. I would like to edit the following inside Conspiracies "in 1999, the European Parliament, on the Report by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy, colcludes HAARP "as an example of the most serious emerging military threat to the global environment and human health" CHECK INTO ANNUNAKI AND OUR ASCENSION RELATING TO HAARPTooutpost (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any secondary coverage from a reliable source on that. Wikipedia can't "investigate" and "break" such conclusions...it can only repeat what reliable third parties have said about it. Find some of those, and we'll add it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The EU Parliament seems very reliable regarding concerns. The Report includes the Conlusions of the Committee (quote is from the conclusions), which means they have been studied and, therefore, raised to the report. What would be a "reliable source" for this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tooutpost (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:PSTS explains why we try to avoid using primary sources (e.g. a committee document) in favor of secondary sources (e.g. a reliable news journal's report about that committee document). If an editor wants to cite the document to confirm the meeting dates or number of attendees, most people would let that slide. But let's say an editor wants to include the claim that the Committee declared that a US weapon represents a grave military threat to the world. That's an unusual claim, so WP:REDFLAG applies, and the bar is raised in terms of additional sources and how "independent" the sources must be. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Such committees often conduct more or less open hearings on the complaints of citizens -- meaning you can get almost any statement read into EU or US Congressional records as a complaint...without anyone on that committee agreeing or even making comment. That is why simple unanalyzed quotes are not taken in unexamined. Remember Wikipedia doesn't allow anyone even Wikipedia staff to do original research and analysis. Thus the secondary sources requirement to say yes that was the committe agreeing that a problem exist or no that was an unsolicited or unexpected complaint during public hearings. Or to point out taht the one committee member sponsoring this view point was the former stripper and secondary school dropout from Italy expressing her technical knowledge of rocket science and electronics. Political election does not make you an expert on technical matters nor does it even certify that you are not a loony frivolously elected out of citizen frustration (Donald Duck write in candidate has threatened to win some Swedish elections I hear). 72.182.15.249 (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2011 (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)

I live in Venezuela and have never seen Chávez said "The earthquake in Haiti is due to Haarp proyect". You should be more serious.Johann —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC).

Michel Chossudovsky

I would like to add an edit with a comment from Michel Chossudovsky but it has been reverted twice. First on the ground of notability, which is now established, and the second time because of perceived non-expertise. Michel Chossudovsky's work is dedicated to understanding war, weapons and international relations that come from these. He has written extensively on the geopolitical implications of US policies and their relationship with the world. I'd say that qualifies him as an expert of the potential dangers of HAARP since that is within the scope of his studies.

This is the edit I would like to add:

Professor Michel Chossudovsky also subscribes to the idea of the potential use of a weapon and says that "from a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions."

Sud Ram (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

He's an economics expert. That really has nothing to do with his opinion on HAARP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Plus The Wilderness.com is a conspiracy website and not a reliable source of notable facts relating to HAARP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So defence and war have nothing to do with economics? :) Interesting idea as I'd say they ARE economics. As to conspiracy... That's quite a vague and unreliable term in itself no? Whichever way, not attached to the edit. Peace Sud Ram (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Being a smartass doesn't help. Being an economics expert doesn't mean he has any clue what military weapons are capable of, just the impact "defense and war" spending has on trade/economies. And no, conspiracy is not a "vague and unreliable term." It has a specific legal meaning, and a more general social one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, se here's an article in The Ecologist, non conspiracy reliable source, where Michel Chossudovsky quotes Air Force documents that say that weathe rmanipulation is a potential weapon and that "the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’." Sud Ram (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The YAL-1 is also rooted in the "Star Wars" SDI initiative. He quotes a paper stating that controlling the weather would provide a strategic advantage. The paper is a statement of fact (controlling the weather when your enemy cannot would be a siginifcant advantage), but the same paper does NOT link ANYTHING to HAARP. He makes assertions as if the paper and HAARP are connected, but there is no evidence to suggest such a connection, only rumors and unverified/unverifiable claims. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is unverifiable but the claim is there, just as the Duma's claim is unverifiable but it is included in the article. My point is that this claim is often put out in different media, and Michel Chossudovsky, even though he may not be a weapons/military expert, is notable enough to voice this opinion and be heard. Sud Ram (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how. This could merit a mention in Michel Chossudovsky but, in relation to the HAARP itself, it's a minor comment by a guy talking outside his field. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Study of the GENERAL interrelationship of weapons, diplomacy and economics does NOT impart expertise in what individual unknown weapons do, only expertise on the consequences of using weapons with certain general effects. So the "must be WMD" conclusion just shows that experts can get stupidly big opinions on topics that are really outside their area of expertise when outsiders flatter them by asking. If he had said the dollars invested point to critical/high value military weapon system...that generality I could easily believe as in his area of expertise and I actually agree. But he needs to review the cost of LOOKING GLASS, NORAD and similar defensive and command and control systems which themselves are NOT WMD systems (although they may control WMD). I think he forgot all about those type of programs and limited Star Wars defense costs. I suspect he just assumed offensive weapons based on the many smaller countries that buy a few big offensive programs and have nothing left to spend on true defensive measures or protection of command and control. Or maybe his studies technically classify things like the Patriot missile as WMD with a negative sign in the account books because they balance out true offensive WMD in his ledgers.

Frankly the WMD possibilities of HAARP type physics are very limited by the few megawatts of power the antenna could handle. Among the few remote possibilities are nonlethal EMP effects to destroy electronics at a distant location. Even then damage is probably limited to low power circuits like PCs, cellphones, car CPUs, and pacemakers (incidental lethality). Perhaps less sophisticated power grids might be attacked via high voltage resonance or by blowing control electronics. But in any case it does not seem likely that buildings, vehicle or human lives would be totally destroyed on any sizable scale. The once common semi-lethal theory is long distance tasering via matching the frequency of human nerve tissue especially in the brain. But seems unlikely to me that a special nerve frequency would have become public via industrial or medical accident by now. Nor does it seem likely that different human bodies would share the same frequency anymore than same weight height or body fat ratio. Weather control? Weather has more energy in big storms than nuclear weapons. So HAARP does not have enough energy to effect weather development by adding energy. NA dHAARP can't be blocking or guiding energy to storms because EM waves do not directly block or divert other EM waves -- just pass through each other. Optical changes to the physically material of ionsphere would be visible by definition and only work on incoming daylight -- no sudden big black clouds or giant lens over HAARP or some conspiracy buff would have decent photos. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Separate criticism section

This article has a {{csection}} tag that requests distributing the criticisms throughout the article. I disagree with this approach to WP:NPOV in general, but also specifically for this article and request the removal of this tag.

In a controversy so highly polarized as this one, where some people believe the statements by the HAARP project and some believe in statements filled with pseudoscience, it makes better sense to group the objections to HAARP together in their own section. That makes it easier to understand the objections as a group with common motivations (such as: the government is not telling us the whole truth). Mixing the objections with the "official" descriptive material would not make the article have a more NPOV but would make it more difficult to read and understand. David Spector 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the tag, too. While I think we could very easily integrate the controversy into the front end of the article (and collapse and summarize the lavishly-quoted "Dumas" statement) I would advise against it. The conspiracy theories are more easily updated (I see they increase with every new earthquake or other disaster) and given appropriate WP:WEIGHT as fringe views within their own section. I say remove the tag. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've completely reworked the section to be more readable, and better prevent WP:UNDUE weight. Hopefully that'll work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable secondary sources for the Duma press release. Dozens of conspiracy sites copy Wikipedia's mention of it, but Gnews turns up nothing at all from the major news sources. I don't think we should be giving this much weight to material from a questionable primary source. If the Russian parliament actually issued or vetted a statement to the world press concerning HAARP, coverage by reliable sources should be easy to find. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah, that does seem to be questionable, so I've removed it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Now I'm not sure I understand the new "Euro Commission/Parliament" material someone has recently added. I followed it to the link, and here's what the text says:

Subject: HAARP project and Commission follow-up to the resolution adopted by Parliament in 1999. In its resolution of 28 January 1999 on the environment, security and foreign policy (A4-0005/99)(1), Parliament stated that the HAARP project was manipulating the environment for military ends (recital R) and called for there to be a STOA examination of HAARP, as a global concern (paragraph 24), in order to assess the impact on the local and global environment and on public health in general. In paragraph 26, Parliament called on the Commission to examine the possible environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings. Five years later, I am not aware of the existence of any such report. Would the Commission explain what initiatives have been taken regarding this affair?

Seems to be a query about a response from a "parliament"? Although which parliament, I'm not certain. Again, this is a primary source. If some country's parliament (perhaps Russia) called on the European Commission in 1999 to undertake a STOA examination of HAARP, there should be no problem finding wide coverage of that event by reliable news sources. Yet, so far I find nothing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

After some further examination, it seems the reference points to a 1999 record of EU Parliament functionaries responding to questions from two European politicians about a proposed STOA exam of HAARP, followed by a response for EU Parliament that no report was forthcoming. Again, the conspiracy blogsites make much hay of this, but it isn't covered by any reliable third party source. So I removed it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The reworking is excellent, and adequately addresses the problems which led to my tagging the section. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for improving the article and removing the tag. Good work. David Spector 17:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protection?

Given that it's a reliable magnet for mischief, it time to consider some level of page protection for the article? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Has there been history of much mischief? If so, maybe you or somebody else could document some of it to back up consideration for protection? Ga2re2t (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've just reverted an edit changing "Conspiracy Theorists blame for numerous natural disasters." to "and causes natural disasters, which is a scientific fact."; Considering there are *many* reverts in the page's recent edits, this page should be locked to prevent baseless claims and other edits that end in (varyingly) subtle misinformation. S33plusplus (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Technical clean up and citations needed

I think that quite a few parts of this article need some technical clarification and extra citations. For example, the "Objectives" section has only one citation, and that is to an online magazine article (albeit a respected popular science magazine). The "Objectives" section in this article should, at the least, have some obvious cross-over with the "About HAARP/Program Purpose" page on the HAARP website. I'm not a very experienced Wikipedia contributor, so I can't say that I will play a big role in editing the article. Ga2re2t (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Russian woodpecker

This page links to the Russian Woodpecker-article and it links back here. I can't see why, they aren't really related, except that both are targets for conspiracy theorists. I'll remove it if noboy objects. Nxsty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

conspiracy theories scientific basis

I added that the conspiracy theories have no scientific basis, I thought it was relevant and it wasnt mention in the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.230.33 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was removed on the basis of "these claims are so ludicrous that anybody can see they have no scientific basis." Personally I beg to differ - some people obviously do think they have a basis, or the claims wouldn't be repeated. I'd put it back in, but let's see what other people say. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Now just hold on here... Think of all these "calamities" lately and I mean since 2001... Which religion group has been most affected? Hmmm... and they always come "just in time".. What is the observed probability of that occurring? I would think about the same as the probability of a husband and wife dying of cancer within six months of each other, under the age of forty, who just happened to be on the "grassy knoll" one day in Dallas!!!--Oracleofottawa (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

that made no sense at all. Oh, and This isn't a forum about HAARP, it's a talk page to help improve the article. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that say "HAARP conspiracy theories A, B, C & D have no scientific basis" we would include that in the article with appropriate attribution. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, per WP:FRINGE, if there are no non-conspiracy theory sources about "HAARP conpiracy theories A, B, C, & D" then we cannot mention them without noting that there are no sources that they have a scientific basis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but I think this edit wasn't an improvement. If you want to reinstate it, be my guest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Whats not a scientific basis for sending radio waves into the core into the magnetic core to crate disturbances elsewhere? Sounds simple enough to explain. Rumble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.188.91 (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You've got sources to back that up, right? Sören Koopmann (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Who changed my sentence? Common Sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.188.91 (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Goodpoint.../

How is weather manipulation not mentioned once?

in the article? For a project that was designed initially for this application, and its research revolves around this topic, how is weather not once mentioned in the article? wacky --Львівське (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it mentioned in the "conspiracy theories" section, where it belongs? (It was not designed initially for weather modification.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In an interview, Robert Eastlund, the son of the HAARP technology inventor Bernard Eastland said his father intended HAARP to be used as a defense technology and to control weather in arrid places like Ethiopia to ensure a healthy environment. exact link of time mark 24:29 interview segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDfwHU7Cw6g#t=1469 NOT A "CONSPIRACY THEORY" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.73.187 (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, his son is not a reliable source. Neither is a YouTube video, unless from a major news service. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Is FOX News a "major news service"? How do you define a news service and how is being "major" reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.73.187 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura is not a news program (it was broadcast on Fox, but not out of the Fox news division), even if the YouTube video is not a copyright violation. It belongs in the "Conspiracy theory" section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you define a major news service? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.73.187 (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to; Fox News is a reliable source for most purposes (although some of the far-left editors would disagree), but Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The energy needed to modify weather is enormous. Rather than use atomic weapons to add energy to, say, a hurricane, it would be better to use the atomic weapons as weapons. -- DavidJErskine (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It is theoretically possible (i.e., it's not a violation of the laws of physics) for a relatively small effect to greatly increase or decrease the power of a hurricane. This is not to say that HAARP was intended to or could do that, just that it's not a violation of the laws of physics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And if something was observed violating the laws of physics, no doubt the scientists would go around trying to explain the "apparent" violation so that the "apparent" violation conforms to the known laws of physics. Heh. 198.151.130.69 (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Weather control was a hot subject for futurists (and science fiction writers) in the '50s and '60s - until chaos mathematics was discovered in the '70s and it became clear that total control of weather and climate was impossible. Local changes can be attempted, of course, and occasionally still are - and sometimes they work. For what it's worth, weather control schemes are mostly for fictional super-villains. Wyvern (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No Mention of the INVENTOR Eastlund, and the Seemingly Bias in the Objectives Section

It says "the project strives for openness and all activities are logged and publicly available." and yet the two researchers in the media interview do not know anything about the military involvement. It is not "open" or one bit transparent at all.

Where is the part in History about the inventor of this technology Bernard Eastlund? And his SON Robert Eastlund? The SON HIMSELF TOLD THE MEDIA ABOUT his dad's patents and the coerced military involvement - time mark stamp of Eastlund's 2009 interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDfwHU7Cw6g#t=1469

Where was the CBC coverage? Please understand that simply because there is an existing disagreement about the "objective" of this project does not mean it should be shut down.

There is an air of bias in the tone of the Objective's section and the lack of Criticisms part and the addition of a VAGUE "Conspiracy Theory" section is irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.73.187 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if Eastlund were the inventor, statements of his son would not be reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

His son would not be reliable - based on what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.73.187 (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that it seems perfectly relevant to mention the son's quotation/opinion and it would not seem to be against WP:RS, as long as the quote was used in context (i.e. would be appropriate in the conspiracy theories section). Mojokabobo 199.204.125.3 (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

European Parliament "Controversy"

Is there any news coverage or significant mention of this by reliable sources? The document appears to be a record of internal committee proceedings: a "motion for a resolution by Mrs Rehn Rouva". If the motion was not seconded by any member, it would not have received any consideration by the assembly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I found only two 3rd party sources that might be considered reliable, and while they do mention the EP held a committee hearing on the subject, they don't give it much weight: [2] and [3]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Civilian complaints at open public meetings do make it into government records, but are not endorsement by the committees. Nor is a single member, a sign the whole committee is behind an idea. I don't think many people disagree that big legislatures have a few elected nuts -- it more disagreement over who those nuts are. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How sound the signal?

A sound of the signal in an AM receiver capable of receiving its frequency

Phobos-Grunt

There's a Russian claim that says HAARP caused the failure of the Fobos-Grunt probe due to its excessively intense radio emissions. (Scientific American;Alaska Dispatch;) -- 76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)