[Spooks] HAARP

[J. Random Entity]

On 2/13/11 12:45 AM, Rene Matthijssen wrote:
>> Not asking to antagonise you by any means, but it's a pretty broad
>> statement - hence why at least I could use some clarification.
>>
>> - J.
> 
> Fair enough.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

> YES, I have heard & read most those wild stories and so do my friends, 
> yet in all of my years as a shortwave listener, I have never come across 
> the HAARP signal or maybe I have and don't know it.

The latter is entirely possible.  I know that I've picked it up on a
couple of occasions where I've found out after the fact what it actually
was.

> For that reason, I would like to hear it and in order to do so, I would 
> like to know if there is a group which keeps track of this and what 
> frequencies are being used. Very similar to the listing of numbers 
> stations on Spooks.

I'm not personally aware of anything similar to this list (or the
related groups) that specifically tracks HAARP activity in the same way.
 There are sporadic reception reports out there, to be sure - but
nothing that would establish a specific transmission pattern.

> I'm starting to get the feeling that nobody gets overly exited about 
> publishing info about numbers stations, but when I ask fair and 
> reasonable questions about HAARP, some people seem to get their hair 
> standing on end.

I don't get it either.  And to clarify my bias in this regard, my
personal opinions regarding HAARP are as follows:

- It is a high-frequency auroral research project, some of which is
military in nature.

That's it.  We know about as much about it as we do numbers stations
(IMHO), and assigning responsibility to it for things like weather
control, UFO appearances, and missile shields is about as reasonable as
claiming that numbers stations cause cancer in lab mice.

Just my $0.02 so that you understand where I'm coming from on this and
can take my replies accordingly.

> Once I know more about the actual HAARP transmissions, then I could 
> satisfy myself IN MY OWN MIND whether there is any reasonable 
> correlation between their transmissions and these various events that 
> people keep talking about. And if there isn't, so much better but then 
> at least I can shut up some of my friends.

Which is fair enough; letting research lead to findings is usually much
more reasonable in my opinion than starting with a premise and using
that research to bolster it.

> I accept a technical challenge when I see one........

Well, if my experience is anything to go by, about the biggest challenge
you're going to have is getting the length of the random wire antenna
correct ;)  The first time I heard it was on a Sony ICF-SW40 using the
built-in telescopic antenna - and if there was ever a radio with
underwhelming performance, that one is it.  The dollar store SW receiver
mentioned earlier would be fine as long as it's using a decent antenna.

- J.