Close to 1000 earthquakes in a week, very atypical and scientifically unexplained. I’m not talking about Turkey, but their neighbor and Ukraine’s: my home-country, Romania.
These occur as I type this and they unearthed a long-buried scandal: The Romanian mini-HAARP.

“So HAARP directs beams of enormous energy from the atmosphere to Earth, inside our planet. This causes disruptions in the Earth’s own magnetic field, which can cause major earthquakes. Many of the recent high-intensity earthquakes of the last period were preceded by atmospheric coloring phenomena, characteristic of illumination with HAARP radiation.” – General Dr. Marius Opran, scientific expert/coordinator on defense, security and critical space infrastructure issues within the Romanian Space Agency / Adevarul daily newspaper, February, 23, 2023

BREAKING: A team of Romanian scientists created a method of PREDICTING EARTHQAKES 2 DAYS IN ADVANCE, they already are contracted by NASA and several governments, but no one seems in a rush to implement it, Romanian TV news channel Realitatea reveals in an interview.
Their technology has been internationally known and recognized for over FIVE YEARS now, just not implemented.
Among them there are military experts WHO HAVE CONFIRMED EARTHQUAKES CAN BE ARTIFICIALLY PROVOKED WITH HAARP TECHNOLOGY.
WHAT NO ONE ELSE TELLS YOU: THEIR NEW METHOD IS FOR NATURAL EARTHQUAKES, THEREFORE IT CAN REVEAL ARTIFICIAL EARTHQUAKES.

In August 2010, the landscape next to Corbu Beach in Romania has been visibly altered by two clusters of 20 antennas each and some barracks, suddenly landed there, next to an air-defense training camp belonging to the Romanian Army.
By September, social media was already sounding the alarm: “is this anything like HAARP?!”. Because earthquakes are not a rare occurrence in Romania, neither are extreme weather phenomena. Some are just nature being nature, some of are truly scientifically inexplicable, some only defy experience and common sense.
The topic generated a surprising amount of media coverage, talk shows, interviews and the whole shabazz, in which top Romanian Army experts and generals, as well as some government officials, expressed personal opinions and stances that are very rich in unsettling information they vouch for. And I can translate it for you.
Yet, 13 years later, the general population is almost as clueless about this installation as it was in 2010, both the Romanian Government and the Romanian Army couldn’t be less bothered to calm the waters, they knew another scandal will diffuse this one soon.
Some folks really went down the HAARP rabbit hole and that changed their lives.
But no one has managed to come up with anything official, just mere speculations about that specific gear next to Corbu Beach, lurking somewhere middle way if you walk from Odessa to Ankara.
No one before us, I mean…

SOURCE

But only after I finished the video above I bumped into the most coincidental of all coincidences here (from a long list):

LITTLE HAARP AND BIG HAARP COME FROM THE SAME MOTHER!

Below is the press release for HAARP’s completion, now deleted and archived HERE:

June 27, 2007 06:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time 

BAE Systems Completes World’s Premiere Facility for Ionospheric Physics Research

GAKONA, Alaska–(BUSINESS WIRE)–BAE Systems has completed work on the world’s largest and most capable ionospheric research facility. The facility will be used to study interactions between high-power radio signals and the earth’s ionosphere.

“HAARP is a scientific project to study the properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with emphasis on using the ionosphere to improve communications and surveillance systems for civilian and defense purposes”

As the prime contractor for the U.S. Defense Department’s High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) research station, BAE Systems designed and built the facility, operating software, and controls under a series of contracts valued at more than $250 million from the Office of Naval Research.

The research station was dedicated on June 27 in a ceremony held at the Gakona site. Construction of the station was jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

It includes 360 radio transmitters with a combined power of 3.6 megawatts; 180, 68-foot-tall antennas covering an area of 40 acres; and five large generators providing more than 16 megawatts of power.

“HAARP is a scientific project to study the properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with emphasis on using the ionosphere to improve communications and surveillance systems for civilian and defense purposes,” said Rob Jacobsen, HAARP program director for BAE Systems in Washington, D.C.

The ionosphere is the part of the atmosphere between space and the earth in which electrically charged atoms, or ions, reflect radio waves, making long-distance radio communication possible.

About BAE Systems

BAE Systems is a global defense and aerospace company, delivering a full range of products and services for air, land, and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, information technology solutions, and customer support services. BAE Systems, with 88,000 employees worldwide, had 2006 sales that exceeded $25 billion.

______________________

BAE Systems and Raytheon are perceived as top competitors in the military industry, but that’s only partly true.

  • Raytheon Aircraft Company is the owner of HAARP patents, and, NOAA-funded aerosol weather modification/AESA radar weather weapons”
  • “BAE Systems is program and apparatus-owner of the HAARP facility, Railgun technology, electromagnetic armor, and, a sub-corporation partner with Raytheon via British Aerospace Corporation
  • “General Dynamics Robotics (owned by Raytheon Corp) is the military contractor/manufacturer of Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles (UAV) aircraft designed for “all-weather,” computer-controlled weapons defense progams
  • “Boeing, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, and Raytheon to create B2B exchange for the aerospace and defense industry, powered by Microsoft”
  • “Boeing, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, and Raytheon to create B2B exchange for the aerospace and defense industry, powered by Microsoft”
  • “The Weather Modification Operations and Research Board (passed Oct.2005) – in corporate cooperation with BAE Systems (HAARP apparatus & facility owner) and Raytheon Corporation (HAARP patent owner)

SOURCE: CHEMEUROPE.COM

Raytheon, in partnership with BAE, designed Excalibur to be fired from the Paladin (among other weapons systems). The Paladin’s ammunition magazine holds 39 rounds. And at last report, the U.S. Army and National Guard had bought a total of 975 Paladins for their arsenals.

USA Today, July 6 2014

BAE Systems selects Raytheon’s projector for UAE F-16 DLE HUD

Raytheon will design, develop and manufacture the projector for BAE Systems’ Digital Light Engine (DLE) Head-Up Display (HUD) on the F-16 Fighting Falcon for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) armed forces.

Times Aerospace


Raytheon’s partnership with BAE Systems provides pilots with real-time, mission critical information using its projector for BAE Systems’ Digital Light Engine (DLE) Head-Up Display (HUD) on the UAE’s F-16.
Courtesy Lockheed Martin

BAE Systems completes $1.9 billion acquisition of Raytheon’s military GPS business

Defense News,  Jul 31, 2020

WASHINGTON — BAE Systems has completed its $1.9 billion purchase of Collins Aerospace’s military GPS business from Raytheon Technologies Corporation, BAE announced July 31.

The acquisition follows the merger of defense contracting giants United Technologies Corp. and Raytheon into Raytheon Technologies Corporation in June. The U.S. Department of Justice had approved that merger in March, but only on the condition the companies divest UTC’s military GPS and large space-based optical systems businesses, as well as Raytheon’s military airborne radios business.

The two companies had already struck a deal with BAE in January, which saw BAE purchasing Collins Aerospace’s military GPS business from UTC for $1.9 billion and Raytheon’s airborne tactical radio business for $275 million.

A special CBC report aired in Canada early 2000’s also reveals Raytheon is behind the “Mother HAARP” in Alaska.

A kind of FAQ:

SO WHAT IS THIS THING IN ROMANIA?

Officially, it’s a radar for monitoring the territorial waters in the Black Sea.

Comparing its description with the presentations on the HAARP official website, what I see is a pocket HAARP.

Vs.

PDF source

The main relevant difference I found is that HAARP has to use the word “transmitter” while Raytheon can avoid it because that’s not the on-label purpose.

A physics professor who’s just saw that Raytheon page told me in a recent private chat: If HAARP was a firetruck, this is like a car fire extinguisher. They use similar physics to accomplish similar goals, to different scales.

Can this thing use the ionosphere to focus energy in a specific location like HAARP does?
Theoretically yes, de facto we can’t know as of now. These capabilities can even be hidden to the rightful owner and third parties can have access to them through backdoors, same way the Pegasus spyware that hands control over your phone to anyone who can afford to buy it.
So the Romanian Army can use it in good will to surveil its territory and, same time, the DoD could use it to send an energy impulse somewhere else.

CAN THIS THING REALLY BE BLAMED FOR EARTHQUAKES

I personally have found NO evidence that causally connects this installation and an earthquake, that is NOT my thesis here.

My stance is that this thing COULD, theoretically, achieve that, we are in a territory of agnosticism on this topic and, if we are impartial, we need to be open to either possibilities and collect more information on both.

From this position, this is my analysis:

Someone argued that all HAARP-like installation known on Earth, about a dozen, summed up, can’t generate enough energy to kickstart an earthquake.

To which, a Romanian Army general responded on some Romanian cable news TV: “they don’t need to. “

Simplifying what he and other experts said publicly, in Romania and beyond, they only need to be the straw the breaks the camel’s back. And that’s something even a tiny installation like the Corbu one can over-achieve if enough seismic tension accumulates in Earth’s crust somewhere close enough. Even more so if you overlap two of them…

So what I’m saying is:

“Suspicious” is the reasonable default position about any earthquake in this day and age, regardless of what “de-radicalizers” say. Just collect enough evidence before any conclusion.

This question has been scientifically settled long ago, as you will see further below.


I have another one that no one dares to touch:

CAN THE ROMANIAN HAARP SET A RUSSIAN WARSHIP ON FIRE?

No quotable sources I know dared to answer.

WHERE IS THE SECOND POCKET-HAARP?

No one knows, as of now. No one even knew there were two, besides the parts that signed the contract and probably 10 more people who paid attention to the press release and forgot about it the next minute.

We explored the possibility that both of them have been deployed in the same location, as we have two rows x 20 antennas each.

First of all, it’s unusual because senseless to overlap radars, the whole point of radars being to surveil as much territory as possible. Even more so in this case, where one installation can cover the whole Romanian shore and beyond.
Placing two radars in the same location doubles the power over the same area. The power to what, these are radars, officially at least…?

On the other hand, these are “beyond the horizon” radars, specifically useful for surveilling large surfaces of water, there are no other seas or oceans Romania has an opening to. Surely they can be used on land too, but Romania is about 2/3 mountains and hills, from a military standpoint, other types of radars were more needed to secure borders and this acquisition makes half-sense as announced.

So, if they deployed both of them in Corbu, that only makes things more illogical and suspicious.

HOW DOES ROMANIA NEED TWO IF ONE DOES THE JOB??
SOURCE

But we don’t know yet either way, this investigation is ongoing.

As an experienced former insider in Romanian politics, I advise investigating an alternative question:

HAS THE SECOND RADAR EVER BEEN DELIVERED?

I know some precedents there…

LAST MINUTE: CORPORATE SHILLS BLAME CORPORATE FRACKING FOR THE ROMANIAN EARTHQUAKES

Another strange development as I was preparing to publish this:

A series of surprising voices raised to blame some natural gas exploitations nearby for about 1000 earthquakes in Gorj, Romania. “They’re fracking there, this caused the earthquakes”, activists claimed. Some MEP even started a social media campaign on this.

I almost bought that, but a red light kept blinking in the back of my head, as these voices came mostly from the NPC area of the Romanian society and media, the ones that usually line behind corporatist agendas, not against them. If they turned their weapons, much higher stakes are played.

It didn’t take long until the incriminated company responded with a press release simply stating they are not using any form of fracking there.

And I am open to believe they’re not bullshitting us this time because it’s something easily verifiable and I know they know it’s hard to get away with such a lie even in Romania. However, hard is not impossible.

I will update this if time proves me wrong. Until then, at least officially, it wasn’t fracking.

If I am correct, I am also correct when I say some people were sent out there to put out the fire on the topic of geophysical weapons.

PLOT TWIST: The event is used by authorities to expropriate people who live in “endangered edifices”.

I’m sitting on a mountain of sources and resources supporting the statements above and more, here are just some of them, more to come as I process them, always good to revisit our reports for updates:

Take your dirty hands off Turkey! – Turkish Interior minister to US, just 2 days before earthquake

The HAARP Project and nonb-lethal weapons

The HAARP project and non-lethal weapons.
Experts alarmed – public debate needed.

The hearing on the HAARP project and non-lethal weapons was held in connection with a European Parliament own-initiative report, to be drawn up by Maj Britt THEORIN (PES, S), on the possible use of military resources in environmental strategies.

Non-lethal (or non-deadly) weapons – a varied scenario
As Peter TRUSCOTT (PES, UK) said in his introduction, “There is an invisible line between what is acceptable and what is suspect”. This is the nub of the issue.

Non-lethal weapons constitute a trend in military thinking which has developed since the end of the Cold War. The world is dealing with a different sort of crisis, which is less easily identifiable and less easy to manage with traditional methods and weapons – hence the desire to master the violence by means other than the same violence. Non- lethal weapons are compared by some authors to “straitjackets” and defined as “any action capable of modifying the behaviour of the adversary while avoiding his annihilation”. This appears to be a significant element of crisis prevention but can be – and is – also used in civilian situations (e.g. crowd control).

Mr Luc MAMPAEY, a researcher at GRIP, the Brussels-based European institute for research and information into peace and security, said he believed the expression “non-lethal weapons” was semantically contentious. He argued that the term had reassuring connotations. It was the politically correct term, and one which could delude the public into thinking that nowadays a clean war was possible and hence morally acceptable. In fact, as he himself and the Red Cross representative, Mr Robin COUPLAND (Geneva), pointed out, the dividing line between deadly and non-deadly weapons was not clear. Some weapons might result in death, while others could incapacitate their victims permanently or temporarily. Mr COUPLAND was quite categorical: the term “non-deadly”, he said, was ultimately a marketing slogan.

The problem of definition “by default” led all the experts to stress that there was no single type of non-lethal weapon and that a careful distinction must be made between the various types, from the simplest to the most sophisticated. These new weapons covered a broad spectrum of technologies, from optical systems with a dazzling or blinding effect, through sound and electro- magnetic waves, chemical, medicinal, adhesive, slippery, super-caustic and acidic substances, biological agents, bacteria and micro-organisms, to rubber bullets and electric-shock batons.

Dangers to health and the environment

The effects on health and the environment were also described as variable. Any weapon designed to disrupt an organism, as well as weapons capable of affecting an organism indirectly, by chemical or biological means, or optical, acoustic or neurological stimuli, could become fatal under certain conditions. Adhesive foam, it was said, could also have extremely dangerous side- effects.

Only if a precisely calculated dose were perfectly delivered could it be guaranteed that sensory (or xenobiotic) stimuli would not have irreversible, or indeed, fatal effects. In practice, this perfect control over the degree of disruption was the first thing likely to go by the board under extreme conditions, where the desire for a swift and decisive solution would rapidly override considerations of ethics or toxicology.

The risk of abuse in democratic societies

However, it was argued, health and environmental issues were not the only concerns raised by the use of non-lethal weapons. Mr COUPLAND expressed concern about an overlap of civil, police and military applications. He was also afraid that these weapons might be used not to replace conventional weapons but in addition to them.

In Mr MAMPAEY’s view, as non-lethal weapons developed, links were bound to be created between military and law-and-order operations, which, he said, would enable certain current conventions to be bypassed. There was a danger of growing militarisation of domestic police forces, which would have access to more sophisticated weaponry. This could raise problems in any state which was supposed to be based on the rule of law and to be mindful of human rights and individual freedoms.

The HAARP project

Tom SPENCER (EPP, UK), chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said that the United States had been invited to state its viewpoint on this matter to the hearing. Although the US had declined an initial invitation, Mr SPENCER reiterated his offer, saying that the Americans could send a representative to address the committee in future if they wished.

Ms Rosalie BERTELL, from Toronto (Canada), is one of the best-informed experts about HAARP (the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme), a programme which has been developed by the US military.

She described the background to HAARP. The ionosphere is a high-altitude layer of the atmosphere with particles which are highly charged with energy. If radiation is projected into the ionosphere, huge amounts of energy can be generated and used to annihilate a given region.

The HAARP project involves the manipulation of the earth’s ionosphere, whose natural role is to moderate energy transfer from the sun to the earth and is used as a missile trajectory and as a reflector for radio communication. The aim of HAARP is to control and manipulate the ionosphere so as to enable the manipulator to wipe out communications at will on a global scale, or to make them resilient in the event of a nuclear war.

It also enables communications to take place with submerged submarines and can, in theory, create geomagnetic pathways to guide particle beams which could then deposit large amounts of energy anywhere on the globe. In simpler terms, HAARP, with its power of intimidation, of delivery or denial of electrical energy on a global scale and its control of communications, is an element of a system which could control the global village in some frightening ways.

According to Dr Nick BEGICH, an expert from Alaska and author of one of the leading publications on the subject*, the HAARP programme would allow such concentrations of energy to be attained that an entire region of the planet could be deprived of water. Electromagnetic waves can cause earthquakes or tidal waves. Mr SPENCER pointed out that, under international conventions, any actions leading to climate change were prohibited.

Mr BEGICH said that in his eyes the project was purely and simply “Star Wars technology”. Moreover, it was a secret project, as the US Congress had refused to finance Star Wars. The USA, he claimed, had allocated 91 million dollars to the main programme, to which must be added the related programmes. Over the last 50 years, he said, certain levels of security had been developed which were protected from public scrutiny. State secrets were acceptable in themselves but if they involved such major repercussions for human beings and the environment they must be made public. In his view, the international community should be allowed to evaluate the risks of the HAARP programme.

Eurico DE MELO (EPP, P) said he regarded the revelations as terrifying and said that there was a need for a campaign to inform the public about it.

Winding up, Magda AELVOET (Green, B) told the hearing that there was a saying: “War is too important to be left to the generals”. She feared we had forgotten this truth.

Further information: Etienne BASSOT – tel. 284 47 41

Interestingly, the above report references this book:

Angels Don’t Play This Haarp, Advances in tesla technology, Earthpulse Press, USA, 1995

EU clashes with US over atmosphere tests

Physics World, 27 Feb 1998

The foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament has criticised plans by the US military to beam high-frequency signals into the atmosphere. The committee is worried about the effect of the high- frequency active auroral research programme (HAARP) on the environment.

HAARP is a facility to study upper atmospheric and solar terrestrial physics. The programme is paid for by the US Air Force and Navy and has already cost hundreds of million dollars. Opponents of the project believe that the defence department is studying ways of improving communications with the US submarine fleet. The array acts like a powerful radar and transmits high frequency 3600 kW signals into the ionosphere.

Starting 35 miles above the Earth’s surface, the ionosphere contains charged particles which distort and deflect radio signals. These particles are produced by the interaction of solar radiation with the atmosphere. HAARP can pump energy some 70 miles into the ionosphere diameter. Military applications for such phenomena are many – devising radar systems, disrupting communications, and improving US logistics.

When the foreign affairs committee invited North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the US permanent representative to NATO to discuss the HAARP project at a public meeting two weeks ago, both groups refused. The secretary general of NATO said that the organisation had neither a policy on this topic, nor an expert they could send to the committee. Tom Spencer, chairman of the committee chairman, vowed to take the matter further, possibly to the US Congress.

Not all researchers believe that opposition to HAARP is justified. Peter Cargill, a space physicist at Imperial College in London, believes that the physics is interesting in its own right, and points out that there are several other facilities carrying out this type of research. “HAARP is just bigger than the other programmes around the world, ” he says. “However, the military don’t spend that kind of money for pure science.”

Report – A4-0005/1999

European Parliament

Report on the environment, security and foreign policy Draftsman: Mr Olsson, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (Hughes procedure)

14 January 1999

Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy
Rapporteur: Mrs Maj Britt Theorin

At the request of the Conference of Committee Chairmen, the President, at the sitting of 15 November 1996, announced that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy had been authorised to submit a report on the matter.

At its meeting of 19 November 1996 the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy appointed Mrs Maj Britt Theorin rapporteur.

At the sitting of 19 June 1998 the President of Parliament announced that this report would be drawn up, pursuant to the Hughes Procedure, by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection.

The draft report was considered by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy at its meetings of 5 February, 29 June, 21 July, 3, 23 and 28 September, 13, 27 and 29 October 1998 and 4 and 5 January 1999, and by the Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament at its meetings of 5 February and 3 and 23 September 1998.

At the last meeting the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy adopted the motion for a resolution by 28 votes to none with one abstention.

The following took part in the vote: Spencer, chairman; Theorin, rapporteur; Aelvoet, AndréLéonard, Barón-Crespo, Bertens, Bianco, Burenstam Linder, Carnero González, Carrozzo (for Colajanni), Dillen, Dupuis, Gahrton, Goerens (for Cars), Graziani, Günther (for Gomolka), Lalumière, Lambrias, Pack (for Habsburg), Pettinari (for Imbeni pursuant to Rule 138(2), Piha, Rinsche, Sakellariou, Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Schroedter (for M. Cohn-Bendit), Schwaiger (for Mme Lenz), Speciale, Swoboda (for Mme Hoff), Tindemans, Titley and Truscott.

The opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection is attached.

The report was tabled on 14 January 1999.

The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant partsession.

A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy

….

“…whereas, despite the existing conventions, military research is ongoing on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated for example by the Alaska-based HAARP system”

Legal aspects of military activities

26. Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new ‘non-lethal’ weapons technology and the development of new arms strategies also covered and regulated by international conventions;

27. Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by virtue of its farreaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme currently being funded in Alaska;

28. Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidence provided in all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature and degree of risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global environment and to public health generally;

29. Calls on the Commission, in collaboration with the governments of Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Russian Federation, to examine the environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings;

30. Calls in particular for an international convention for a global ban on all research and development, whether military or civilian, which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings, including a ban on any actual or possible deployment of such systems;

31. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work for the establishment of international treaties to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in the event of war;

32. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work towards the establishment of international standards for the environmental impact of peacetime military activities;

HAARP – a weapons system which disrupts the climate

On 5 February 1998 Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament held a hearing the subject of which included HAARP. NATO and the US had been invited to send representatives, but chose not to do so. The Committee regrets the failure of the USA to send a representative to answer questions, or to use the opportunity to comment on the material submitted.[21]

HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is run jointly by the US Air Force and Navy, in conjunction with the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Similar experiments are also being conducted in Norway, probably in the Antarctic, as well as in the former Soviet Union.[22] HAARP is a research project using a ground based apparatus, an array of antennae each powered by its own transmitter, to heat up portions of ionosphere with powerful radio beams.[23] The energy generated heats up parts of the ionosphere; this results in holes in the ionosphere and produces artificial ‘lenses’.

HAARP can be used for many purposes. Enormous quantities of energy can be controlled by manipulating the electrical characteristics of the atmosphere. If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy. HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a given area than any other conventional transmitter. The energy can also be aimed at a moving target which should constitute a potential anti-missile system.

The project would also allow better communications with submarines and manipulation of global weather patterns, but it is also possible to do the reverse, to disrupt communications. By manipulating the ionosphere one could block global communications while transmitting one’s own. Another application is earth-penetrating, tomography, x-raying the earth several kilometres deep, to detect oil and gas fields, or underground military facilities. Over-the-horizon radar is another application, looking round the curvature of the earth for in-coming objects.

From the 1950s the USA conducted explosions of nuclear material in the Van Allen Belts[24] to investigate the effect of the electro-magnetic pulse generated by nuclear weapon explosions at these heights on radio communications and the operation of radar. This created new magnetic radiation belts which covered nearly the whole earth. The electrons travelled along magnetic lines of force and created an artificial Aurora Borealis above the North Pole. These military tests are liable to disrupt the Van Allen belt for a long period. The earth’s magnetic field could be disrupted over large areas, which would obstruct radio communications. According to US scientists it could take hundreds of years for the Van Allen belt to return to normal. HAARP could result in changes in weather patterns. It could also influence whole ecosystems, especially in the sensitive Antarctic regions.

Another damaging consequence of HAARP is the occurrence of holes in the ionosphere caused by the powerful radio beams. The ionosphere protects us from incoming cosmic radiation. The hope is that the holes will fill again, but our experience of change in the ozone layer points in the other direction. This means substantial holes in the ionosphere that protects us.

With its far-reaching impact on the environment HAARP is a matter of global concern and we have to ask whether its advantages really outweigh the risks. The environmental impact and the ethical aspect must be closely examined before any further research and testing takes place. HAARP is a project of which the public is almost completely unaware, and this needs to be remedied.

HAARP has links with 50 years of intensive space research for military purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control the upper atmosphere and communications. This kind of research has to be regarded as a serious threat to the environment, with an incalculable impact on human life. Even now nobody knows what impact HAARP may have. We have to beat down the wall of secrecy around military research, and set up the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects, and parliamentary control.

A series of international treaties and conventions (the Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, the Antarctic Treaty, the Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) casts considerable doubt on HAARP on legal as well as humanitarian and political grounds. The Antarctic Treaty lays down that the Antarctic may be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.[25] This would mean that HAARP is a breach of international law. All the implications of the new weapons systems should be examined by independent international bodies. Further international agreements should be sought to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in war.

Climate change – an integral part of US ‘Star Wars’ programme

by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, November 2000.
(Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and author of The Globalization of Poverty (second edition, Common Courage Press, 2000).

While world attention and concern have been focussed on the need to prevent climate change by the control of carbon emissions, the dangers of ‘weather warfare’ have been ignored. Michel Chossudovsky draws attention to a US drive to perfect technology under its ‘Star Wars’ programme which will have the capacity to trigger climate change.


THE important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the world’s climate can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated ‘non-lethal weapons.’ Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to manipulate the world’s climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency  Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP) as part of the (‘Star Wars’) Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI).  Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is fully operational and has the ability to potentially trigger floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. 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.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely the United Nations should be addressing the issue of ‘environmental warfare’ alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases…

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly part of the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official delegations nor the environmental action groups participating in the Hague Conference on Climate Change (COP6) (November 2000) have raised the broad issue of  ‘weather warfare’ or ‘environmental modification techniques’ (ENMOD) as relevant to an understanding of climate change.

The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and American business lobbies has centred on Washington’s outright refusal to abide by commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.1 The impacts of military technologies on the world’s climate are not an object of discussion or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse gases, the ongoing debate on climate change serves Washington’s strategic and defence objectives.

‘Weather warfare’

World-renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that  ‘US military scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapour rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods.’2 Already in the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book Between Two Ages that:

‘Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised… [T]echniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm. ‘

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of ‘unconventional weapons’ using radio frequencies. He refers to ‘weather war,’ indicating that the US and the Soviet Union had already ‘mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s.’3 These technologies make it ‘possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves].’4

A simulation study of future defence ‘scenarios’ commissioned for the US Air Force calls for:

‘US aerospace forces to ‘own the weather’ by capitalising on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications… From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather modification offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary… In the United States, weather modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels’.5

The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP)

The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP) based in Gokoma, Alaska – jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy – is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the SDI. Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating ‘controlled local modifications of the ionosphere’. Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich – actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP – describes HAARP as:

‘A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything – living and dead.’6

Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as ‘a gigantic heater that can cause major disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet.’ 7

Misleading public opinion

HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a programme of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP’s main objective is to ‘exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defence purposes.’8  Without explicitly referring to HAARP, a US Air Force study points to the use of ‘induced ionospheric modifications’ as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar.9

According to Bertell, HAARP is part of an integrated weapons system which has potentially devastating environmental consequences:

‘It is related to 50 years of intensive and increasingly destructive programmes to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature. The military implications of combining these projects [are] alarming. … The ability of the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination to deliver very large amount[s] of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, [is] frightening. The project is likely to be ‘sold’ to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer.’10

In addition to weather manipulation,  HAARP has a number of related uses:

‘HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding the atmosphere with high-frequency rays… Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people’s brains, and effects on tectonic movements cannot be ruled out.11

More generally, HAARP has the ability to modify the world’s electromagnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of ‘electronic weapons’ which US military researchers consider a ‘gentler and kinder warfare’.12

Weapons of the New World Order

HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under the SDI. From military command points in the US, entire national economies could potentially be destabilised through climatic manipulations. More importantly, the latter can be implemented without the knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military personnel and equipment as in a conventional war.

The use of HAARP – if it were to be applied – could have potentially devastating impacts on the world’s climate. Responding to US economic and strategic interests, it could be used to selectively modify climate in different parts of the world, resulting in the destabilisation of agricultural and ecological systems.

It is also worth noting that the US Department of Defence has allocated substantial resources to the development of intelligence and monitoring systems on weather changes. The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defence’s National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working on ‘imagery for studies of flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards, earthquakes, ecological zones, weather forecasts, and climate change’ with data relayed from satellites.13

Policy inertia of the United Nations

According to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:

‘States have… in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the (…)  responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.’14

It is also worth recalling that an international convention which entered into force in 1978  bans ‘military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’15 Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. The Convention defines ‘environmental modification techniques’ as referring to ‘any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.’16

Why then did the UN – disregarding the ENMOD Convention as well as its own charter – decide to exclude from its agenda climatic changes resulting from military programmes?

European Parliament acknowledges impacts of HAARP

In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj Britt Theorin – Swedish MEP (Member of the European Parliament)  and longtime peace advocate – the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy held public hearings in Brussels on HAARP.17 The Committee’s ‘Motion for Resolution’ submitted to the European Parliament:

‘Considers HAARP… by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP programme.’18

The Committee’s request to draw up a ‘Green Paper’ on ‘the environmental impacts of military activities’, however, was casually dismissed on the grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to delve into ‘the links between environment and defense’.19 Brussels was anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington.

Fully operational

While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, scientific findings suggest  that it is at present fully operational. What this means is that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US military to selectively modify the climate of an ‘unfriendly nation’ or ‘rogue state’ with a view to destabilising its national economy.

Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are already in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including market deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF and World Bank ‘economic medicine’ imposed on the Third World and the countries of the former Soviet bloc has largely contributed to the destabilisation of domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) have supported the interests of a handful of Western agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to impose genetically modified seeds on farmers throughout the world.

It is important to understand the linkage between the economic, strategic and military processes of the New World Order. In the above context, climatic manipulations under HAARP (whether accidental or deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes by weakening national economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering the bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas. Surely national governments and the United Nations should address the possible consequences of HAARP and other ‘non-lethal weapons’ on climate change.                                      

Notes

1.   The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2% to become effective between 2008 and 2012. See Background of Kyoto Protocol at http://www.globalwarming.net/gw11.html.

2.   The Times, London, 23 November 2000.

3.   Intelligence Newsletter, 16 December 1999.

4.   Ibid.

5.   Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/.

6.   Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, The Military’s Pandora’s Box, Earthpulse Press, http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html. See also the HAARP homepage at http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/.

7.   See Briarpatch, January 2000.

8.   Quoted in Begich and Manning, op. cit.

9.   Air University, op. cit.

10. Rosalie Bertell, ‘Background of the HAARP Program’, 5 November 1996, http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/weapons.htm.

11. Begich and Manning, op. cit.

12. Don Herskovitz, ‘Killing Them Softly’, Journal of Electronic Defense, August 1993. According to Herskovitz, ‘electronic warfare’ is defined by the US Department of Defence as ‘military action involving the use of electromagnetic energy…’ The Journal of Electronic Defense at http://www.jedefense.com/ has published a range of articles on the application of electronic and electromagnetic military technologies.

13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999.

14. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992. See complete text at http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.htm

15. See Associated Press, 18 May 1977.

16. ‘Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties Declare’, UN Chronicle, July 1984, Vol. 21,  p.  27.

17. European Report, 7 February 1998.

18. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999.

19. EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between Environment and Defense’, European Report, 3 February  1999.

Chill factor at ‘CIA’ weather query

By PRESS ASSOCIATION

PUBLISHED: 00:43 GMT, 15 February 2015 

A leading American climate scientist has said he felt “scared” when a shadowy organisation claiming to represent the CIA asked him about the possibility of weaponised weather.

Professor Alan Robock received a call three years ago from two men wanting to know if experts would be able to spot a hostile force’s attempts to upset the US climate.

But he suspected the real intention was to find out how feasible it might be to secretly interfere with the climate of another country.

A further twist in Prof Robock’s story concerns the CIA’s alleged co-funding of a major report on geoengineering published this week by the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences.

The report mentions the “US intelligence community” in its list of sponsors, which also includes the American space agency Nasa, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the US Department of Energy.

Prof Robock said the CIA had told one of his colleagues it wanted to fund the report, but apparently did not want this fact to be too obvious.

“The CIA is a major funder of the National Academies report so that makes me really worried who is going to be in control,” he added.

He pointed out that the US had a history of using the weather in a hostile way. During the Vietnam War clouds were seeded over the Ho Chi Minh trail – a footpath-based supply route used by the North Vietnamese – to make the track muddy in an attempt to cut it off.

The CIA had also seeded clouds over Cuba “to make it rain and ruin the sugar harvest”.

During a press conference on the potential risks of geoengineering, Prof Robock was asked what its greatest hazard might be.

He replied: “The answer is global nuclear war because if one country wants to control the climate in one way, and another doesn’t want it or if they try to shoot down the planes … if there is no agreement, it could result in terrible consequences.”

On the first day of 2015, a strange thing happened: a surface earthquake in Vrancea, at a depth of 31 kilometers, followed by aftershocks, also surface, in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. We mention that the Vrancea seismic zone is a deep one, where natural tectonic movements occur below 50 kilometers. In parentheses, it must be said that the surface earthquake can produce greater destruction than the deep one, but zonally, on a much smaller area.

Eventually, another 18 earthquakes followed in 14 days. Among them, on Monday, a surface earthquake of 4.1 degrees Richter was registered in Vrancea. Kind of strong… Provoked tectonic movements? According to the Ieşe weekly “7 est”, the physicist Constantin Antohi, associate professor at the Faculty of Hydrotechnical Cadastre and Environmental Engineering, within the Gheorghe Asachi Technical University, believes that these atypical earthquakes for the Vrancea area are not the result of natural tectonic activity, but are caused by the use of HAARP-like technology by the Russians, for military purposes. The earthquake interrupted the phone land-lines. “I felt one of the earthquakes and immediately wanted to call my wife. When I called… nothing! The phone was dead! Usually, when the networks are busy, you are told that the subscriber cannot be reached or something like that. Nothing appeared on my phone and I didn’t even hear a message”, declared Constantin Antohi. This oddity made the professor think, who came up with the idea that electromagnetic induction might have taken place.

“I also talked with my colleagues and I realized that an electromagnetic field was produced. I immediately thought of the HAARP phenomenon, based on the inventions of Nikola Tesla (no. – physicist and inventor). Some states have this technology, of emitting microwaves into the ionosphere, and from there, they are reflected to certain points on Earth, to create earthquakes. I think someone from the East is causing earthquakes in the Vrancea area. I think that someone doesn’t want us in NATO!”, said Professor Antohi. In support of his theory, Antohi says that this “HAARP phenomenon” can also cause climate change, something that has also happened here recently. The past few days, for example, our country oscillated within a few hours from temperatures of -15 degrees to plus 10 degrees. Practically, there are temperature jumps of over 20 degrees in just 24 hours. And these changes are too frequent, in the sense that after two or three very cold days, below the annual average, two or three warm days follow, above the annual average.

The HAARP phenomenon also changes the climate

“The HAARP phenomenon can produce these oscillations! At some point, an interruption of the circuit of long-wave atmospheric currents, which propagates rapidly from east to west, may occur. Interrupting, a depression is created, which attracts the current of warm air, from the Sahara”, states the physicist.

Many earthquakes with a large magnitude in 2014

According to a statistic of the National Institute for Earth Physics, in Romania, in the area of Vrancea, since 2009, more and more earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 4.5 have occurred. In 2009, three such earthquakes occurred, the largest being the one on April 25, with a magnitude of 5.4. In 2010, there were only two stronger ones, in 2011 there were also two larger ones, in 2012, one, so that in 2013, there were three, the largest having a magnitude of 5.3. As for last year, there were no less than eight earthquakes with a magnitude of over 4.5, the largest being the one on November 21, which had a magnitude of 5.6. In 2015, no less than five earthquakes have already occurred, three of which were 4.3 degrees.

HAARP (Active Auroral High Frequency Research Program) started in 1992 at the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. It is a scientific project created to determine the behavior of ozone, nitrogen and ions during the bombardment of solar and cosmic radiation, as well as the emission of high or low frequency radiation from the Earth. The project holder is the Department of Defense of the United States, through the US Navy and the US Air Force.

The similar European project, called EISCAT, an acronym for the European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association, is located in Norway and Sweden, the participating countries being Great Britain, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, China and Japan.

Russia has developed its own ionospheric research base at Vas i l surk, called SURA.

“Geophysical warfare is that type of conflict that uses environmental modification techniques for military purposes. From a geoclimatic point of view, snow, rain, fog, tornadoes, typhoons, cyclones, hurricanes, drought are created on demand, and from a geophysical point of view, earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, directing asteroids and meteorites, all knowingly done against a potential enemy. This type of war, never declared, started in the 50s.

The most perfected systems in this category are the SURA System from the Russian Federation and HAARP from the USA”, says General Emil Străinu, the only Romanian who has a doctorate in the field of geophysical warfare .

Does Romania also have a geophysical weapon?

Romania also has a strange set of military antennas, which do not resemble anything that the Romanian army has used so far – but rather the HAARP network. It is a system consisting of approximately 40 antennas arranged in two rows. Several military containers are placed nearby – that is, the installation’s command center.

Not a single military specialist could specify what the array of antennas could be.

Moscow attacked Romania with a geophysical weapon before in 2005. At the end of June 2006, the Public Administration Committee of the Senate decided to establish a subcommittee to analyze the reasons for the catastrophic floods in the north of Moldova in 2005, which killed 38 people and devastated 476 localities. At the time, it was suspected that the Russians would have used geophysical weapons to cause torrential rains in Romania. The results of the investigation have remained secret, but simply raising the issue at this level suggests that the situation in the field of geophysical weapons is quite serious. Such technologies are used today in space espionage and in the testing, from a military point of view, of “space, to check the vulnerability of the enemy’s environment from the point of view of the operational response capacity in crisis situations.

Following the conflict in eastern Ukraine, these meteorological anomalies have increased due to the use of geophysical weapons in the confrontation between Russia and NATO forces. Romania, due to its geographical position, is a buffer zone and an experiment zone for such confrontations”, military analyst Silviu Crăescu (photo), president of the National Security Academy, told us.

Scandal in Haiti In 2010, political scientist Claudia von Werlhof of the University of Innsbruk, Austria, advanced the thesis that the 7.3-magnitude earthquake in Haiti in January 2010, following in which 230,000 people lost their lives, and another 300,000 were injured, would have been caused artificially, through the HAARP installation. Her statements created a huge international scandal, and the management of the university accused Werlhof of speaking inappropriately and harming the institution.
Libertatea, 2015

HAARP AND PAKISTAN

HAARP AND AFRICA

The awesome power of geophysical warfare  

The development of devastating geophysical weapons as part of the United States’ Full Spectrum Dominance strategy is causing serious concern around the world. By Baffour Ankomah

The US military’s High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP), based at Gakona, Alaska, is the latest electromagnetic, geophysical warfare programme to raise concerns locally and internationally. So much is the concern that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) once interrupted its news programme to run a 15-minute documentary, titled Geophysical Warfare, to alert its viewers.   

HAARP’s origins go back to Nikola Tesla, the Serbian-American cult hero whose inventions have influenced so many of the technologies we use today. Tesla theorised about a “Tesla Shield” of electromagnetic weapons which, he said, would protect the Earth from missiles. He also talked about the possibility of electronic particles being turned into a weapon using a beam. In the 1920s and 30s, this idea became known as the ‘Death Ray’.

Tesla’s ideas greatly influenced Dr Bernard Eastlund, an American physicist, who finally registered a patent for an invention that could be used to change the weather, disrupt communications all over the world, and might be used to deflect a missile attack. The biggest attraction of Dr Eastlund’s idea was the ability to blast enemy ballistic missiles from the air.

Eastlund himself was interviewed by the History Channel for its documentary, and he explained that his original plan involved the building of a huge antennae, “big enough and powerful enough to make major modifications to the ionosphere. This was at the height of the Cold War. My focus was on the defence against a major Russian missile occurrence. The plan was to make a shield over Canada, over the United States, over the whole world, which a missile could not penetrate.”

Sky zapper

Eastlund told the CBC: “The basic concept was to build a very large antennae, then to utilise a large amount of power to beam those radio waves up into the upper atmosphere.” Asked if he had approached the US Pentagon with his invention, Eastlund said, “yes, but what I am not able to tell you is the details of what they are going to do.”

The CBC said an American delegate, identified only as Mr X, called the journalist who broke the original story and said: “the maniacs are actually going to do it, up in Alaska”. The maniacs were in the Pentagon and he was convinced that they were conspiring to build Bernard Eastlund’s sky zapper under the guise of a nice research project deep in the Alaskan bush called HAARP.”

Soon word spread in the Alaskan cold recesses and a band of suspicious Alaskans set out to warn people of what they saw as the US military’s secret agenda.

Eventually, HAARP was designed and built by BAE Advanced Technologies, the company Dr Eastlund used to work for. Official construction started in 1993, and the first functional facility was completed by the winter of 1994.

The project was jointly funded by the US Air Force, US Navy, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the University of Alaska Fairbanks, but run by the US military between 1999 and 2014.

According to the US military, the project is “aimed at studying the properties and behaviour of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis on being able to understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defence purposes.  

But if you believe this, you will also believe that pigs can fly. Judging from the urge to amass electromagnetic/geophysical weapons even before World War II, the benefit of the doubt should be given to Jim Roderick, an American anti-HAARP activist, who says: “The military is incapable of doing pure science. Science is conducted by them for application in weapon systems, for no other reasons.”

Though denied by HAARP officials, some respected researchers insist that HAARP was designed to achieve the US military’s stated goal of gaining full-spectrum dominance of the world from outer space by 2020.

The project was built based on the contents of a 600-page publication, titled Technical Memorandum 195, which the US military forbids its officials to publicly acknowledge.

The US military is not comfortable talking in public about Technical Memorandum 195 because it consists of notes from a secret conference on the breakdown of HAARP, where they were going to use the technology and how it was going to be applied.

In January 1999, the European Union described HAARP as a project of global concern and passed a resolution calling for more information on its health and environmental risks. Despite those concerns, officials at HAARP insist the project is nothing more sinister than a radio science research facility.

The EU resolution came with many bullet points. At bullet point 24, the EU “considers HAARP by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing.” But the US ignored the EU resolution.

Rather HAARP officials claim that “the radio waves in the frequency ranges that HAARP transmits are not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere – the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the Earth’s weather. Since there is no interaction, there is no way to control the weather.”

The CBC discovered that the small company that owned Eastlund’s patents was later swallowed up by a large military intelligence front company called E-Systems, which in turn was swallowed up by another bigger corporation that specialises in super-secret contracts with the Pentagon.

In the end, by 2014, when more eyes and tongues became focussed on HAARP and the controversy over its impact on the world’s weather system grew, the US military turned HAARP over to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) in August 2015 to be run by the university. But nobody was fooled

The Los Alamos Laboratory which was the principal site of the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb was operated by the University of California during World War II. Project Seal that experimented with the tsunami bomb was operated by the University of Auckland. So transferring HAARP to the control of the University of Alaska Fairbanks changes nothing about its essential military nature. In fact the military is only behaving to type.

Idai – experiment gone wrong?

Why people are questioning if Cyclone Idai was caused by a HAARP event gone awry is because the cyclone nearly coincided with the latest HAARP research campaign on 25-28 March 2019. Far from being “conspiracy theorists”, these people are not saying Idai was a direct electromagnetic attack on Mozambique or Zimbabwe, but that Idai could have been an electromagnetic experiment gone wrong.

Since HAARP was transferred to the University of Alaska Fairbanks in 2015, five research campaigns have been conducted: (a) 19-23 February 2017, (b) 21-25 September 2017, (c) 6-14 April 2018, (d) 30 July-1 Aug 2018, and (e) 29 Nov-3 Dec 2018.

Idai’s landfall on the Mozambican coast on the night of 14 March was 11 days before HAARP’s next advertised research campaign began on 25-28 March. All things being equal, one can safely say this research campaign might have had nothing to do with Idai.

But, as we all know, all things are not always equal in this world, particularly judging from how the world has been run in the past, and continues to be run, by the puppet masters. Therefore the people who are asking the world to look at Idai beyond it being a mere natural disaster deserve to be heard, even if they are making fools of themselves.

As at now, no one can say with an absolute yes that Idai was caused by electromagnetic warfare, or an absolute no that it was not caused by electromagnetic warfare. Only time will tell. But looking at the sheer quantum of the destruction wrought by Idai and the fierceness of the cyclone in general, one is tempted to say nature would have been more merciful if it sired this cyclone from its massive loins.  

._____________

So it looks like we have to re-evaluate many events and many of our own beliefs, doesn’t it?

Here’s more food for thought:

Yes, nature is seriously deregulated by human activity, but not as advertised on TV.
And it’s not OUR activity, it’s THEIRS, as per usual.

Put this on your list of things to be suspicious about: EVERYTHING that comes out these reality-inverters that populate your screens, but not your communities.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

It’s never been about clean new fuels and the environment.
It’s about new data streams and control.
Think “Pegasus”.

Most laughed and forgot this next minute, I saw it as a prime example of how the manufacturers, the government or any decent hacker can troll you in your computerized car

Don’t be a crash test dummy.

If data is the new oil is the new gold…

These new computerized cars are new oil pumps.

The drivers are the data wells.

SHARE THIS VIDEO

The first news segment in my video edit is what prompted this report. It’s been released by Israeli tv only a few days ago and it’s nothing but an ad for the Israeli hacking industry.

Many drivers spend hours every day in super-sized smartphones on wheels, mobile Matrix pods, and everything that goes for smartphones goes for computerized cars, in terms of hackability.

Basically, these new cars belong to the best hacker around. Which is, usually, some military/intelligence service or some private basement dweller.

Think Pegasus.

WikiLeaks CIA files: Spy agency looked at ways to hack and control cars to carry out assassinations

The agency allegedly also used tools to hack smartphones and turn smart TVs into covert microphones

The Independent, 07 March 2017

WikiLeaks describes Vault 7 as 'the largest intelligence publication in history'
WikiLeaks describes Vault 7 as ‘the largest intelligence publication in history’ (REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)

WikiLeaks has alleged that the CIA looked into vehicle interference methods that could potentially enable it to assassinate people without detection.

According to the whistle-blowing organisation, the CIA explored the tactic in October 2014.

It hasn’t included any more details about the alleged practice.

WikiLeaks included the claim in its release announcing ‘Vault 7’, a huge batch of documents, which Julian Assange claims to account for the CIA’s “entire hacking capacity”.

“As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks,” reads a passage in the release.

“The purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations.”

The CIA has also been accused of using malware and hacking tools to turn TVs into covert microphones and remotely break into smartphones.

The latter, according to WikiLeaks, allowed it to bypass encryption on a number of popular messaging apps, including WhatsApp.

WikiLeaks describes Vault 7 as “the largest intelligence publication in history” and says that the initial batch of 8,761 files is just the first in a series of releases.

What does your car know about you? We hacked a Chevy to find out.

Our privacy experiment found that automakers collect data through hundreds of sensors and an always-on Internet connection. Driving surveillance is becoming hard to avoid.

Washington Post, Dec. 17, 2019

Cars now run on data. We hacked one to find out what it knows about you.

Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler cracked open a Chevrolet to find an always-on Internet connection and data from his smartphone. (Jonathan Baran/The Washington Post)

Behind the wheel, it’s nothing but you, the open road — and your car quietly recording your every move.

On a recent drive, a 2017 Chevrolet collected my precise location. It stored my phone’s ID and the people I called. It judged my acceleration and braking style, beaming back reports to its maker General Motors over an always-on Internet connection.

Cars have become the most sophisticated computers many of us own, filled with hundreds of sensors. Even older models know an awful lot about you. Many copy over personal data as soon as you plug in a smartphone.

But for the thousands you spend to buy a car, the data it produces doesn’t belong to you. My Chevy’s dashboard didn’t say what the car was recording. It wasn’t in the owner’s manual. There was no way to download it.

To glimpse my car data, I had to hack my way in.

We’re at a turning point for driving surveillance: In the 2020 model year, most new cars sold in the United States will come with built-in Internet connections, including 100 percent of Fords, GMs and BMWs and all but one model Toyota and Volkswagen. (This independent cellular service is often included free or sold as an add-on.) Cars are becoming smartphones on wheels, sending and receiving data from apps, insurance firms and pretty much wherever their makers want. Some brands even reserve the right to use the data to track you down if you don’t pay your bills.

When I buy a car, I assume the data I produce is owned by me — or at least is controlled by me. Many automakers do not. They act like how and where we drive, also known as telematics, isn’t personal information.

Cars now run on the new oil: your data. It is fundamental to a future of transportation where vehicles drive themselves and we hop into whatever one is going our way. Data isn’t the enemy. Connected cars already do good things like improve safety and send you service alerts that are much more helpful than a check-engine light in the dash.

But we’ve been down this fraught road before with smart speakers, smart TVs, smartphones and all the other smart things we now realize are playing fast and loose with our personal lives. Once information about our lives gets shared, sold or stolen, we lose control.

There are no federal laws regulating what carmakers can collect or do with our driving data. And carmakers lag in taking steps to protect us and draw lines in the sand. Most hide what they’re collecting and sharing behind privacy policies written in the kind of language only a lawyer’s mother could love.

Car data has a secret life. To find out what a car knows about me, I borrowed some techniques from crime scene investigators.

What your car knows

Jim Mason hacks into cars for a living, but usually just to better understand crashes and thefts. The Caltech-trained engineer works in Oakland, Calif., for a firm called ARCCA that helps reconstruct accidents. He agreed to help conduct a forensic analysis of my privacy.

I chose a Chevrolet as our test subject because its maker GM has had the longest of any automaker to figure out data transparency. It began connecting cars with its OnStar service in 1996, initially to summon emergency assistance. Today GM has more than 11 million 4G LTE data-equipped vehicles on the road, including free basic service and extras you pay for. I found a volunteer, Doug, who let us peer inside his two-year-old Chevy Volt.

I met Mason at an empty warehouse, where he began by explaining one important bit of car anatomy. Modern vehicles don’t just have one computer. There are multiple, interconnected brains that can generate up to 25 gigabytes of data per hour from sensors all over the car. Even with Mason’s gear, we could only access some of these systems.

This kind of hacking isn’t a security risk for most of us — it requires hours of physical access to a vehicle. Mason brought a laptop, special software, a box of circuit boards, and dozens of sockets and screwdrivers.

We focused on the computer with the most accessible data: the infotainment system. You might think of it as the car’s touch-screen audio controls, yet many systems interact with it, from navigation to a synced-up smartphone. The only problem? This computer is buried beneath the dashboard.

After an hour of prying and unscrewing, our Chevy’s interior looked like it had been lobotomized. But Mason had extracted the infotainment computer, about the size of a small lunchbox. He clipped it into a circuit board, which fed into his laptop. The data didn’t copy over in our first few attempts. “There is a lot of trial and error,” said Mason.

(Don’t try this at home. Seriously — we had to take the car into a repair shop to get the infotainment computer reset.)

It was worth the trouble when Mason showed me my data. There on a map was the precise location where I’d driven to take apart the Chevy. There were my other destinations, like the hardware store I’d stopped at to buy some tape.

Among the trove of data points were unique identifiers for my and Doug’s phones, and a detailed log of phone calls from the previous week. There was a long list of contacts, right down to people’s address, emails and even photos.

For a broader view, Mason also extracted the data from a Chevrolet infotainment computer that I bought used on eBay for $375. It contained enough data to reconstruct the Upstate New York travels and relationships of a total stranger. We know he or she frequently called someone listed as “Sweetie,” whose photo we also have. We could see the exact Gulf station where they bought gas, the restaurant where they ate (called Taste China) and the unique identifiers for their Samsung Galaxy Note phones.

Infotainment systems can collect even more. Mason has hacked into Fords that record locations once every few minutes, even when you don’t use the navigation system. He’s seen German cars with 300-gigabyte hard drives — five times as much as a basic iPhone 11. The Tesla Model 3 can collect video snippets from the car’s many cameras. Coming next: face data, used to personalize the vehicle and track driver attention.

In our Chevy, we probably glimpsed just a fraction of what GM knows. We didn’t see what was uploaded to GM’s computers, because we couldn’t access the live OnStar cellular connection. (Researchers have done those kinds of hacks before to prove connected vehicles can be remotely controlled.)

My volunteer car owner Doug asked GM to see the data it collected and shared. The automaker just pointed us to an obtuse privacy policy. Doug also (twice) sent GM a formal request under a 2003 California data law to ask who the company shared his information with. He got no reply.

GM spokesman David Caldwell declined to offer specifics on Doug’s Chevy but said the data GM collects generally falls into three categories: vehicle location, vehicle performance and driver behavior. “Much of this data is highly technical, not linkable to individuals and doesn’t leave the vehicle itself,” he said.

The company, he said, collects real-time data to monitor vehicle performance to improve safety and to help design future products and services.

But there were clues to what more GM knows on its website and app. It offers a Smart Driver score — a measure of good driving — based on how hard you brake and turn and how often you drive late at night. They’ll share that with insurance companies, if you want. With paid OnStar service, I could, on demand, locate the car’s exact location. It also offers in-vehicle WiFi and remote key access for Amazon package deliveries. An OnStar Marketplace connects the vehicle directly with third-party apps for Domino’s, IHOP, Shell and others.

The OnStar privacy policy, possibly only ever read by yours truly, grants the company rights to a broad set of personal and driving data without much detail on when and how often it might collect it. It says: “We may keep the information we collect for as long as necessary” to operate, conduct research or satisfy GM’s contractual obligations. Translation: pretty much forever.

It’s likely GM and other automakers keep just a slice of the data cars generate. But think of that as a temporary phenomenon. Coming 5G cellular networks promise to link cars to the Internet with ultra-fast, ultra-high-capacity connections. As wireless connections get cheaper and data becomes more valuable, anything the car knows about you is fair game.

Protecting yourself

GM’s view, echoed by many other automakers, is that we gave them permission for all of this. “Nothing happens without customer consent,” said GM’s Caldwell.

When my volunteer Doug bought his Chevy, he didn’t even realize OnStar basic service came standard. (I don’t blame him — who really knows what all they’re initialing on a car purchase contract?) There is no button or menu inside the Chevy to shut off OnStar or other data collection, though GM says it has added one to newer vehicles. Customers can press the console OnStar button and ask a representative to remotely disconnect.

What’s the worry? From conversations with industry insiders, I know many automakers haven’t totally figured out what to do with the growing amounts of driving data we generate. But that’s hardly stopping them from collecting it.

Five years ago, 20 automakers signed on to volunteer privacy standards, pledging to “provide customers with clear, meaningful information about the types of information collected and how it is used,” as well as “ways for customers to manage their data.” But when I called eight of the largest automakers, not even one offered a dashboard for customers to look at, download and control their data.

Automakers haven’t had a data reckoning yet, but they’re due for one. GM ran an experiment in which it tracked the radio music tastes of 90,000 volunteer drivers to look for patterns with where they traveled. According to the Detroit Free Press, GM told marketers that the data might help them persuade a country music fan who normally stopped at Tim Horton’s to go to McDonald’s instead.

GM would not tell me exactly what data it collected for that program but said “personal information was not involved” because it was anonymized data. (Privacy advocates have warned that location data is personal because it can be re-identified with individuals because we follow such unique patterns.)

GM’s privacy policy, which the company says it will update before the end of 2019, says it may “use anonymized information or share it with third parties for any legitimate business purpose.” Such as whom? “The details of those third-party relationships are confidential,” said Caldwell.

There are more questions. GM’s privacy policy says it will comply with legal data demands. How often does it share our data with the government? GM doesn’t offer a transparency report like tech companies do.

Automakers say they put data security first. But I suspect they’re just not used to customers demanding transparency. They also probably want to have sole control over the data, given that the industry’s existential threats — self-driving and ride-hailing technologies — are built on it.

But not opening up brings problems, too. Automakers are battling with repair shops in Massachusetts about a proposal that would require car companies to grant owners — and mechanics — access to telematics data. The Auto Care Association says locking out independent shops could give consumers fewer choices and make us end up paying more for service. The automakers say it’s a security and privacy risk.

In 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act will require any company that collects personal data about the state’s residents to provide access to the data and give people the ability to opt out of its sharing. GM said it would comply with the law but didn’t say how.

Are any carmakers better? Among the privacy policies I read, Toyota’s stood out for drawing a few clear lines in the sand about data sharing. It says it won’t share “personal information” with data resellers, social networks or ad networks — but still carves out the right to share what it calls “vehicle data” with business partners.

Until automakers put even a fraction of the effort they put into TV commercials into giving us control over our data, I’d be wary about using in-vehicle apps or signing up for additional data services. At least smartphone apps like Google Maps let you turn off and delete location history.

And Mason’s hack brought home a scary reality: Simply plugging a smartphone into a car could put your data at risk. If you’re selling your car or returning a lease or rental, take the time to delete the data saved on its infotainment system. An app called Privacy4Cars offers model-by-model directions. Mason gives out gifts of car-lighter USB plugs, which let you charge a phone without connecting it to the car computer. (You can buy inexpensive ones online.)

If you’re buying a new vehicle, tell the dealer you want to know about connected services — and how to turn them off. Few offer an Internet “kill switch,” but they may at least allow you turn off location tracking.

Or, for now at least, you can just buy an old car. Mason, for one, drives a conspicuously non-connected 1992 Toyota.

The ‘Pegasus’ creators, Israeli Military trains and ‘privatizes’ some of the world’s best hackers

the perfect tool for the perfect murder

These being said, we’re dealing here with the perfect tool for the perfect murder.
Speaking of which, we will be commemorating soon 10 years since the death of Michael Hastings, in 2013. #NeverForget

Here’s DARPA talking about hacking cars just months before Michael Hasting’s suspicious death:

SHARE VIDEO

Nowadays, with the Pentagon, the WEF and the Bilderbergers freaking out about the demise of their low-IQ fake-news media and the advent of independent journalism, this report alone is enough to get us targeted by a bunch of agencies that commonly use Pegasus and likely more advanced technology we haven’t even found out about.


You can’t hope much from a truther who drives computerized cars. Since 2013.

Why voting technology has to stay primitive is why cars have to stay primitive.
these cars are never yours and you’re never safe in them

FOLLOW UPS

JAN. 2023: GOOGLE IS READY TO TAKE FULL CONTROL OVER YOUR CAR

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Ghislaine Maxwell actually spoke at least NINE times in front of United Nations assemblies, promoting some weird globalist financial schemes (see earlier posts); this is one of the speeches.

By the way, those fact-checking presstitutes from rhino-media and social media lied to you again, Ghislaine DID speak 9 times for the UN, it says so in her official bio presented at TED x Westchester Digital Summit 2014.

Also:

SOURCE
I wonder why they deleted this from their channel…

“Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell operated a mysterious company called TerraMar that pushed the UN to issue passports for the ocean, listed a Manhattan property owned by the Rothschilds as a base, and was funded by the Clinton Foundation. (News Punch, July 9, 2020)

“Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s mysterious company TerraMar, which closed down permanently just six days after Epstein’s arrest, appears to tie much of it together.

“The TerraMar Project was non-profit company that Ghislaine Maxwell started in 2012. Jeffrey Epstein and various other high power financiers funded the venture.

“The company described itself as an ocean conservation group but it shut down by 2019 over sex trafficking crimes stemming from Epstein’s arrest. It was only six days after Jeffrey Epstein was brought into custody that the firm announced it was shutting down permanently. The company had immediate support from globalist organizations including the Clinton Foundation.

Maxwell attended multiple United Nations (UN) meetings and even spoke to the council as the founder of TerraMar. Ghislaine and another man from the company’s Board of Directors, Scott Borgerson, spoke in Washington DC at a special event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations.”

What Newspunch missed is that Borgerson was her boyfriend, rumored “secret husband” at the time. But this is not even half the story, see below!

Scott Borgerson in NYPost, ladies and gents

The “tech entrepreneur” who is rumored to be married to Ghislaine Maxwell once boasted to his family that he was dating “a high profile woman,” according to a report.

Scott Borgerson, 43, reportedly left his wife Rebecca, the mother of his two children, for Maxwell in 2014, although his estranged father said he knew nothing about Maxwell’s ties to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, The Sun reported.

Way before Ghislaine was talking about ocean management at the UN, her husband pushed the same agenda from the CFR tribune.

Update: found the evidence that she was married (and Epstein wasn’t)

According to Business Insider:

Borgerson’s name “has resurfaced after prosecutors recently alleged in court that Maxwell is secretly married. Maxwell has declined to provide the name of her spouse, but news outlets have suggested it could be Borgerson.

Borgerson has not responded to further requests for comment since he last spoke with Business Insider in August 2019.

Borgerson’s company has raised nearly $23 million from investors, which include former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Schmidt led a $10 million funding round for CargoMetrics in August 2017, according to PitchBook.”

According to New York Times, Borgerson was working forthe Arctic Circle and we shouldn’t then be too surprised Ghislaine got to speak there, on the same stage with Hillary Clinton, as I reported before:

“In an effort to rebrand herself from jet-setting cosmopolitan to oceanic conservationist, Ms. Maxwell had in 2012 founded and appointed herself C.E.O. of the TerraMar Project, an opaque organization that had no offices and gave no grants to other organizations. It was disbanded in 2019.

Its biggest accomplishment was helping Ms. Maxwell maintain social capital. Associating herself with Mr. Borgerson — the founder of a maritime investments company called CargoMetrics and a former fellow in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he wrote about oceanic issues — added to her credibility.

Mr. Borgerson was called a director at the TerraMar Project, although he never had a job there. Ms. Maxwell supplied him and CargoMetrics with introductions to people on her contacts list.

In 2007, he became a fellow in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank whose officers and directors have included Colin Powell; the philanthropist David Rockefeller; and Robert Rubin, the secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton. While at the the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Borgerson wrote for a magazine it publishes called Foreign Affairs about the effect of global warming on the Arctic region.

His residency as an International Affairs fellow ended in 2008, a spokeswoman for the organization said, and Mr. Borgerson spent another two years as a Visiting Fellow for Oceans Governance, working offsite.

In 2010, he founded Cargometrics, a “maritime innovation company” that uses data systems to study shipping patterns, from which the company determines what goods are being sent where and in what quantities and then bases investment decisions on the results. (For example, in February of this year, the firm used its data on cargo from China to surmise that imports from there were “in free-fall” because of the coronavirus.)

Back when Mr. Borgerson was writing for Foreign Affairs, there weren’t a lot of articles being published about oceanic conservation, said Dagfinnur Sveinbjornsson, the C.E.O. of the Arctic Circle, an organization dedicated to economic and environmental issues in the region.

Mr. Borgerson’s were “among the most prominent,” he said in an interview. “That’s what led to his involvement in the Arctic Circle.”

Mr. Borgerson was picked to serve on its advisory board and moderate a discussion about “Business in the Arctic” at the organization’s annual assembly in Reykjavik, Iceland, in 2013.

Conferences are a strange business. Big issues are often on the agenda, but the events can also (in prepandemic times) serve as glorified cocktail hours and public relations opportunities for people seeking to make connections and enhance their reputations as philanthropists, whether or not they even have a substantial record of working on the causes they’re discussing.

This category included Ms. Maxwell, who spoke at the Reykjavik conference and did not have the organization’s endorsement, according to Mr. Sveinbjornsson. According to British tabloids, it was there that Ms. Maxwell made the acquaintance of Mr. Borgerson.”

Sure, and they fell in love because their environmental agendas were original, but almost identical, by coincidence. We’re big fans of coincidence theories here at SILVIEW.media!

NYT goes on saying that “He was the father of two young children with his wife, Rebecca, to whom he had been married since 2001, public records show.

In 2014, he filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. Ms. Borgerson obtained a restraining order from Mr. Borgerson. (It was later dismissed.) In legal filings, she claimed that he drank too much, hit her and threatened to beat her in front of the children.

Ms. Maxwell was smitten with Mr. Borgerson, stating over and over again how “hot” and “brilliant” he was, according to a person who worked with the TerraMar Project and agreed to speak to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity, concerned the association would draw censure from environmentalists.

Ms. Maxwell also described the relationship between Mr. Borgerson and his ex-wife to this person as having become cordial, adding that much of her life now involved making lunch for his children and driving them to school.

After Mr. Epstein’s 2019 indictment on sex trafficking charges, the enormous interest in Ms. Maxwell led reporters to Mr. Borgerson, who admonished them for peddling gossip.

They would be far better off, he said, writing about the Jones Act, an esoteric maritime regulation from 1920 that stipulates that all ships on the water traveling between United States ports be built on United States shores and be owned by United States citizens. (It has recently become a point of contention between economists who see it as senselessly protectionist and others who contend that it is essential to preventing terrorism.)

Many of Ms. Maxwell’s old friends were surprised to read in reports of court proceedings earlier this summer that she had gotten married. It remains possible either that she was not telling the truth or that her spouse is someone other than Mr. Borgerson.”


SOURCE
SOURCE
Yup, it happened twice. I wonder why is this video unavailable

Damn, this is unavailable too (not deleted), I wonder why… 🙂

SOME OF THE MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE PRAISED GHISLAINE FOR HER SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION TO THE WORLD:

CNN

NYT

HUFFPOST

MSNBC

TED

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

I WONDER WHY THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED TOO?

Actually, let’s better have a look at the official Ghislaine Maxwell / TerraMar partners, including the UN, as displayed on their former website:

Have you trusted your science autoritah today?
Here she is at a two day seminar hosted in December 2013 by the Swedish Ministry of the Environment, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and the Embassy of Sweden in partnership with Duke University’s Nicholas Institute, SIWI and UNDP.

In 2017, Ghislaine participated with Terramar at the UN Oceans Conference in New York City. Take a good look at the event logo, I hope i reminds you of something:

SOURCE
Looks like they plan to build back better in the oceans too
Video produced by Ghislaine’s organization for the UN Oceans Conference 2017 NY pushing Agenda 2030 / “sustainable development” on Climate. You can hear her voice at 2:32 mark

Ghislaine Maxwell Bought In UN Via Amir Dossal on Terramar Board Also UN Briber Guterres Linked

By Matthew Russell Lee Patreon Periscope Song
BBC – Decrypt – LightRead – Honduras – Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 20 – Ghislaine Maxwell used the United Nations, as reported by Inner City Press whose questions about it UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres refuses.

  Now we have more: long time UN operative Amir Dossal, also informed with UN bribers like Ng Lap Seng and Patrick Ho of CEFC China Energy, was on the board of directors of Maxwell’s shadowy Terramar. Inner City Press first made this link July 5, & now publishes 990. And here is Dossal introducing Maxwell as one of her nine visits to the UN, here.

   After the death of Jeffrey Epstein in the MCC prison, on July 2 Acting US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Audrey Strauss announced and unsealed in indictment of Maxwell on charges including sex trafficking and perjury.

   Inner City Press went to her press conference at the US Attorney’s Office and asked, Doesn’t charging Maxwell with perjury undercut any ability to use testimony from her against other, bigger wrong-doers? Periscope here at 23:07.

  Strauss replied that it is not impossible to use a perjurer’s testimony. But how often does it work?

  At 3:30 pm on July 2 Maxwell appeared in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampsire, before Magistriate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone. Inner City Press live tweeted it here.
(Also live tweeted bail denial of July 14, here.)

   In the July 3 media coverage of Maxwell, media all of the world used a video and stills from it of Maxwell speaking in front of a blue curtain, like here.

 What they did not mention is something Inner City Press has been asking the UN about, as under UNSG Antonio Guterres with his own sexual exploitation issues (exclusive video and audio) it got roughed up and banned from the UN: Ghislaine Maxwell had a ghoulish United Nations press conference, under the banner of the “Terramar Project,” here.

 On July 5, after some crowd-sourcing, Inner City Press reported on another Ghislaine Maxwell use of the United Nations, facilitated by Italy’s Permanent Representative to the UN, UN official Nikhil Seth and Amir Dossal, who also let into the UN and in one case took money from convicted UN briber Ng Lap Seng, and Patrick Ho of CEFC China Energy, also linked to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

  At the Ghislaine Maxwell UN event, the UN Deputy Secretary General was directly involved.

List of (some of) the participants on Patreon here.

  Inner City Press has published a phone of Maxwell in the UN with Dossal, here. But the connection runs deeper: Dossal with “25 years of UN involvement” was on Terrarmar’s board of directors, one of only five directors, only three not related to Maxwell by blood and name.

The directors: Ghislaine Maxwell, Christine Malina-Maxwell, Steven Haft, Christine Dennison and… Amir Dossal.

  Dossal has operated through the UN Office of Partnership, with Antonio Guterres and his deputy Amina J. Mohammed, here.

And the links to the world of UN bribery, including Antonio Guterres through the Gulbenkian Foundation, runs deeper. More to follow.

Antonio Guterres claims he has zero tolerance for sexual exploitation, but covers it up and even participate in it. He should be forced to resign – and/or have immunity waived.

  Terramar has been dissolved, even though Maxwell’s former fundraiser / director of development Brian Yurasits still lists the URL on his (protected) Twitter profile, also here.

  But now Inner City Press has begun to inquire into Ghislaine Maxwell’s other United Nations connections, starting with this photograph of another day’s (or at least another outfit’s) presentation in the UN, here. While co-conspirator Antonio Guterres has had Inner City Press banned from any entry into the UN for two years and a day, this appears to be in the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) chamber. We’ll have more on this, and on Epstein and the UN.

  The case is US v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (Nathan).” – Inner City Press

Inner City Press is backed by the Terramar website, which has been dead for years, but I dug it out with the Wayback Machine.
This is what I found out about the structure of her organization:

Ghislaine MAXWELL, Founder and President

Ghislaine Maxwell has a lifelong love and appreciation for the ocean. She is a successful businesswoman, holds a BA-MA from Oxford University, and is a helicopter, and deep worker submersible pilot and a certified EMT.

Rob Foos, Director of Development

Rob Foos holds a BS in Management from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. He was a collegiate rugby player, winning a national championship. He commanded a ship, served on three regional fishery management councils, and led fundraising efforts across the federal government in south Florida. Growing up on the water in California, he loves exploring everything ocean related and is looking forward to his next adventure on the high seas.

Inge Solheim, Polar Ambassador

Inge Solheim is the world’s foremost polar guide and explorer. He led Prince Harry and injured soldiers on expeditions to the North and South Poles. Inge has also produced and co-produced many television series featuring some of the world’s most remote areas, witnessing firsthand the decline of the polar regions. A native Norwegian, he’s joining TerraMar to save the poles by bringing attention to the least explored part of the planet—the ocean.

Steven Haft

Steven Haft serves as Advisor at LiveLOOK, Inc. and serves as Chair of Allscreen Studios at Burson-Marsteller, LLC. As a producer, his productions have garnered 7 Oscar Nominations, 8 Emmy Nominations and a Peabody Award. He has served as Chief Strategy Officer of the interactive marketing group at AOL. He has a 15-year career in Politics, Law and Public Policy.

Amir Dossal

Amir Dossal is a 25-year veteran of the United Nations, and was the UN’s Chief Liaison for Partnerships. As Executive Director of the UN Office for Partnerships, he managed the $1 billion gift by media mogul Ted Turner; and forged strategic alliances to address the Millennium Development Goals.

MEET OUR EXPERTS IN OCEAN POLICY, SCIENCE, LAW, GOVERNANCE AND CONSERVATION IN THE HIGH SEAS

Aeolian Islands Preservation Fund
Antarctic Ocean Alliance
Blue Marine Foundation
Blue Ventures
Conservation Law Foundation
Coral Restoration Foundation
Debris Free Oceans
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition
Earth Vision Institute
Encyclopedia of Life
Global Partnership Forum
Green Teen Team Foundation
Guy Harvey Magazine
Healthy Oceans Coalition
High Seas Alliance
Ibiza Preservation Fund
The International Sea Keepers Sociecy
IPSO
IUCN
The Jason Project
Kerzner Marine
Marine & Oceanic Sustainability Foundation
The Marine Foundation
Marine Science Today
MarViva
Max Impact
Mission Blue
National Geographic
National Ocean Sciences Bowl
Ocean Crest Alliance
Ocean Elders
Ocean First Institute
Ocean Recovery
OceanAMP
One More Generation
Plastic Oceans
Project Baseline
Rare
The Safina Center
Sargasso Sea Alliance
SeaOrbiter
SciStarter
The Stow It Don't Throw It Project
Strategic Ocean Solutions
Sustainable Oceans Alliance
Teens 4 Oceans
Waterkeeper Alliance
The Watermen Project
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Ocean Observatory
Worldrise
Youth Ocean Conservation Summit

I’m not even done here, I’ve just done making my point, but more info will be added soon, developing.

UPDATES:

Here’s an excellent research that takes this further and greatly completes my work, kudos to Mouthy Buddha!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

When she wasn’t busy selling fresh meat in elite markets, Ghislaine sold weird financial schemes to environmentalist dupes. Here she is trying to do a sale at the 2013 Arctic Circle Assembly, on the same stage as Hillary Clinton and Ban Ki-Moon earlier.

The inaugural Arctic Circle Assembly, October 2013, brought over 1200 participants from more than 35 countries to Reykjavík, making it the largest international gathering on the Arctic. 
The Opening Session program included: Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, Ban Ki-Moon, Alice Rogoff, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Aleqa Hammond;  Climate Change: A Plan for Action?; Arctic Ice Melt: Global Weather Events; Arctic Yearbook 2013: The Arctic of Regions vs. The Globalized Arctic

Their list of partners is the most impressive name-dropping you’ve seen in a while, this below is just a figment:

Here’s the impressive organisational structure of the event that invited Ghislaine to propose solutions on their stage:

Chairman

  • Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson

Honorary Board

  • Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson
  • HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco
  • Senator Lisa Murkowski
  • Dr. Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber
  • Artur Chilingarov

Advisory Board

  • Gudmundur Alfredsson, University of Akureyri
  • Alexander Borodin, Iridium Polar Advisory Board
  • Henry Burgess, Natural Environment Research Council, UK
  • Jared Carney, Lightdale, LLC
  • Brynhildur Davíðsdóttir, University of Iceland
  • Milind Deora, former Union Minister of State, Government of India
  • Dana Eidsness, Maine North Atlantic Development Office (MENADO)
  • Jane Francis, British Antarctic Survey
  • Katarina Gårdfeldt, Swedish Polar Research Secretariat
  • James Gray, House of Commons, UK
  • Heidar Mar Gudjonsson, Ursus Investments
  • Thorsteinn Gunnarsson, Icelandic Centre for Research
  • Lassi Heininen, University of Lapland
  • Paul Holthus, World Ocean Council
  • Kuupik Kleist, Pikialasorsuaq Commission
  • Timo Koivurova, University of Lapland
  • Lars Kullerud, University of the Arctic
  • Jean Lemire, Government of Québec
  • Karin Lochte, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
  • Aleksander Mazharov, Government of Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug
  • Scott Minerd, Guggenheim Partners
  • Anders Oskal, International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry
  • Frederik Paulsen, Paulsen Editions
  • Maryse Quimper, Société du Plan Nord
  • Volker Rachold, German Arctic Office
  • Carter Roberts, World Wildlife Fund
  • Alice Rogoff, Publisher, Arctic Today
  • Peter Seligmann, Nia Tero
  • Hugh Short, Pt Capital
  • Össur Skarphéðinsson, Iceland’s Commission on Greenland
  • Mead Treadwell, Venture Ad Astra
  • Felix Tschudi, Tschudi Shipping Co.
  • Amy L. Wiita, Cinza Research LLC
  • Jan Gunnar-Winther, Norwegian Polar Institute
  • Huigen Yang, Polar Research Institute of China
  • Alex Zhang, Eco Foundation Global
  • Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson, Icelandic Meteorological Office

Because science.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ORDER

A computer model developed in 1973 by a team of MIT researchers commissioned by the Club of Rome has predicted the “end of civilised life as we know it” by 2040, with a major change coming in 2020

The prediction came from a programme nicknamed World One, which was developed by a team of MIT researchers and processed by Australia’s largest computer. 

It was originally devised by computer pioneer Jay Forrester, after he was tasked by the Club of Rome to develop a model of global sustainability.

However, the shocking result of the computer calculations showed that the level of pollution and population would cause a global collapse by 2040. The eerie calculation has been remarkably accurate in certain predictions, such as a stagnated quality of life and diminishing pool of natural resources.
At this time the broadcasters addreses the audience:
“At around 2020, the condition of the planet becomes highly critical.
If we do nothing about it, the quality of life goes down to zero. Pollution becomes so seriously it will start to kill people, which in turn will cause the population to diminish, lower than it was in the 1900. At this stage, around 2040 to 2050, civilised life as we know it on this planet will cease to exist.”

Alexander King, a British pioneer who led the Club of Rome, also made a shocking prediction regarding national sovereignty. He told ABC:

“Sovereignty of nations is no longer absolute. There is a gradually diminishing of sovereignty, little bit by little bit. Even in the big nations, this will happen.”


Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

World One, the computer program, looked at the world as one system. The report called it “an electronic guided tour of our behavior since 1900 and where that behavior will lead us.” The program produced graphs that showed what would happen to the planet decades into the future. It plotted statistics and forecasts for such variables as population, quality of life, the supply of natural resources, pollution, and more. Following the trend lines, one could see where the crises might take place.

As one measure to prevent catastrophe, the Club of Rome predicted some nations like the U.S. would have to cut back on their appetites for gobbling up the world’s resources. It hoped that in the future world, prestige would stem from “low consumption”—one fact that has so far not materialized. Currently, nine in ten people around the world breathe air that has high levels of pollution, according to data from the World Health Organization (WHO). The agency estimates that 7 million deaths each year can be attributed to pollution.

ABC’s This Day Tonight aired this story on 9 November, 1973

As always with widely publicised predictions, the main question to be solved is:
Prediction, programming or predictive programming?

Sources
ABC
Big Think
WHO
The Telegraph

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

This is actually nothing new, it made a couple rounds of the Internet years ago, sparked little debate, and then it got forgotten. How do you look at it now?

There have been many discussions around this little known organisation, some even claimed it doesn’t exist at all. I dare you to research their work for yourself and see how advised they seem. WikiLeaks documents have revealed Deagel was legitimately used as reference material in a Stratfor report on the technological capabilities of The People’s Republic of North Korea.

According to their own website, deagel.com, Deagel provides news and intelligence on international military aviation and advanced technologies. The website has articles dating back to 2003, but little is known about the real owners. Many online researchers have erroneously confused this site with “deagle.com” which is owned by Edwin Deagle.

Here is a partial list of known Deagel partners and clients, according to their own website:

  • National Security Agency
  • North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO – OTAN)
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
  • OSCE
  • Russian Defense Procurement Agency
  • Stratfor
  • The World Bank
  • United Nations (UN)

This highly regarded intelligence organization has a grim outlook for the United States in the coming years including a 78% decrease in population. In fact, it predicts a similar, cataclysmic fate for the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Japan, and Denmark, and more U.S. allied nations:

Year: 2013, Population: 316 million, Forecast 2025: Population: 69 million



To make matters even stranger a statement on Deagel’s forecast page can found be which was made by the authors on October 26, 2014 which apparently claims the population shifts are due to suicide and dislocation and assure us they are “not a death or satanic cult”:

Historically a change in the economic paradigm has resulted in a death toll that is rarely highlighted by mainstream historians. When the transition from rural areas to large cities happened in Europe many people unable to accept the new paradigm killed themselves. They killed themselves by a psychological factor. This is not mainstream but it is true. A new crisis joins old, well known patterns with new ones.

We are not a death or satanic cult or arms dealers as some BS is floating around the internet on this topic. Take into account that the forecast is nothing more than a model whether flawed or correct. It is not God’s word or a magic device that allows to foresee the future.

There have been many questions about the countries forecast specially the one focusing on the United States of America (USA). They won’t be answered one by one but below you can find some explanation, thoughts and reflections. We are going to keep this as short as possible.

The majority of the economic and demographic data used in the making of the forecasts is widely available by institutions such as the CIA, IMF, UN, USG, etc. You can see the most relevant data at every single country’s page. There is a tiny part of data coming from a variety of shadow sources such as Internet gurus, unsigned reports and others. But all these sources are from the internet and are of public domain for at least a minority. For example, several years ago Dagong, the Chinese ratings agency, published a report analyzing the physical economy of the States comparing it with those of China, Germany and Japan. The conclusion was that the US GDP was something between $5 to $10 trillion instead of $15 trillion as officially reported by the USG. We assume that the official data, especially economic, released by governments is fake, cooked or distorted in some degree. Historically it is well known that the former Soviet Union was making up fake statistics years before its collapse. Western as well as other countries are making up their numbers today to conceal their real state of affairs. We are sure that many people out there can find government statistics in their own countries that by their own personal experience are hard to believe or are so optimistic that may belong to a different country.

Despite the numeric data “quantity” there is a “quality” model which has not a direct translation into numeric data. The 2014 strain of Ebola has a death rate of 50-60% but try to imagine what would happen if there is a pandemic of Ebola with hundreds of thousands or millions infected with the virus. So far the few cases of Ebola-infected people have “enjoyed” intensive healthcare with anti-viral and breathing assistance but above all with abundant human support by Physicians and nurses. In a pandemic scenario that kind of healthcare won’t be available for the overwhelming number of infected leading to a dramatic increase of the death rate due to the lack of proper healthcare. The “quality” factor is that the death rate could increase to 80-90% in a pandemic scenario from the stated 50-60% rate. The figure itself is not important what is relevant is the fact that the scenario can evolve beyond the initial conditions from a 50% death toll to more than 90%. By the way, no pandemic or nuclear war is included in the forecast.

The key element to understand the process that the USA will enter in the upcoming decade is migration. In the past, specially in the 20th century, the key factor that allowed the USA to rise to its colossus status was immigration with the benefits of a demographic expansion supporting the credit expansion and the brain drain from the rest of the world benefiting the States. The collapse of the Western financial system will wipe out the standard of living of its population while ending ponzi schemes such as the stock exchange and the pension funds. The population will be hit so badly by a full array of bubbles and ponzi schemes that the migration engine will start to work in reverse accelerating itself due to ripple effects thus leading to the demise of the States. This unseen situation for the States will develop itself in a cascade pattern with unprecedented and devastating effects for the economy. Jobs offshoring will surely end with many American Corporations relocating overseas thus becoming foreign Corporations!!!! We see a significant part of the American population migrating to Latin America and Asia while migration to Europe – suffering a similar illness – won’t be relevant. Nevertheless the death toll will be horrible. Take into account that the Soviet Union’s population was poorer than the Americans nowadays or even then. The ex-Soviets suffered during the following struggle in the 1990s with a significant death toll and the loss of national pride. Might we say “Twice the pride, double the fall”? Nope. The American standard of living is one of the highest, far more than double of the Soviets while having added a services economy that will be gone along with the financial system. When pensioners see their retirement disappear in front of their eyes and there are no servicing jobs you can imagine what is going to happen next. At least younger people can migrate. Never in human history were so many elders among the population. In past centuries people were lucky to get to their 30s or 40s. The American downfall is set to be far worse than the Soviet Union’s one. A confluence of crisis with a devastating result.

The Demographic crisis in the former Soviet Union countries has extended for over two decades, if we accept that it ended early in this decade (2010s). The demographic crisis will hit the World in the near future and is projected to last between three and eight decades more or less depending on technological breakthrough and environmental issues. The aftermath is more likely a frozen picture with the population numbers staying the same for a very, very long period of time. The countries forecast population numbers do reflect birth/deaths but also migratory movements. Many countries are going to increase their gross population due to immigration while their native population may shrink.

Over the past two thousand years we have witnessed the Western civilization built around the Mediterranean Sea shifting to Northern Europe and then by the mid 20th century shifting to an Atlantic axis to finally get centered into the States in the past 30 years. The next move will see the civilization being centered in Asia with Russia and China on top. Historically a change in the economic paradigm has resulted in a death toll that is rarely highlighted by mainstream historians. When the transition from rural areas to large cities happened in Europe many people unable to accept the new paradigm killed themselves. They killed themselves by a psychological factor. This is not mainstream but it is true. A new crisis joins old, well known patterns with new ones.

Sorry to disappoint many of you with our forecast. It is getting worse and worse every year since the beginning of the pre-crisis in 2007. It is already said that this website is non-profit, built on spare time and we provide our information and services AS IS without further explanations and/or guarantees. We are not linked to any government in any way, shape or form. We are not a death or satanic cult or arms dealers as some BS is floating around the internet on this topic. Take into account that the forecast is nothing more than a model whether flawed or correct. It is not God’s word or a magic device that allows to foresee the future.”

Deagle.com – Sunday, October 26th, 2014

But it doesn’t end here. In 2018, Deagel update their predictions without many explanations. Not much wrong with that:

December 2019 update:

April 2021 update:

And then, in May 2020, they took out or hid this from the website.
Soon after that, someone smart came up with this math below, don’t know who to credit, but remember:
It’s either a conspiracy theory (deliberated by humans) or a coincidence theory (natural coincidence).

Can’t rate the probability here, but if you still favor coincidences over conspiracies, I don’t want to persuade you of anything, I actually have nothing to tell you and I don’t want anything to do with you, buh-bye, please go get boosted and never come back!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

I feel your pain if the public education system tortured you for too few benefits, but here’s some stone-cold facts. I’ve just collected a few resources to help you understand why and how the myth was manufactured.

The initiation should always start with a famous interview with the even more notorious Col. L. Fletcher Prouty

Col. Prouty spent 9 of his 23 year military career in the Pentagon (1955-1964): 2 years with the Secretary of Defense, 2 years with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 5 years with Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. In 1955 he was appointed the first “Focal Point” officer between the CIA and the Air Force for Clandestine Operations per National Security Council Directive 5412. He was Briefing Officer for the Secretary of Defense (1960-1961), and for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
At times he would be called to meet with Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles at their home on highly classified business. He was assigned to attend MKULTRA meetings. In this capacity Col. Prouty would be at the nerve center of the Military-Industrial Complex at a time unequalled in American History. He has written on these subjects, about the JFK assassination, the Cold War period, and Vietnamese warfare, and the existence of a “Secret Team”. He backs up his his work with seldom seen or mentioned official documents – some never before released.
prouty.org

With Col. Prouty in mind, read all the scientific literature you want from your most trusted sources, and try prove this wrong:
You will always notice a pattern:
– in the “competition” between the abiogenic and biogenic theories, one is “dominant” and the other one answers practical fundamental questions such as, simply put: “Why is there oil where biogenic molecules can’t exist?”
Needless to say that the “dominance” argument is logically fallacious and a cancer to science, as I’ve already pointed out in the opening article for this blog.

<<Goncharov and his colleagues in Russia and Sweden have experimentally shown for the first time that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be produced under the pressure and temperature conditions of the upper mantle, the slightly viscous layer of the earth directly below the crust. Their research was published this week in Nature Geoscience.
“Our results provide a link which was previously missing or was doubtful because of a lack of in situ measurements … for the upper mantle conditions,” Goncharov said. “Thus, our work suggests there is a possibility for the [abiogenic] oil formation in the deep earth and that there is a potential to find more oil fields than expected if one assumes that oil could be formed only biogenically.”>>

Scientific American

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

The abiogenic origin of petroleum deposits would explain some phenomena that are not currently understood, such as why petroleum deposits almost always contain biologically inert helium. Based on his theory, Gold persuaded the Swedish State Power Board to drill for oil in a rock that had been fractured by an ancient meteorite. It was a good test of his theory because the rock was not sedimentary and would not contain remains of plant or marine life. The drilling was successful, although not enough oil was found to make the field commercially viable. 

the Environmental Literacy Council
Dr. M. Ragheb,  nuclear physicist, my most recommended resource from this article



“Popular science” has lied to us about one more important detail:
The abiogenic theory is not the new “Russian alternative” to the Western Establishment. Quite the opposite. Establishment’s favorite trick is to tell you the truth, just reversed. “War is peace, oil is fossil and scarce”…

“The word petroleum (literally “rock oil” from the Latin petra, “rock” or “stone,” and oleum, “oil”) was first used in 1556 in a treatise published by the German mineralogist Georg Bauer, known as Georgius Agricola” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

“Most geologists agree…”
Geologists weren’t much around when the established science was that oil is mineral – “rock oil”. Both Mendeleev and Berthelot supported this. The biogenic theory is actually the new kid on the block, the immature challenger trying to steal a black belt instead of earning it.
Our popular education has always been about indoctrination and social engineering, look out the Windows.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them