Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

HAARP Ionospheric Research Program Set To Continue

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the tin-foil-hats dept.

United States 112

cylonlover writes "Reports that the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) had been shut down permanently were apparently a bit premature. According to HAARP program manager James Keeney, the facility is only temporarily off the air while operating contractors are changed. So why does anyone care? Despite being associated with various natural disasters over the past two decades by the conspiracy fringe, HAARP is in reality a facility for studying the ionosphere. Gizmag takes a look at the goings on at HAARP – past, present, and future."

cancel ×

112 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Maybe this time they'll get it RIGHT! (0, Offtopic)

mrmeval (662166) | about a year ago | (#44376111)

They were supposed to burn the face off the earth. They were supposed to cause hallucinations. They were supposed to cause Global Worming!!! They were supposed to call Lucifer from the pit to rape innocent virgins who lead the damned in a war against Heaven, er no that's a porn flick.
WE SHOULD BE DOOMED dammit.

Re: Maybe this time they'll get it RIGHT! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376201)

Dude, conspirical contraversies aside...I SERIOUSLY hope nobody is responsible for global worming. Things are bad enough.

Re: Maybe this time they'll get it RIGHT! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376889)

Dude, conspirical contraversies aside...I SERIOUSLY hope nobody is responsible for global worming. Things are bad enough.

I hate to burst your naive, childish, pathetic, and egocentric denial bubble, but
those who consume at high rates are most directly responsible for
global warming.

That's right, you, you fucking douche with the SUV you don't need
which you bought because you have a small dick. You, you selfish
swine who think that overpopulation is someone else's problem so
you had more than two children. Fuck all of you, you are selfish pieces
of human waste and the earth would be better off without you.

Re: Maybe this time they'll get it RIGHT! (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about a year ago | (#44377029)

Worming is a word in the dictionary.

Exterminationist is not but should be.

Re: Maybe this time they'll get it RIGHT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377327)

Funny, in my dictionary it says "see retroactiveabortionist"

Re: Maybe this time they'll get it RIGHT! (1)

whitroth (9367) | about a year ago | (#44382817)

Are you sure? I thought it was Dalek.

                mark "exterminate!"

wrong dufus (-1)

cheekyboy (598084) | about a year ago | (#44378929)

Its the poor people of china and india who use dirty coal to keep warm or cook their food that is spewing out huge amounts of shit.

Your SUV is quite efficient, and even if you bought a prias, it doesnt change the fact, of how many millions (89) of barrels of oil a burned every day.

Yes, you stupid hippies, and dooo gooders all your actions are fruitless, because it doesnt change the total amount of oil being burned, and its increasing due to increased car/2wheelers being used in asia.

Re: Maybe this time they'll get it RIGHT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44380291)

I'm going to drive an SUV while towing a second SUV, with a burning tire fire being towed from the second one. Then I'm gonna fuck all your white women.

Re: Maybe this time they'll get it RIGHT! (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#44376959)

I SERIOUSLY hope nobody is responsible for global worming. Things are bad enough.

My dog had worms so I took him to the vet. Is my vet responsible for global worming? But I'd say quite the opposite would be true if I didn't get rid of the worms.

in korea, its taken to the local cafe (0)

cheekyboy (598084) | about a year ago | (#44378933)

Your dog with worms, becomes a feast for 30 people in Korea.

More efficient and less damaging to the earth than cooking beef cattle which use tonnes of water, co2.

Re:in korea, its taken to the local cafe (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#44381517)

Yeah but like ourselves, the cow is biodegradable and I'd argue that we all contribute enough to Methane emissions ourselves. At least I do after a couple of Taco Bell burritos so leave the poor cow out of it.

Re: Maybe this time they'll get it RIGHT! (2)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#44377597)

Have you seen the documentary Tremors?

Re:Maybe this time they'll get it RIGHT! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376205)

Yes there are those who don't trust our gov't to even get Social Security working, let alone to manipulate the atmosphere we all share. If we can only mock and ridicule and finger-point at those people, it will give us the momentary comfort of not considering anything they say.

Just like when i put my fingers in my ears and say NYANANYANANYANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU that automatically means you LOSE the DEBATE! Instant slam-dunk victory, you lose, do not pass Go do not collect $200.

Re:Maybe this time they'll get it RIGHT! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376255)

stop reading infowars.

At last an actual paper (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376193)

According to the paper in TFA they're actually doing some pretty neat experiments while they zap the ionosphere. They've got satellites up there that measure electromagnetic radiation from various events like earthquakes and they're using HAARP to essentially provide a control for those.

Re:At last an actual paper (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44376763)

What HAARP really doing is absorbing money in the hopes of producing some actually useful science, which they have failed to do so far. Ahh but government thinks that failure must be rewarded by throwing even more money at it, be it a bank or "scientific" research.

Re:At last an actual paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377077)

What HAARP really doing is absorbing money in the hopes of producing some actually useful science, which they have failed to do so far. Ahh but government thinks that failure must be rewarded by throwing even more money at it, be it a bank or "scientific" research.

$250 million over 20 years. Truly a drain on our pocketbooks. Boo hoo.

Re:At last an actual paper (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44377581)

$250 million over 20 years.

It's interesting how casual people are about squandering vast sums of money. Sure, eliminating one program like this isn't going to do much. But there's a lot more than just one program like this.

Re:At last an actual paper (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year ago | (#44381993)

Well, it's akin to me complaining that I'm broke so I'll have to stop buying my weekly lottery ticket, but keep up my $1,500 dollar a day habit [youtube.com] .

Mind the pennies does indeed make sense, to a point, but when you're comparing a project that costs $12,500,000 per year to $175,000,000 per day, the analogy goes out the window.

Indeed, you only need to cancel 5110 HAARP programs to cover the Afghanistan costs.

Re:At last an actual paper (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44385365)

Indeed, you only need to cancel 5110 HAARP programs to cover the Afghanistan costs.

That's not many HAARP programs I see. I bet there's a lot more than that out in number and funding. They might not be scientifically themed, but they all have most of the same excuses. And most of those thousands of programs like HAARP have the consequence of protecting a lot of funding. It secures votes for the status quo. It creates a dependency on government funding.

Re:At last an actual paper (2, Insightful)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year ago | (#44377137)

It's not research if you can look it up on Wikipedia. It may fail to produce groundbreaking discoveries, but the data is still being collected, and even negative results will one day find a use, even if to prevent others from chasing the same failed path. Believe it or not, scientist usually want to work on things that are worth while, not chase dead ends. Can you not understand that your free market absolutist crap doesn't apply to everything? Science doesn't (read: basically nothing) agree with your delusional, anti-intellectual position where if it's not immediately productive then the universe has spoken and it will never be. If people like you ran scientific institutions we'd be stuck with a pneumatic tube internet because you'd yank funding at the first sign of a failed experiment.

Re:At last an actual paper (3, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44377553)

Scientists when they're faced with limited resources, pick and choose [slashdot.org] what research they do. One doesn't have to be a free market capitalist to be interested in doing activities that not only yield more benefit (in however you decide benefit is defined) than they cost, but also more benefit than alternate uses for the money.

All this pointless yacking about the strawman of immediate monetary return on investment ignores that funding of scientific research is just another economic problem subject to the same rules and constraints as any other human endeavor. To be so profoundly ignorant of economics IMHO makes you the delusional, anti-intellectual.

Re:At last an actual paper (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44384565)

You haven't completed the chain of logic. Sure, researchers narrow their projects when funding is tight, but do those narrowed projects ultimately have the same ROI or do we just end up with a few inexpensive projects that provide low returns while missing out on the big win from left field?

If you pick projects based on your estimate of their return, you necessarily pick projects where we already know a lot since you can't estimate the return on an unknown.

So we get pills that grow peach fuzz on your head but no blockbuster antibiotics for example.

That is an example of the saying "an accountant is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".

Re:At last an actual paper (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44385315)

Sure, researchers narrow their projects when funding is tight, but do those narrowed projects ultimately have the same ROI or do we just end up with a few inexpensive projects that provide low returns while missing out on the big win from left field?

My take is that they have a better ROI than when they enough funding that they don't narrow the scope of their projects.

If you pick projects based on your estimate of their return, you necessarily pick projects where we already know a lot since you can't estimate the return on an unknown.

Well, that's how we do all human endeavors. And I see no evidence that this approach is at all suboptimal. After all, you're just as likely to hit that unknown benefit with a conservative course of action as well as a more adventurous one.

So we get pills that grow peach fuzz on your head but no blockbuster antibiotics for example.

Experience has shown that the peach fuzz is harder than the blockbuster antibotics.

That is an example of the saying "an accountant is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".

Except that we're speaking of scientists and knowledgeable laymen who do happen to know the value of a lot of relevant things.

Re:At last an actual paper (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44385443)

So what was the apparent ROI of the Crookes tube before the X-ray was discovered? Or all that goofing around with radium? All those loons who thought they could build a flying machine? I doubt very much that Volta could have suggested a likely ROI on his piles nor Ørsted for his research.

If every research endeavor had to be measured against an expected ROI, we'd still be grunting in a cave.

That's not to say that some research isn't throwing way too much money at nothing, but we want to be careful not to get too stingy unless we want to be seen as a dark age by future generations.

Re:At last an actual paper (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44386599)

So what was the apparent ROI of the Crookes tube before the X-ray was discovered?

A light source. The neon tube is derived from this angle on the research.

Or all that goofing around with radium?

Discovery of new elements often leads to a variety of new alloys with new properties. And once radium was discovered, it's luminescence turned out to be of considerable practical value, being used for instruments used in darkness such as watches, dials on submarines, etc.

All those loons who thought they could build a flying machine?

Easiest of the lot. Getting from point A to point B faster has considerable economic value. Flying also has game-changing military value for reconnaissance.

I doubt very much that Volta could have suggested a likely ROI on his piles nor Ãrsted for his research.

Did we ask for an accurate ROI estimate for this research or a payoff next quarter? NO. Volta discovered ways to store energy, which are useful in their own right and the discovery of simple mathematical rules for capacitors which saved considerable effort in determining the use of such devices. Saving physicists' time is near future value.

Orsted's work was notable in that it tied electricity and magnetism. The latter had applications such as navigation (the magnetic compass) and some ability to move physical objects (this eventually would become the electric engine which was developed during the latter part of Orsted's life).

If every research endeavor had to be measured against an expected ROI, we'd still be grunting in a cave.

They were and we are. Modern buildings are just the latest high tech cave.

I think people forget how valuable scientific research has always been. They didn't do this research for entertainment or a vague sense of accomplishment, but because it changed the world in their time - both their understanding of it and their capabilities in that world.

That's not to say that some research isn't throwing way too much money at nothing, but we want to be careful not to get too stingy unless we want to be seen as a dark age by future generations.

I trust that future generations and their goofy opinions can take care of themselves. My view is that like any other human endeavor, when you separate the funding of research from any feedback on the success of that research (such as evaluating the near future ROI of that research), then you will end up with mostly useless research. I think big science projects already suffer from that effect, such as the Internation Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor or the International Space Station, whose funding is way out of line with what they're trying to do.

Re:At last an actual paper (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44387299)

You are applying your hindsight. Look at the examples I mentioned again forgetting what they lead to or what came after that made them of obvious value.

For example, the Crookes tube gave off a tiny bit of greenish light. The neon light and fluorescent lighting were discovered LATER as a result of experimenting with the Crookes tube. At the time, nobody was sure what it might be good for if anything. Volta's pile was a primary battery and a handy source of DC current...if there had been any technology at the time that used electricity that might have been really cool.

Re:At last an actual paper (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44387439)

You are applying your hindsight.

No, I'm applying what they knew at the time. Computers or the electric grid infrastructure are after all much stronger arguments for researching electromagnetism than glowing glass containers. But they didn't know about those things.

For example, the Crookes tube gave off a tiny bit of greenish light.

And? You're trying to tell me that they wouldn't be interested in a much brighter light source along those lines? There was already a great deal of research into electricity-based lighting by this point.

Volta's pile was a primary battery and a handy source of DC current...if there had been any technology at the time that used electricity that might have been really cool.

Handy source of DC current for ongoing experiments? Why that's useful!

Re:At last an actual paper (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44388169)

And? You're trying to tell me that they wouldn't be interested in a much brighter light source along those lines?

And that's it. Neon hadn't been isolated yet. Several years later, the Moore tube was used for lighting (based on the Geissler tube, not the Crookes tube) but was quickly beaten in the market by tungsten incandescents.

It wasn't until several years later that Röntgen, with little expectation of a payoff, happened to notice a Crookes tube was emitting something that could cause a slight fluorescence in a barium platinocyanide screen.

It was all the sort of idle curiosity that would likely get the axe in favor of working on more practical probklems like boosting the output of a steam engine.

As for the pile, An experiment that produced something that can be used for more experiments? Where's the ROI in that?

Sure, a flying machine would be great, but a lot of people tried that and it inevitably failed miserably and occasionally fatally. Surely the Wrights should have been working on something that stood a chance of success?

There's a long history of idle experimentation for experimentation's sake. Sure we get stuff like 'n-rays' sometimes but we also get x-rays that way.

Re:At last an actual paper (2)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#44377413)

It sounds great to me. MWs of beamed energy. They only need to make a collector site with reasonable efficiency and they will have a neat power transmission system.

Re:At last an actual paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377571)

I've seen this system in action and fail catastrophically in SimCity 2000.. No way, man.. No way.

HAARP offline == summer weather good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376207)

Anchorage has had the best summer weather for June/July in 25 years.
It's been like California at times.
Coincidence?

Re:HAARP offline == summer weather good? (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#44376327)

Coincidence?

There are no coincidences.

Re:HAARP offline == summer weather good? (3, Funny)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#44377091)

Coincidence?

There are no coincidences.

Re:HAARP offline == summer weather good? (0)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about a year ago | (#44378591)

Worst. Karma. Whore. Ever.

You actually replied, to the reply to a post, with exactly the same statement and quoted text? Wow, that must take some brass neck!

Re:HAARP offline == summer weather good? (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#44378651)

Actually I saw an opening for a quick and dirty Funny. Or, barring that, an Informative or Insightful that would be even funnier. Or actually funny...karma, eh. Up, down, whatever.

Re:HAARP offline == summer weather good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44379413)

did it go woosh maybe?

Re:HAARP offline == summer weather good? (1)

Phase Shifter (70817) | about a year ago | (#44380119)

Coincidence?

There are no coincidences.

They stopped sending men to the moon about the time I learned to talk. You should pay more attention to my posts.

Re:HAARP offline == summer weather good? (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#44386605)

I wondered why they did that, thanks for clarifying.

Re:HAARP offline == summer weather good? (1)

Dputiger (561114) | about a year ago | (#44376405)

California weather isn't actually good for Alaska.

Re:HAARP offline == summer weather good? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376591)

Goatse's asshole is spread wider than it has been in over 12000 years. Funny that HAARP just so happened to come online when that occurred. Is it really so crazy that we start asking questions? The public has a right to know if the government is spending tax dollars to stretch a man's anus.

Re:HAARP offline == summer weather good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377085)

Are you a writer for Glenn Beck?

Re:HAARP offline == summer weather good? (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#44377609)

Glenn Beck would never support something that reveals his past, especially not his anus stretching past.

Good (1, Redundant)

NIK282000 (737852) | about a year ago | (#44376227)

America can't be trusted to think for itself. Bring on the mind control rays!

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376527)

I have pet for you. Take it. You will feel much better then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p28e2Y4uJFg

Those conspiracy wackos (-1, Flamebait)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a year ago | (#44376281)

Those fringe conspiracy wackos are the same one who say that there are UFOs, point out strange things about the moon landing, don't believe the government story about Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City, question how building 6 collapsed at the World Trade center when it wasn't even hit by a plane, question the government's story about TWA 700, claimed that Bill Clinton was having "sex with that woman " when even Hillary assured us they were crazy, and think that the NSA is spying on all Americans and invading our privacy. Ignore anything they say, because we have labeled them "fringe" and "conspiracy theorists". Just go back to your flock and let us restart Haarp. Nothing to see here. Move on.

Re:Those conspiracy wackos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376607)

I can say the moon is made from cheese, we all live in the matrix and the world is ruled by mice. Doesn't make it true.
As long as you don't have evidence, you are a fringe element and a wacko.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.

The only point proven from your list is NSA spying on everyone, which was actually known since decades via the Echolon System. That's their job as a matter of fact. And the total irrelevant fact about Bill & Monica. They had sex. So what? That's not a scandal in my book, but just a private matter between Bill & Hillary. No one else. The impeachment attempt was beyond being ridiculous. Nothing shocking or damaging at all.

Re: Those conspiracy wackos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377473)

Clinton was impeached because HE LIED UNDER OATH. It had absolutely nothing to do with having sex, as much as you liberals hate when one of your heroes is criticized.

Re: Those conspiracy wackos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377613)

And Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion. It had absolutely nothing to do with involvement in organized crime.

Re: Those conspiracy wackos (1)

Phase Shifter (70817) | about a year ago | (#44380245)

Clinton was impeached because HE LIED UNDER OATH. It had absolutely nothing to do with having sex, as much as you liberals hate when one of your heroes is criticized.

And Al Capone was jailed for tax evasion. It had absolutely nothing to do with involvement in organized crime.

Rather missing the point.

The right-wingers weren't trying to smear Clinton by painting him as some kind of sex fiend, they were trying to paint him as a perjurer so they could reopen the Whitewater investigation.

They had a legitimate point, but it became a major case of "not seeing the forest for the trees", and they spent entirely too much of the public's time and money trying to pin down inconsequential details.

Re: Those conspiracy wackos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44378267)

George W Bush repeatedly lied under oath, with concrete evidence proving that he did. He should've been impeached about 16 times already, just off the top of my head. Considering the criteria of course is lying under oath, instead of repeated and provable crimes against US citizens and foreign citizens.

Nice double standard there.

Re: Those conspiracy wackos (1)

cheekyboy (598084) | about a year ago | (#44378987)

Tell you wife its ok to go and do what Bill did every week for $30.

Im sure in her eyes, its equal to having sex.

Re:Those conspiracy wackos (2)

JOrgePeixoto (853808) | about a year ago | (#44377039)

Some skepticism is healthy.
Conspiracy theories only serve to alienate you from reality and, in particular, to make you indifferent to the actual injustices of the world.

Re:Those conspiracy wackos (3, Informative)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#44377679)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but some things really ARE conspiracies. Iran/Contra. Project Mockingbird. Gladio. MK/Ultra. Phoenix. Our governments have done some horrible things, and if they were to happen today we would never know about them.

Re:Those conspiracy wackos (1)

JOrgePeixoto (853808) | about a year ago | (#44379957)

Just because the government does some things in secrecy, it does not mean I should start believing bizarre fantasies with no evidence or reason.

Also, there are conspiracy theories to fit every worldview. There are conspiracy theories for leftists (for example, "Bush demolished the WTC), for right-wingers (for example, "global warming is a leftist hoax"), for Christians, for Muslims, for atheists. There is huge pool of conspiracy theories, each one contradicting the others, and each conspiracy-minded individual simply picks the ones the reinforce his own biases.

Re:Those conspiracy wackos (1)

JOrgePeixoto (853808) | about a year ago | (#44379993)

Just because the government does some things in secrecy, it does not mean I should start believing bizarre fantasies with no evidence or reason.

Also, there are conspiracy theories to fit every worldview. There are conspiracy theories for leftists (for example, "Bush demolished the WTC"), for right-wingers (for example, "global warming is a leftist hoax"), for Christians, for Muslims, for atheists. There is a huge pool of conspiracy theories, each one contradicting the others, and each conspiracy-minded individual simply picks the ones that reinforce his own biases, while ignoring the others.
[posting again to fix errors]

Re:Those conspiracy wackos (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#44381359)

The most horrible things our government has done have been out in the open, public knowledge, NOT illegal conspiracies.

And there are far more leaks from the US government today than ever before, so we'd definitely hear about it...

Re:Those conspiracy wackos (1)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#44381683)

This belief in the honesty of bureaucrats and their willingness to destroy their lives and careers for the greater good always puzzles me. Why do people believe such nonsense? It's so rare that when it happens that it's headline news worldwide.

Just look at one example. One would think that a Pentagon plan to commit terrorist attacks against US citizens on American soil in a false flag operation to justify the invasion of another country would be regarded by almost everyone as unadulterated evil, right? Instead the planning went through the whole Pentagon bureaucracy and was unanimously approved by the Joint Chiefs, a procedure that would have involved dozens if not hundreds of people. It took the President of the United States to stop that project. No one leaked, no one mentioned a word of it to the press for over four decades, until Operation Northwoods was discovered quite by accident in a FOI request by a researcher looking for something entirely different.

Re:Those conspiracy wackos (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#44382177)

This belief in the honesty of bureaucrats and their willingness to destroy their lives and careers for the greater good always puzzles me.

There's no "belief" involved. It's a fact that there have been more classified information leaks under our current president than ever before. Look it up.

One would think that a Pentagon plan to commit terrorist attacks against US citizens on American soil in a false flag operation to justify the invasion of another country

Conspiracy nuts dance lightly around this case, trying NOT to accidentally admit to the actual FACTS, which declaw this story dramatically. Operation Northwoods was specifically NOT supposed to result in any US civilian deaths. They were to be "staged" and "simulated" terrorist attacks.

Re:Those conspiracy wackos (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year ago | (#44384055)

a correction, if you will, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods [wikipedia.org] [I have excerpted the following from two paragraphs]

"The document was presented by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on 13 March 1962 as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that both the covert and overt aspects of any such operation be assigned to them.

The previously secret document was originally made public on 18 November 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board,[4] a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy's assassination.[5][6]"

Please note the first release was 35 years (more of a quibble and still a remarkably long time) and it was done by people working at a federal agency, not by an outside party using FOIA. Please also note that the memorandum outlined over a dozen covert actions and among them were several domestic terrorist acts. Most if not all were designed to be bloodless, from my reading. Had they happened it's anyone's guess as to unforeseen consequences, of course.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html [whatreallyhappened.com]
source: From BODY OF SECRETS, James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001, p.82 and following.
  Scanned and edited by NY Transfer News.
From my reading, the material here taken from the book is not consistent with documents that were already in the public record. While I've read Bamford from "The Puzzle Palace" on, the number of errors here show me his account of Northwood is to be taken with a bit of salt. See caveat below.

http://911review.com/precedent/century/northwoods.html [911review.com]
The first half of the web page presents from what I can figure a pretty good account with a timeline for the release of documents. It iterates the account at Wikipedia and for all I know uses the same sources if not just lifting it.

http://www.net4truthusa.com/operationnorthwoods.htm [net4truthusa.com] has photocopies of pages from the memorandum as do others. Also, check out their "music jukebox time machine."

So, the first release comes from a federal agency in 1997. Several sites have photocopies of the memorandum. I used "operation northwoods" as search term in duckduckgo for all of this.

All accounts are a retelling from that point, some better than others. As for Bamford's book, I'd have to start with looking at his footnotes and sources, particularly where he seems to be rather free with quotations from conversations. If he had good additional sources, on or off the record, it would help to more easily accept his version.

Re:Those conspiracy wackos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377819)

Well, there are UFOs. They're probably not aliens though, just some advanced planes that are still classified, the way the SR-71 and F-117 were a few decades ago. And also, the NSA IS spying on all Americans. Snowden's being hung out to dry because he gave confirmation for that fact.

Re:Those conspiracy wackos (1)

Phase Shifter (70817) | about a year ago | (#44380425)

Well, there are UFOs. They're probably not aliens though, just some advanced planes that are still classified, the way the SR-71 and F-117 were a few decades ago. And also, the NSA IS spying on all Americans. Snowden's being hung out to dry because he gave confirmation for that fact.

I've got no evidence to back it up, so you can take this as a conspiracy theory if you like:

My pet theory about the sudden popularity of UFOs from the middle of the 20th century onwards is that we actually had some foreign incursions into our airspace during the cold war. The cover-ups were real, but the whole "extraterrestrials are coming to earth" bit was just a second level of obfuscation--If you don't want people investigating how enemies slipped past our defenses, convince the general public that only crackpots are looking past the surface level explanation for sightings.

That said, there are UFO-like sightings dating back for centuries, and some people are highly susceptible to suggestion, so the second level of deception was wildly successful. In fact, a bit too successful, since it spawned another controversy that has persisted decades after the usefulness of the cover-up expired.

Mighty conspiracy theories from tiny facts (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44376321)

It is amazing that people think this is such a big deal of a conspiracy.

From the article -

How big is the actual power density in HAARP's ionospheric spot? The total irradiance of the Sun's electromagnetic radiation (everything from x-rays to extremely low frequency (ELF) radio signals) is 1,360 W/sq m, measured by satellite outside the bulk of the Earth's atmosphere. HAARP's power density is about 0.001 percent of the Sun's irradiance – a nearly negligible quantity. Further, while local heating of the ionosphere is caused by HAARP (indeed, that is HAARP's purpose), the overall effect is rather like focusing the Sun's light using a magnifying glass – impressive if one is an ant, but not very significant on larger size scales.

Re:Mighty conspiracy theories from tiny facts (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44376395)

Given that, if there were to be some sort of vast, malevolent, conspiracy; Joe Average would fill a role somewhere between 'ant' and 'human resource, to be harvested at leisure', I suspect that's exactly the sort of thing that conspiracy theorists wouldn't find comforting...

Rather like trying to convince somebody who thinks you are trying to poison them that, really, cyanide is statistically indistinguishable from the millions of tons of carbon/nitrogen mixtures in the food supply.

Re:Mighty conspiracy theories from tiny facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44386857)

please re-read what you just said. 0.001 percent of a STAR is still 0.001 percent of a STAR being generated here on the planet. This is still a damn significant amount of power

Repeat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376439)

Um, didn't we already do this [slashdot.org] a few days ago?

Re:Repeat (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44377005)

You must be new here.

This sounds like a job for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44376693)

Remo Willams.

Re:This sounds like a job for... (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#44376971)

The one movie wonder I love it! Probably the only movie that will be made, literally on the Statue of Liberty though. Fred Ward is getting up there in age so I don't think he's up for a Remo II unless he plays like the Wilfred Brimley part.

Re:This sounds like a job for... (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#44377851)

Yeah, but if he gets to close, Grove Industries just blows it up surreptitiously and then collects massive InsuranceBucks!

Ahem... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#44376903)

HAARP is in reality a facility for studying the ionosphere

HAARP is in reality a nuclear-powered facility that alters the ionosphere.

FTFY! :p

The real deal with HAARP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377155)

Wait!

HAARP doesn't cause natural disasters. That's completely bogus.

It's really a cover for the US Navy to engage in ELF communications with their submarines by stimulating the Alfven Resonance. I read it on the internet somewhere.

Re:The real deal with HAARP (2)

lennier (44736) | about a year ago | (#44377645)

It's really a cover for the US Navy to engage in ELF communications with their submarines by stimulating the Alfven Resonance.

Flippin' elves.This sort of reckless research wouldn't happen if we had a good solid dwarf in the White House.

Tra-la-la-lolly, indeed.

More Disinformation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44377285)

Despite being associated with various natural disasters over the past two decades by the conspiracy fringe, HAARP is in reality a facility for studying the ionosphere

Its not difficult to research the abominations HAARP technology is responsible for and the horror it has already committed on the planet in a multitude of venues. Operating and pulsing at around the same frequency as the human brain, it is likely that some who are reading slashdot now are experiencing its effects unaware. At extremely low frequencies, these radio waves can upset tectonics and set off volcanoes, earthquakes and psunamis. Go reasearch some of the other catastrophes (being played off as natural disasters) if you are having a hard time believing conspiracy theories. Whether the poster of this disinformation is truly as naive as they are acting or possibly politically endeavoring to track the dissention that should result from a bullshit post about an innocently benign science as they would have the audacity to declare, it doesn't matter because it is well known that these dipole arrays of energy being pulsed into the ionosphere by every country that has the few million to set them up and experiment with weather and whatever else they can dream up for communications with submarines or supersaturating the atmosphere (50,000%) as it rises up into the ionosphere and falls into communities, flooding entire economies of families and businesses off the map, is seeing HAARP as the newest secret weapon that is in some of the most dastardly people's tool boxes that have ever walked this earth. People wil ultimately realize that HAARP is not a friendly technology, but may still be neccessary to combat the more illicit countries that use it against their enemies.

Re:More Disinformation (1)

I don't want to spen (638810) | about a year ago | (#44377501)

Psunamis? Is that some form of wave power generation?

Re:More Disinformation (1)

black3d (1648913) | about a year ago | (#44378089)

"Its not difficult to research"

This much was correct. The rest wasn't. You can learn more through your aforementioned research.

Long distance planetary cloaking/camouflage system (4, Funny)

Tyr07 (2300912) | about a year ago | (#44377799)

We're actually in contact with alien species and they're assisting us avoid detection from more hostile species that consume resources of habitable words like us.
The changes HAARP initiates in the ionosphere, although not affecting us on the planet or anything overall in the near distance, planetary detection systems that have the ability to detect atmospheres to a limited degree are thrown off, making the assumption that this is not a water world with a perfect (life sustaining) temperature.

Naturally you can still tell by nearby areas like our solar system etc, but once you get a few thousand light years out we don't look so welcoming.

I'd insert comment about a specific alien overlord at this time but I don't want his followers..or...people who are against him or whatever "targeting" me but uh, yea, we're nice and safe from that dude now!

Re:Long distance planetary cloaking/camouflage sys (1)

Zynder (2773551) | about a year ago | (#44377923)

WHAT?

Re:Long distance planetary cloaking/camouflage sys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44379969)

It would be funny if I didn't grow up with a friend, whose otherwise very intelligent, father totally believed in crap extremely similar to this. Harvest Moon alien conspiracy crap and all that. At first I thought they were joking with me, and then I found out they really believed it.

Re:Long distance planetary cloaking/camouflage sys (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year ago | (#44378673)

You could sell this story to Infowars, but you'll probably need to put an evil spin on it and work in references to Prison Planet.

Re:Long distance planetary cloaking/camouflage sys (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | about a year ago | (#44378801)

Okay.

W'e're in contact from evil aliens and letting them hide here. We use our cloaking / camouflage planet system to hide them from aliens who are good, against corruption and greed. They would free us and bring us to a utopian era, but the evil "The man" trying to keep us down with their fortress of HAARP will do
their best from liberating us.

HAARP prevents us from seeing what's really on the moon since it modifies the sky above us, so we can't see it properly. The moon is used as a place for interrogation, as it's too risky for certain individuals to have the remote chance to escape and tell the public.So we basically turned the moon into an orbiting prison.

Re:Long distance planetary cloaking/camouflage sys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44378709)

Naturally you can still tell by nearby areas like our solar system etc, but once you get a few thousand light years out we don't look so welcoming.

To an observer a thousand light years away from Earth the Earth appears as it did a thousand years ago, before HAARP existed. Strange humor + physics = fail.

Re:Long distance planetary cloaking/camouflage sys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44379619)

Unfortunately I have to imagine that for example if there were to look at earth from thousands of light years away, Why would they want to look at history? Imagine they have the capabilities of instant observance like e.g. quantum entanglement or something else. In the end we will find out what physics (especially quantum physics) is able produce, we are just starting to grasp the ultimate knowledge but since we can't advance too fast due to "The Man" (If you don't know why I referenced "The Man" I'm sorry but that's another discussion entirely.

  I know you were trying to prove a point but your point is limited to what you might of learned in school about observation. Physics is a wonderful thing we should be striving for.

Yours truly Heavensrat :)

Re:Long distance planetary cloaking/camouflage sys (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | about a year ago | (#44388141)

Sci-fi fail.

You're automatically assuming they use light to detect the atmosphere of our planet.
Also if at five minute-years away, the light is the same, then 1000 light years would as well, with the normal affects from physics and other celestial objects.
Therefore, for it to work, it would have to work on something that has nothing to do with light or our cloaking system would have to diffuse light at a further distance.

So clearly, you have to have some sort of non-light atmosphere sensor (Since light might be a poor detector anyway for it) which HAARP protects us from!

Conspiracy Fail (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year ago | (#44380255)

The changes HAARP initiates in the ionosphere, although not affecting us on the planet or anything overall in the near distance, planetary detection systems that have the ability to detect atmospheres to a limited degree are thrown off, making the assumption that this is not a water world with a perfect (life sustaining) temperature.

It also makes you wonder what they're putting in our water supply:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s [youtube.com]

Re:Conspiracy Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44384447)

It also makes you wonder what they're putting in our water supply:

While it may have some minor biological side-effects, that stuff makes the water look more like liquid aluminum when the Gamma-ray backscatter gets analyzed. And honestly, the only guys who want liquid aluminum oceans are blue-star addicted hippies for the most part, so they'll give us a pass as well.

Re:Conspiracy Fail (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | about a year ago | (#44388143)

Liquid metal? Who /DOESN'T/ want to become a t-1000?

It has to continue (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year ago | (#44378185)

The ionospheric sounding has to continue, since the data is used for military short wave radio planning. As the ionosphere is always changing, the sounding work can never stop.

Maybe that's why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44378435)

It snowed in the Philippines [youtube.com] at 14 degrees north latitude...

Re:Maybe that's why (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year ago | (#44378503)

So? It snows on the equator too. Kilimanjaro for example.

Re:Maybe that's why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44379663)

Well, Kilimanjaro is 5895 meters above sea level. Baguio where the event took place is a paltry 1610 meters by comparison, and Mt. Apo, the highest mountain in the Philippines, is only 2954 meters elevation. There has never been a record of snowfall anywhere the Philippines. Ever. Until yesterday.

Yeah can't do anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44378493)

Yep, HAARP is real and they use it to control the weather. But everyone knows this by now and can't do anything about it =)

Interesting HAARP data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44378551)

I'm pretty familiar with HAARP as their network feed terminates on one of my routers. Much of the "interesting" data coming out of HAARP that amateur researchers have been excited about is just noise. In particular, there's a magnetometer housed in a building tied to the ground with steel cables so it doesn't blow away. When the wind blows at HAARP, a frequent occurrence, the cables vibrate. The vibrating steel affects the magnetometer readings. The vibrations themselves transfer to the building, shaking the magnetometer and affecting the readings. Much of the HAARP controversy is based on amateur analysis of data generated by this poorly installed magnetometer.

haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44379215)

I like how the OP goes to say "HAARP is in reality a facility for studying the ionosphere" like the author "knows" whats going on at HAARP.
lol
I find that really cute :)

My Guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44379289)

HAARP has the appearance of a shortwave communications array and / or a over the horizon radar . The array could use bouncing signals off the ionosphere as part of it's protocol for over the horizon wave interception.

Just conspiracy theories? (1)

sabbede (2678435) | about a year ago | (#44380335)

Let's consider the damage that HAARP has clearly caused -

Hurricane sandy anyone?

Increased seismic activity?

The civil war in Syria?

Autism??

My dog's unusually hardy fleas?!?

The box office failure of Oblivion, which I though was a pretty damn solid SciFi flick?

My girlfriend leaving me?!?!?!

HAARP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44382391)

Chiun, the Master of Sinanju, says, "Eat Rice - The Fool Speaks, whilst the Wise Man listens!"

Summary sounds like conspiracy fringe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44382451)

The article summary itself sounds like its from the conspiracy fringe.

Resurrection Teslas work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44383741)

When I first heard about the thing it sounded like the perfect device with which to continue Teslas research on power transmission, communication and weather control via manipulating the Earth-ionosphere cavity.
That's my conspiracy and I'm sticking to it.
But I think they're still missing the other half of the setup. I think they need the magnetic field 'tapper' too. Send them more money!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>