posted 06-28-2001 01:47 AM            

I live in relative proximity to this place too...makes me more than a little bit scared!

posted 06-28-2001 04:41 PM            

quote:

---

VANDENGERG
AIR FORCE BASE
CALIFORNIA
EXTREME EM/RF/MICROWAVE
RADIATION

---

???

Exteme Radiation?

Maybe I'm missing something here. Can someone explain why a doppler radar would show radiation? Doppler radar is designed to pickup "stuff" in the air, like rain, not energy waves.

posted 06-28-2001 06:15 PM            

As I understand it, Thermit, Doppler radar picks up radar echoes off things like rain in the air. So it is seeing reflected energy waves. However, when I looked up "Radar" at http://www.britannica.com , it said that the NEXRAD radars operate in the 2.7-3.0 gigahertz range. I have a reference from http://members.aol.com/phikent/orbit/orbitback13.html that says the atmospheric heater frequency is 6.77 megahertz. In other words, the sensitivity of the Doppler radars to this type of radiation would be off by three orders of magnitude.

posted 06-29-2001 09:37 AM            

http://www.enterprisemission.com/truth1.htm

This is one example image from the Enterprise Mission website which contains a variety of radar phenomona. The following quote is from a radar expert who gives some insight into the Brownsville, TX image shown above, as well as all of the radar images shown on the Enterprise page.

quote:

---

http://www.borderlands.com/newstuff/research/nexrad/Radarexp.htm

*Fourth Image - South-central US Composite Loop (most likely .5 degree slice)
Date/Time: Dec. 20, 1998 / 2007-2307 GMT (207 - 507 PM CST)
Caption: "Dissipating radial pattern over
Brownsville, Texas. A "Radar anomaly?" Or ...?"
Analysis: Indeed, at first glance at this would appear to show a dispersion of EM energy or some type of reflector in a doughnut shaped area with a radius about 95 nautical miles out from the radar. At a .5 degree beam angle, that would place the phenomena somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 feet. As to the apparent cause for the returns, it appears unlikely that is any kind of usual meteorological target. This is especially true because the adjacent radars at Corpus Cristi, Austin, and (I think) Laredo show no signs of it. The distinct circular appearance of the radar returns make it obvious that this image was detected and/or produced solely by the Brownsville radar. If there had been actual scattering bodies aloft over southern Texas at this time, some of them would have certainly been picked up by the adjacent radars, and the pattern would not nearly be so perfectly circular. Therefore, I must deduce that this was a glitch within the processing system of the Brownsville radar. Similar patterns have occurred before when there have been calibration errors, system noise, etc., and they are well documented. Either this was the case here, or every other radar system in southern Texas at this time was not operational!
Short and Sweet: This image most likely shows an internal glitch or processing anomaly distinct to the Brownsville radar during that particular time frame. The absence of returns from any of the adjacent radars and the purely circular pattern further support this conclusion, assuming that the other south Texas radars were in operation at the time.

---

posted 06-29-2001 04:16 PM            

I may be "Mr. Military," but I'm no expert on ground-based radar. I do know some radar theory, however, because I use one every day to find other planes in the sky. So, caveat everything I say with the statement that I'm not the end-all, be-all with respect to how radar works.

As far as the "blob" phenomenon goes, I am completely flabbergasted when you instantly point at a conspiracy of some sort when there are perfectly plausible explanations for the phenomenon. Also, have you taken the time to educate yourself about these radars? Obviously you haven't or you would know that a lot of the "blobs" also appear on civilian radar sites. As a teenager, I would see the Amarillo NEXRAD site "do the blob" almost every afternoon on the local weather feed. The military site 110 miles away at Cannon Air Force base wouldn't "do the blob" on the same day.

Since then, I've seen it all over the country, in places nowhere near a military base. It's really a simple matter of the radar site operator and a little knob called "GAIN" that is used to filter out clutter from both the ground and the air.

Civilian weather radar displays raw data, ie. the radar return is what is displayed, nothing more, nothing less. ATC radar, military radar, and others show varying combinations of processed and raw data. Processed data is primarily used for tracking-type radars and is useful in decluttering the image to see what is really out there. On the radar I use, for example, the processed information is displayed as little "squares" which show the locations of aircraft in the search area. Ground clutter and other anomalies are filtered out, leaving a relatively clear picture of what's out there.

Weather radar, however, is a whole different animal. It needs to display raw data so the entire storm cell can be seen on the scope. This is where the problem comes up which frequently turn into "blobs" on the screen. Why do I know this? Because the radar that I fly with has an Air-to-ground mode which works very similarly to the ground-based weather radar (we can use it as one if we are flying around storms.)

Ground clutter presents a very large problem for long-range, ground-based radar. Because the radar must look along the horizon to see weather in the distance, it is susceptible to interference from the ground. Another problem, which if left uncorrected may result in a "blob," is the varying temperature and humidity throughout the day. When I use my radar in an Air-to-ground mode, I have to constantly tweak the GAIN knob to filter out clutter so I can get a usable picture. One little bump of the knob and it goes from clear to pure, unusable "noise." Fly through a cloud, and the same thing happens. I'll see a 120 degree "blob" out in front of me.

posted 01-25-2002 11:09 AM            

The fact that these blobs seem to form circular pattern is probably based on two phenomena: the concept of "threshold" and the inverse-square law of propagation of radiation.

"Threshold" is the sudden "bump" you get when you reach a certain level of electromagnetic energy. For example, if you turn up an omnidirectional microphone in front of a radiator like a speaker, there will be a certain point where the mic will begin to pick up minuscule sounds which are radiated by the speaker which are picked up by the microphone which are radiated... and the result is a squeal called "feedback". Similarly, if you radiate radar waves at to high an amplitude, you will get this same kind of visual "feedback" which, instead of increasing the individual returns, merely amplifies the return signal until it washes out the display. Think of it as "the straw that broke the camel's back".

The "inverse square" rule of electromagnetic propagation says that the strength of a signal decreases as the square of the distance traveled by the signal. If you have a signal of 100W at ten feet, it will be 25W at 20 ft, 11.1W at 30 ft, 6.25W at 40 ft, and so on. This is why, if the Earth was twice as close to the Sun as it is now, we wouldn't get twice the radiation, we'd get four times the radiation. At a certain point, the decreasing radiation falls below the "clutter" threshold, and the signal goes back to normal. If the signal is an "omni-directional radiator" (that is, it is radiating out equally in all directions), then it will reach the clutter threshold at about the same distance in a circle from the radar, and you will a circular ground clutter blob on the scope.

There are things that can modify the size of the circle, like an increase in the power of the radar. There are also things that can modify the shape of the circle (like small pockets of microclimate that might attenuate the signal at a certain point), but those changes are so small that you almost always see the 'blob' as a circle of one size or another.

Regards,

posted 02-09-2002 06:28 PM            

Very often, 'dealing' with the target involves writing a large ticket to the unfortunate guy who may have pulled off the Rockville Pike exit in a hurry to catch the sale at White Flint Mall LOL!

Regards,

posted 02-10-2002 03:44 AM            

if you radiate radar waves at to high an amplitude, you will get this same kind of visual "feedback" which, instead of increasing the individual returns, merely amplifies the return signal until it washes out the display. ....

.... The "inverse square" rule of electromagnetic propagation says that the strength of a signal decreases as the square of the distance traveled by the signal. .... At a certain point, the decreasing radiation falls below the "clutter" threshold, and the signal goes back to normal. If the signal is an "omni-directional radiator" (that is, it is radiating out equally in all directions), then it will reach the clutter threshold at about the same distance in a circle from the radar, and you will a circular ground clutter blob on the scope.
.... There are also things that can modify the shape of the circle (like small pockets of microclimate that might attenuate the signal at a certain point), .... .

end quote.

And if the atmosphere radar signal conductivity is enhanced by saturating it with the easily ionizable barium and magnesium compounds that radar signal itself can turn in cold plasma, process similar to that what goes on in ionosphere, then the standard weather radar signal output amplitude (power level) becoming to high goes over the clutter threshold enabling the resonance with radar system's noise that then creates radar circle for which standard weather radar imagining software cannot compensate.

Solution to this problem is that you just turn the resolution of weather integration imagining software down (in the case when the ionization of atmosphere over large area that is covered by number of weather radars occurs - this is caused by jet stream control problem that results in weather front overkill, killing all winds, and thus high concentration of airborne ionizable matter) or you just turn the output signal power of the particular weather radar down (in the case when the local chemsprayplane spray group is dumping the stuff in hurry because it is late for the NFL game).

Thanks Duncan for clearing the technical side.

Best regards

posted 02-10-2002 09:56 PM            

If the atmosphere is saturated with sub-visible, microscopic, METALLIC particles, like barium, and aluminum, and magnesium,
AND a nuclear air-blast (or two, or three or more) happened to happen,
WOULD that be able to IRRADIATE and CONTAMINATE these particles on a long-term basis with some kind of long-term radioisotope changes, or ionizing radiation?

And these particles -- being so eminently inhalable and all -- plus able to travel vast distances along the air-ways of the world--could they lodge in the air-ways of human beings (a.k.a. citizens) and by continual irradiation to tissues, cause damage, illness, tumors and cancer?

posted 02-15-2002 04:13 PM            

Barium compounds would partially absorb gamma and X rays that the blast created and emit their energy as a visible light that would in the end turn itself in to the heat leaving chemtrails unchanged. It would create quite a big flash, from horizon to horizon.
This process, together with the electromagnetic pulse, whose production, apart from the biologically lethal neutron flux, is the main reason why the atmospheric nuclear explosion would be used, would instantly ionize the barium/ magnesium soup (which component would be prevalent depends on the air pressure required for the local weather and air conductivity control) and create plasma that shall divert the propagation of the electromagnetic pulse itself and disperse its energy ducting it through the chemtrail layer in the similar manner as ionosphere does with electrically charged part of Solar radiation. Aluminum is here essential to enhance the conductivity. This could protect specially shielded electronic equipment (military) from instant destruction but all common equipment will be fused.
Radioactive products that are created by the explosion of the material of the bomb itself would spread and cover the surface making it unusable for some period of time, depending on the bomb makeup material (outer moderator) and quantity of the core plutonium used (it has a long half-life). Obviously, for shielding from structure busting bombs chemtrails are of no use.

So, all in all, there is no danger that radioactive chemtrails could be long-term health hazard if the materials they are made off is not already radioactive, like fine power of depleeated uranium that remains as a leftover of the reactor fuel processing or extraction of the weapons grade plutonium.

If the real story behind the chemtrail spraying is population control, as I think it is, then it is much easier to spray the mycoplasma, carrier of the genome-specific disease material like AIDS that is spreading silently over a long period of time and that cannot be detected before it is to late. As those that are enjoying to be really bad always indicate what they are doing by stating directly opposite, my vote goes to sub 10 micron fibers. They fit in to the lung alveoli. Mostly having the same size, aluminum and other weather/ plasma spray compounds come just as handy to plug the lungs or enter the blood, weakening the immune system so the real stuff could work better.

Because of its magnitude, the last stages of this operation is bound to become visible so the global war is needed. Someone must be blamed for the invisible, sudden biological attack that is going on for many years.

Sorry for the late reply. I did not intend to post this response until today after having read that Tom Bearden is on year-long antibiotic cure because he's got the infection in sixties and was told what he has by his friend, the medical doctor, only recently. Although he is the leading scientist in advanced physics today (got the patent for zero point energy device) he does not understand this problem of ours in the right way.

Beast regards.

posted 02-20-2002 12:22 AM            

The thing about what happens tomorrow is something else. Ironically (or should I say symetrically?...synchronistically? ) I had just gotten the following e-mail seconds after I heard in the news about a time tomorrow (Wed) that in military time will read something like 20:02/02/20/2002? or something like that? It's a very rare occurrence that happens tomorrow....I mean, today 02/20/02

quote:

---

I just had to get to tell you about an article at Renses tonite, right up your alley...Is about numbers for tomorrow, Wednesday..."Scientists and psychics note Mathmatical Symmetry" is title to it or fairly close. It is amazing and has impact for tomorrow and you may want to post about it as well as todays Flash Radar at Doug Pooleys Toledo Links website where article is about affects of EM/Microwave/Scalar.

---