HAARP's massive Tesla Tech Arrays in South Atlantic

[Kendall]

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

I wonder if SO will address this.

[sdv]

The South Atlantic Anomaly is not a new discovery and there is no evidence linking it to HAARP (in fact, the discovery and study of the SAA precedes HAARP).

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?48496-The-South-Atlantic-Anomaly

[ThePythonicCow]

A copy and paste of a portion of the Youtube notes, explaining the abbreviations and giving the dates:




HAARP' MASSIVE TTA's DISCOVERED on SECRET ISLAND and SEA FLOOR Causing 2 EARTHQUAKES ???

Incident lasted 2 days: December 24th and December 25th, 2012.

TTA = Tesla Tech Array
HTA = HAARP Type Array

I'm also changing the thread title, from saying "TTA", to saying "Tesla Tech Array". I doubt many readers would recognize "TTA".

[ThePythonicCow]

The South Atlantic Anomaly is not a new discovery and there is no evidence linking it to HAARP (in fact, the discovery and study of the SAA precedes HAARP).

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?48496-
The-South-Atlantic-Anomaly (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?48496-The-South-Atlantic-Anomaly)

The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) is an unusual area in the earth's magnetic field.

What does the SAA have to do with what is in the opening video (the sharply defined weather anomaly, the two earthquakes, the antennas on the island, and the undersea geometric patterns) other than roughly similar location?

I don't see why you mention the SAA here. Perhaps, like the HAARP installation in Alaska, there is more HAARP like equipment here because in both places, the earth's radiation belts are weaker or closer to the earth's surface, so perhaps there is a reason for this roughly similar location (SAA and what's in the opening video.) But it seemed to me that you might have intended something else by your remark.

[Nick Matkin]

"Sonic anomaly"...! It looks like a digitization artefact where the video loop is joined/restarted.

Why didn't the narrator explain that the animation is showing ocean temperatures and currents? (They didn't know/care/understand?) Or how long in real time "this massive structure created with sonic waves" lasted, or how such a massive event could be hidden from thousands of the worlds geologists and meteorologists?

What qualifications does the narrator have to 'identify' the arrays on the island or interpret the video?

To me, as an RF engineer, the arrays look like HF antennas - probably military as HF is still used by them. The circular arrays could easily be direction-finding antenna systems - I've worked with them.

Is this yet another example of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, interpreting data they don't understand, trying to make it fit their own conspiracy beliefs and coming to wild conclusions defined in pseudo-scientific language to impress the hard of thinking?

I think so...

If this is the case, why do they do it?

Nick

===

OK, my suspicions confirmed. The narrator is talking bollocks. The arrays indeed are arrays. They are HF antenna arrays used by the BBC World Service for broadcasting to South America and Africa. The huge arrays (http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2010/09/25/DY/20100925_DYP503.jpg) (the "sister towers") are not "miles across". Just look at Google images "bbc ascension island" if you want more pictures. They are completely standard HF transmitting arrays.

The island is indeed a military base (anyone remember the Falklands War?) full of military satellite and HF comms equipment.

And another thing - why can't the clouds just be clouds. "Obscurements..." oh - FFS!

[ThePythonicCow]

Is this yet another example of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, interpreting data they don't understand, trying to make it fit their own conspiracy beliefs and coming to wild conclusions defined in pseudo-scientific language to impress the hard of thinking?

I think so...
You make a good case that it is ... thanks.

[Snoweagle]

OK, my suspicions confirmed. The narrator is talking bollocks. . .
The island is indeed a military base . . .
And another thing . . .

Absolutely. Quite agree with your opinion.

[Nick Matkin]

Thanks Paul and Snoweagle for your comments.

This sort c**p really irritates me. No offence to the original poster who posted in good faith. But there is SO MUCH of this stuff in our much celebrated ‘Alternative Media’. No wonder the main-stream media at best ignores it and at worst ridicules it.

Planet-sized 'craft' darting about the sun (somehow completely invisible to tens of thousands of well equipped amateur astronomers); crystals that ‘protect’ the wearer from cell-phone and wi-fi ‘radiation’ (without supplying any plausible data as to how this is achieved); and the HAARPstatus.com hoax website (again, full of pseudo-scientific nonsense) are recent examples exploiting the many non-technical folks who are simply looking for alternative 'truths' – whatever they might be.

If one has a technical background in the subject being discussed, one can see the implausibility of many of these claims. To anyone not having a technical background, all sorts of nonsense seems plausible, especially if it is sprinkled with scientific-sounding terms.

So, if I'm so uptight about this tsunami of junk, why am I even on here? Well, possibly, just possibly, governments do know more about UFOs, Bigfoot, etc. than they are admitting - and probably for good reason. There probably is a source of free energy out there - but if it were as easy as some researchers claim by achieving it in their home workshops, I don’t think it could be kept quiet!

There are bona-fide scientists ignored by their mainstream colleagues working on unconventional research who will discover the most amazing stuff. But it has always been thus.

Anyway… wouldn’t it be fantastic if, post 2012, we started being a bit more critical about what our beloved alternative media reported, published and circulated?

Nahhh… where’s the fun in that. We wanna believe that NASA is covering up the imminent impact of the latest comet or asteroid, and when it doesn’t happen it’s because our Space Brothers/Galactic Federation/Archons have prevented it for their own nefarious reasons, thus proving their existence to the wilfully skeptical!

Nick

[Kryztian]

I found a ground shot of the "antennas" at Ascension Island - a rather strange structure. They are located at 7-55'01.70 S 14 23'08.53W
Panaramio: Antenna field, Ascension Island (http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo&position=21&with_photo_id=63611469&order=date_desc&user=6466165)

Why would an antenna have low circular walls? Why is there a net like structure and where are the tall towers? Is this really for broadcasting BBC radio?

[Operator]

This sort c**p really irritates me. No offence to the original poster who posted in good faith. But there is SO MUCH of this stuff in our much celebrated ‘Alternative Media’. No wonder the main-stream media at best ignores it and at worst ridicules it.


I fully agree with you. However there is another side to this coin too.
There are cases where people find these items and would like to question it and
get comments by more knowledgeable people. But like I said, it shouldn't be brought as
a fact but with big question marks.

[Operator]

I found a ground shot of the "antennas" at Ascension Island - a rather strange structure. They are located at 7-55'01.70 S 14 23'08.53W
Panaramio: Antenna field, Ascension Island (http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo&position=21&with_photo_id=63611469&order=date_desc&user=6466165)

Why would an antenna have low circular walls? Why is there a net like structure and where are the tall towers? Is this really for broadcasting BBC radio?

Yep, it looks like a circular configuration of HF dipoles to me. So it is very good possible that they are used for
relaying shortwave broadcasts on the southern hemisphere. The only thing I am not familiar with is that the
dipoles are V shaped while they are usually flat top (straight line) or 'inverted' V shaped.

An inverted V dipole is theoretically omnidirectional which avoids the necessity of an array.

Nice photo though of such a remote location.

[Nick Matkin]

Why would an antenna have low circular walls? Why is there a net like structure and where are the tall towers? Is this really for broadcasting BBC radio?

No, those are not at the BBC site. But these are (http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2010/09/25/DY/20100925_DYP503.jpg) which I linked top above in post #5. In the original video they were shown from Google Earth and described as 'miles across' which they clearly aren't. They'll have wire dipole antennas stung between them which actually do the radiating. The metal towers are just the supports in this case. (Metal towers can be used for radiating the signal, but are balanced/guyed on ceramic insulators, and rarely used for HF.)

I KNOW the BBC broadcasts from Ascension Island as I compiled transmission schedules for the BBC transmission network for a year.

The circular antennas you show are from another site, probably military, but I can't tell. They are circular omnidirectional receiving antennas. You will see wires supported between the six poles from which the central bundle spread out to and are supported by. It does look a bit like a net I guess. The metal fencing may be an integral part of the earthing/grounding arrangements, but looks too corroded to be much use for that.

Why would any structure have low circular walls? To discourage stealing the copper wires, keep large animals out (they often rub against the structures, which eventually fall over!), and to keep vehicles from bumping into them.

Nothing strange about these antennas. If you want strange antennas used for "strange transmissions", have a look at these:

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Russian_Bases_Woodpecker_Duga_Radar_Ukraine.html

Still not miles across, but massive nevertheless!

Nick

[Nick Matkin]

There are cases where people find these items and would like to question it and
get comments by more knowledgeable people. But like I said, it shouldn't be brought as
a fact but with big question marks.

Yes Operator, fair comment. We can't all be experts on everything. But it's a bit like hearing/reading a news item when you know the facts because you were involved, but finding the reported event is full of errors, omissions, misinterpretations, etc. and you think: "How can that happen? How can it be so wrong?"

As a teenager, when it first happened to me, I found it quite disturbing since I was forced into realising that 99.9 percent of what I hear/read I am just taking on trust - I wasn't there and I didn't know anyone who was. OMG! What happens if everything else is equally wrong?! Wakey-wakey young man. You have just discovered one of the "truths".

And I have no reason to believe that much (most?) of our alternative media is any more scrupulous in its reporting. In fact I'm forced to believe it is probably much less scrupulous as anyone can post any crazy stuff.

Nick