Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 26, 1996 - Art Bell

02:47:26

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - HAARP - Nick Begich

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast AM, from December 26th, 1996.
	From the high desert in the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, or good morning, as the case may be.
	And welcome to another edition of the very best in live, overnight talk radio, while the others carry regurgitated, recirculated, repeated nonsense.
	Here we are, live, in the middle of the night.
	From the Hawaiian and Tahitian island chains in the west, all the way east to the Caribbean and the U.S.
	Virgin Islands, south into South America, and as you well know, worldwide on the internet, this is Coast to Coast AM.
	Good morning, everybody.
	We are going to hold off on predictions for one more day.
	We'll begin them tomorrow night.
	The yearly traditional prediction show.
	And, uh, that will be tomorrow night, beginning tomorrow night and through the end of the year.
	Because tonight we are going to revisit something we haven't done in a long time.
	We're going to go all the way to Alaska, and we're gonna talk to Dr. Nick Begich, co-author of Angels Don't Play This Harp.
	You wouldn't believe what's going on in Alaska.
	A lot of you will never have heard of harp.
	That's H-A-A-R-P.
	but you're about to and i suggest you stay right where you are because part
	this something to be a whole incidentally as an update to a story we have been following
	very closely as you know
	uh... we've done a couple of large interviews with joyce riley uh... with regard to the gulf war syndrome whatever it is
	She has thought for a very long time that it was biological in nature.
	About an hour prior to airtime, I saw a CNN story indicating they finally have decided to investigate the possibility of the exact biological causative agent that Joyce Riley has been telling everybody was used in the war.
	So I'd like to congratulate Joyce Riley and I guess we better stay pretty close to that story.
	All right, now on to HAARP.
	Dr. Nick Begich, a traditional physician, eldest son of the late United States Congressman from Alaska, Nick Begich, Sr., and political activist Peggy Begich, is known in Alaska for his own activities.
	He is the past president of the Alaska Federation of Teachers, And the Anchorage Council of Education.
	He's been pursuing independent research in the sciences and politics for most of his adult life.
	He wrote the first major story on the HAARP project.
	Again, that's H-A-A-R-P.
	We'll find out about the acronym.
	Published in October of 94 in Nexus, an international magazine based in Australia.
	His research files on the project and related technologies include more than 400 documents spanning 80 years of technological developments.
	Here from Alaska, where I bet it's getting cold, is Dr. Nick Begich.
	Dr. Begich, welcome.
	Well, it's good to be back with you, and it is cold.
	How cold is it up there, doctor?
	It's been hovering just above zero today, so it's cold.
	Our own Upper Midwest and Northwest is getting... As a matter of fact, we're going to have to cover that, I'm sure.
	This, so far, Doctor, is the worst winter in memory.
	It is a horrible winter.
	It began cold, and it's getting colder.
	And there's snow where there usually isn't snow, and freezing everywhere.
	You know, people say, well, it's wintertime.
	Yeah, but boy, it's rough.
	It's really rough.
	What, Doctor, is H.A.R.P.?
	H.A.R.P.
	actually stands for High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project, and it's a jointly-operated project here in Alaska by the Air Force and the Navy.
	And the intention is using radio frequency to create a number of upper atmospheric and ionospheric events that then can be utilized for military purposes and other purposes.
	But it's a very, very large project.
	Essentially, you can view it as a large ground-based Star Wars weapons technology project operating here in Alaska.
	All right.
	What do they say that HAARP is?
	Surely, they don't say HAARP is SDI-related or a Defense Department operation of any kind.
	What do they say it is?
	Well, initially, their story was it was just strictly a ionospheric research project and that it might have Some communications applications in terms of military applications.
	And what, you know, what we found, you know, in terms of their internal documents indicate it's much more than that.
	But basically then what they did is expand the scope of the project sort of in successive press releases that basically start to lay out, as they gain funding each year, the additional attributes of the project.
	And, for instance, this current year they've been using it for testing a concept of earth-penetrating Tomography, also some interaction with some satellite technologies as well have been part of the agenda for this current fiscal year.
	It's kind of general.
	Where is HAARP located, Doctor?
	It's about 250 miles northeast of Anchorage, or 250 miles southeast of Fairbanks, which is a pretty good general location.
	That's kind of out in the middle of nowhere.
	Yeah, it is.
	You know, a lot of these projects, people remember in your neck of the woods down there in Nevada, that used to be where a lot of these programs were tested and run, because it was remote, and it was out of the way, and now, you know, really, Alaska fills that bill.
	In addition to some of the, this particular project requires northern location and high energy sources, eventually, once it gets ramped up to its full size.
	Why the north?
	The North, primarily, as all of the records show, they need a place where the magnetic lines of force come closest to the Earth, ideally situated on the United States territory in Alaska.
	It certainly fits that, but it also requires large sources of natural gas, which is sort of where the Project HARP began, and really where it Where it eventually will go.
	Natural gas for energy?
	Right.
	What HARP requires as they continue to build the project, right now it's at what's called the developmental prototype stage, which is the first phase in a multi-phase project as they've presented it.
	Eventually, it'll get to the size where they need magneto-hydrodynamic generators and other large generating sources of electrical power.
	And natural gas provides an ideal source.
	In Alaska, of course, we have It's a cubic feet of natural gas.
	It's virtually untapped.
	We have a photograph somewhere on the web page, maybe I can get Keith to put a pointer directly to it, but we have a photograph of the HAARP antenna array there and it is very impressive.
	It's like a gigantic field of what appear to be dipoles or Arrays, what is that?
	That's exactly what it is, but it's a site that was designed to be modular, to be extended on and added on to.
	What you see initially in this field are 48 antennae, of which 18 were activated last year.
	The full array is now activated for this year, in terms of being available for use.
	They tested it in November.
	Again, they'll be testing again in January, but basically it's designed to eventually go to 360 antennas in the array from the one facility, the one developmental prototype.
	Alright, again, I'm a ham operator, so I understand a little bit about antennas, a little bit anyway, and I know that the higher the gain, generally, of an antenna, the more directional it is.
	And ham antennas start out transmitting a signal that is relatively narrow, and then it becomes broader and broader and broader.
	You know, the greater the distance, the broader it becomes.
	HARP, I think, is designed in exactly the opposite way.
	It begins as a fairly broad signal, and is designed to hit the ionosphere, kind of like a laser beam, isn't it?
	That's exactly it.
	And it's, you know, when you think of the old, an old way of looking at it, just a simple way, actually, of looking at it as a funnel, you know, the standard transmitter, the wide end is at the ionospheric levels, where the density gets quite thin, or the concentration of energy is much, much less.
	In this case, it's focusing the energy or concentrating it into a relatively small area,
	which is what makes this facility much different than any other.
	And the size of the facility, you know, it's similar on the ground, but it's the amount
	of energy that can be delivered to the ionosphere, which is an area about 30 to 600 miles above
	the Earth's surface, but an area that can be triggered by hitting specific frequencies
	to go in and create a number of different energy effects.
	Alright, so, um, it's kind of like when you were a kid and you had a magnifying glass, or maybe even as an adult, and, uh, you took a leaf and you focused the little dot of light on the leaf and smoke and then maybe even fire and you burn a hole right through the leaf.
	That is roughly what HAARP does in reverse to the ionosphere.
	In other words, they're calling it an ionospheric Heater?
	Why would a person want to heat a little dot or a little area of the ionosphere?
	Why?
	Well, it depends on how they're going to use it.
	In one instance, if you heat an area, a region above the place where your station is, and you can heat it sufficiently, you can actually lift the ionosphere, which then creates a space below which lower atmosphere rushes in, so that if a satellite, for instance, were crossing On that particular area, it would cause it to malfunction, because it would hit drag forces that shouldn't be there, right?
	Now, that's something I hadn't heard before.
	Whoa!
	You said the energy could cause the ionosphere to lift?
	Yes, over a very broad area.
	This actually was raised in discussion on national Canadian television with John Heckscher, who's a program manager for the military on this, and he acknowledged that the busting of holes or the lifting of ionospheric segments was possible with this technology. What happens
	though as a result or sort of a byproduct of the lifting of the ionosphere
	and the lower atmosphere moving into that space is it alters
	normal wind channels or pathways where wind currents would normally traverse the Earth so it could
	in fact, and we assert that it does, have the potential of affecting
	weather patterns over very broad areas as a result of that.
	Let's get a sense of the power levels that harp will eventually attain.
	This project is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger and more powerful, right?
	Yes, and this is a very important aspect, because the effective radiated power of this system at its first phase, which is currently what's funded, It's up to 1 billion watts of effective radiated power.
	That's a huge amount of energy.
	It really is.
	And the eventual power levels that they would like to go, according to a technical document that we uncovered in our research, is up to 100 billion watts, which is an amount of energy that, again, this is interesting, because since we were on, where we did a long show on this subject back over a year ago, we have had Opportunity to get the other side, you know, in front of camera, in front of a microphone, where they got to say their side of the story.
	And what they acknowledge is those power levels that many of the effects, particularly the weather modification effects that we've been so concerned about, could very likely occur.
	Well, they admit this now.
	Yeah, but here's the context in which it occurred.
	They didn't know that we had this technical memorandum 195, which is Sort of the story on where they wanted to go.
	It was an internal planning memorandum.
	It was 613 pages long.
	And it wasn't released publicly.
	And he was confronted on Canadian television by a reporter with the document.
	And it's clear, you know, where they wanted to go in power levels is 100 billion watts.
	And where they are today is, again, we don't disagree with the developmental prototype, but we certainly have different opinions.
	I'm curious, what did they say when they were confronted with this document?
	Oh my, where'd you get that?
	Well, first it was total denial on the part of John Heckscher knowing anything about it, which is pretty humorous because he is the program manager.
	He was on the distribution list.
	He was at the meeting where the thing was prepared.
	It was the lead document that led to the Uh, development of a contract that eventually became the HAARP program.
	I mean, it was the technical specification, um, meeting where all of that was put together.
	But the way the memorandum was drafted, the very first sections of it were set up to be a, um, what they call a private communication between the parties, which were the private parties.
	So it wasn't, and they also say that it was a non-published document.
	Well, a non-published document and private communications are exempt from Freedom of Information Act.
	Request, and the only way we got it was through a very friendly source that was within one of the libraries where one of the documents was found.
	Still, he must have gulped hard, I mean... He did!
	The picture on screen is really great, because he actually turns into a pretzel and sort of folds up because he's caught, and he's caught in a very awkward position on this.
	Well, as you know, I spoke with John Hatcher and gave him the opportunity to come on the air, which he...
	Declined?
	Yes.
	He talked to me about the project, and frankly, oh, I think we talked about 30 minutes, and by the time it was done, it sounded like something the Boy Scouts were doing.
	You know, we had one legislative hearing here in Alaska.
	We had it in April, and it was telling.
	We each brought our own group of experts to the table.
	Who is providing the money for this?
	in front of few issues on the entire project and what they've defaulted to
	are you know third-party regulatory bodies that have certain
	controls over certain aspects but they won't take a phone on the uh...
	on the major issues which is really unfortunate who is uh...
	providing the money for this
	this is on u s taxpayers coming up basically the money flow our money
	it's money coming right out of the defense budget our money
	And this year in particular, you know, they say it's non-classified.
	Two things came out of the hearings.
	One is they deny that any part of it's classified, yet when you speak to the original inventor of the technology, you know, he'll acknowledge that there's a major portion of it he still can't discuss because it is classified.
	The military wants to maintain it strictly a research project, and yet I mean, it's their own words, it's their own paperwork, their own documents.
	It's sure clearly has much more than that.
	Well, gee, the military is involved then.
	There's no question about that.
	Yeah, they're actually running the program.
	I mean, it was funded through, you know, their budget.
	Originally, it was sort of put out as a University of Alaska Geophysical Institute project that they would be heavily involved in.
	They were in some of the beginning stages, but in terms of the operation itself in the budget itself as military
	the doctor the military doesn't get involved much less run a project
	without at least possible military application uh...
	anybody in the most naive out there uh... have seen enough movies to know what the military
	does when it gets involved with science
	It wants something for the military.
	Yeah, I mean, there's no pure research in this.
	I mean, whatever's developed, whatever grows out of this system is strictly for application in a conflict situation, either in defense or offensive conflict.
	And what we've said about the system is, look, Star Wars is a major initiative.
	The whole idea of electromagnetic warfare, which is really what the book about HAARP is all about.
	It's about HAARP as a system, and standing aside from it, a lot of other systems being developed in the same venue.
	And yet, not any of these issues are getting the kind of public debate that certainly what may turn out to be not just billions of dollars, but trillions of dollars of U.S.
	taxpayer money flowing into a whole new arms initiative that's quite as intense
	or could be as intense as what we've just come through with atomic and nuclear weapons.
	Did you know, doctor, that there is a little-known provision in U.S.
	code that allows, with 30 days notification, the experimentation on the American civilian population Uh, of biological and chemical agents.
	I mean, all they've got to do is notify local authorities, they don't specify which, that this will occur and in 30 days they can begin experimenting on civilian populations in this country.
	Now, that's a fact.
	I wonder If that would include, or perhaps need not include, with regard to notification or anything else, the experimentation on the U.S.
	civilian population, in fact the world's population, of electromagnetic radiation.
	Yeah, in this case there are no international treaties that I know of dealing with this particular kind of, if you will, electromagnetic pollution, electromagnetic warfare.
	The whole technology, what people need to realize, and this is an important aspect of what we're trying to present, is the idea that weapons that utilize electromagnetic principles for affecting human physiology or the environment can be just as destructive, perhaps even more destructive, than weapons that have more overt and apparent effects, such as a bullet passing through tissue.
	But the idea that a weapon can be directed either accidentally or purposely On a population effect, their physical health, their behavior.
	All of these things are very possible and the technology is here and HAARP represents some of the finest.
	Great.
	Doctor, hold on.
	We're at the bottom of the hour.
	We'll be right back and talk about what the military might do with something like HAARP.
	You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 26th, 1996.
	Oh, we got to get right back to where we started from.
	Do you remember that day? I surely did.
	When you first came my way.
	I said no one can take your place.
	And if you get hurt. If you get hurt.
	By the little things I say.
	I can set my back on your bed.
	When it's all right and it's coming on we got to get right back to where we started.
	Oh, I remember.
	are You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight, featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 26th, 1996.
	It is!
	Good morning, everybody!
	My guest is Dr. Nick Vegich.
	His book, Angels Don't Play This Harp, Military angels.
	Colonels and generals.
	Somehow I don't... Anyway, you get the picture.
	we'll talk about what the military might do with heart here in a moment
	back now to the cold country alaska you.
	Where there is a gigantic antenna array somewhere between Anchorage and Fairbanks, getting ready to radiate maybe as much as a hundred billion watts at our ionosphere.
	And we're discussing why they might want to do that, and why the military is involved.
	Doctor, what military applications might there be for HAARP?
	Well, there were several that we found.
	I'm just going to kind of tick through them, then we can sort of explore the ones that you want to go to.
	Sure.
	The first thing that we discovered, of course, was the communications aspect.
	And this is using a signal that's sent from the HAARP transmitter to the ionosphere, causing the ionosphere to modulate or vibrate, sending a secondary frequency in the ELF, or extremely low range, which penetrates the Earth and sea for communication with submarines.
	This is the same application that enabled the use for earth-penetrating tomography, which is funded for this year in the non-proliferation, counter-proliferation of the defense budget.
	In other words, there is so much energy radiated at the ionosphere that it bounces off, or re-radiates, I'm not quite clear on that, and actually can penetrate the ocean And you could communicate with submarines?
	Right.
	What they're doing is actually, they're pulsing the high frequency into the ionosphere in a way that causes the ionosphere to act like a giant antenna in the sky and radiate back because it causes it to pulse or vibrate a low frequency.
	And that low frequency then is used to carry out communications for submarines for
	instance.
	Well we all know that whales communicate with a very low frequency over
	incredible amounts of territory underwater.
	Right. And there is a large antenna in the upper Midwest somewhere. Right. Miles and miles and miles of it
	underground designed to be able to create a frequency that
	not exactly does the same thing but has the same effect, communicates with
	You can understand there would be a military application here.
	Sure.
	Would that be worldwide, Doctor?
	In other words, if you modulated the ionosphere, you send up a high frequency signal, cause it to begin to radiate this low frequency signal, would that be worldwide?
	Yeah, that gives you the ability to communicate in the low frequency range and effect.
	At least hemispherically, initially and then eventually with a worldwide system, you could actually create an ELF frequency.
	The thing about ELF is that also all the research shows are the frequencies that you mentioned, communications between species, but also for the purpose of orienting directionally.
	There's a lot of indication that migratory species orient along magnetic lines of force, which will be interfered with by the harp signals.
	More than that, human beings, our brainwave frequencies tend to be dominant in the ELF range, and this is where some of the other concerns that we've raised can occur.
	But when you raise the issue of, similar to the Midwest, that's quite accurate in terms of what these antennae can do, at least in that limited application.
	But that's also now a question, you know, back when that started, there was a lot of controversy over it creating problems for Biological life, including creating genetic deformations or problems along that line.
	And it's the same kind of issues that are raised with ELF effects on biological life today.
	There's no difference between that project then and the HAARP project now in terms of that potential.
	But going back to military applications, one of the other applications is an over-the-horizon radar capability.
	Radar.
	Allowing to detect incoming objects from a great distance around the curvature of the Earth.
	And then there's a couple of applications built around that idea that deal with detecting which of those incoming objects might carry nuclear payloads, and then also being able to generate enough power to perhaps even knock those objects out of the sky.
	And these are, again, more pure military applications, but ones spoken about within the patent context and within many of the planning documents.
	Well, that's clearly SDI-type stuff.
	Exactly.
	In fact, there was an article that came out after the book was published That was actually written in a Moscow newspaper, proposing a phased array antenna system as a ground-based SDI weapons technology.
	And that article, which was translated into English in a magazine called 21st Century, actually discussed, in the same terms as HAARP documents, discussed the use of phased array, but in the Russian case, or the former Soviet Union's case, they were at least honest about saying it is SDI, and our government is saying it's just an experiment.
	Just an experiment.
	What about this topography business?
	You mean it could actually look underground?
	Right.
	That's what's funded this year.
	It's the idea that it's under non-proliferation and counter-proliferation of the defense budget.
	And what they specifically called out is to be able to look for underground tunnels, nuclear facilities, and shelters.
	And what can happen with ELF penetrating the ground With detection equipment, either traversing the ground at low altitude or on the ground, you can then detect differences in ground strata, including voids or areas where such shelters or facilities could exist.
	The thing is, this is operating, again, in the ELF range, which correlates to predominant brain waves in human beings, which then can trigger a number of chemical effects, which, in fact, many government documents that we can talk about as we go on this evening Point to having a tremendous effect on the behavior within human beings and primates.
	Well, it's not hard to imagine that anything that would be strong enough to penetrate the ground... Do they know, by the way, to what level, at the higher power levels, they could penetrate the ground and look for underground stuff?
	Yeah, they're speaking in terms of several kilometers or even several miles.
	We're talking, you know, some pretty great depth.
	I mean, deep enough to detect some of the deepest oil fields.
	For instance, like here in Alaska, they're around 16,000 feet.
	Holy moly!
	Right now, to achieve that sort of thing, they've got to drill down deep, I believe, and set explosive charges, don't they?
	Yeah, they do.
	They use explosive charges for creating a ground vibration.
	I mean, and that's all really localized.
	What they're able to do here, you have to imagine, with the amount of energy, can be conceived of on a hemispheric basis, covering a huge, huge land mass in one sweep, so to speak.
	All right, well, before it penetrates the ground to a depth of several miles, it's got to penetrate everything above ground.
	Buildings.
	Every living thing.
	Every living thing.
	Including us?
	Yes, that's absolutely correct.
	All right, now, do you know offhand what kind of frequencies we're talking about?
	Okay, you know, the primary frequencies are limited in terms of the range, and it's 2.8 to 10 megahertz, but it's the secondary frequencies, depending on how they utilize the system, because it's a very versatile system.
	It can be used for In the ways that we've already described, but it can also be used to just heat or cause plasma layers to act as sort of reflective mirrors for bouncing signals.
	It can be used in a number of different ways, but when it creates a secondary in the ELF range, which is the extremely low frequency range of, say, 100 hertz in the case of where we're concerned, those are the biologically active range, or at least what research is showing appear to be.
	And what we're finding is that the military on one hand is well aware of the bio-effects of these kinds of radiations, pulsed radiations at low frequency, and yet on this project they deny any problem with biological life, while on other projects they develop what they're calling now non-lethal weapons technologies to take advantage of this very thing that we're speaking about.
	On a much smaller scale, of course.
	Much smaller scale, and yet they show effects on the human mind.
	Yes, and this is a good topic to kind of give a little time to, because it's one that, whenever we speak about it, people get a little nervous and they sort of back off and their eyes glaze over.
	But the fact is, the idea of human behavior being modified by external energy sources, particularly pulsed radio frequency, has been demonstrated at Yale University.
	By Jose Delgado, who worked there for almost three decades in brain research.
	It's been spoken about in documents such as Low Intensity Conflict in Modern Technology, which is a Maxwell Air Force document published in 1986 that talks about the use of pulsed radio frequency as a way for debilitating troops over a very broad area as a non-lethal type of weapon.
	What HAARP is, is a rapidly scanning pulsed radio frequency transmitter of just unbelievable size compared to anything that would
	be used in a tactical air.
	Alright, what did they decide the effects actually were on human beings?
	In terms of the research, what Delgado found is that he could actually change the behavior
	of primates and humans, almost like switching on and off a switch,
	causing, in one demonstration he used a more primitive version of what he eventually came to,
	where somebody actually had a charging bull attacking him and then he flips the switch and the bull stops.
	In that instance he had electrodes placed within the cranium of the bull so that it triggered a signal.
	Later he found that he could create the same effect using pulsed radio frequency at a distance with no implants of any kind and create the same kind of behavioral changes.
	By abruptly changing the frequency, causing that chemical reaction in the brain, changing behavior.
	Were they seen to be temporary effects, or were there any permanent effects noted?
	There really wasn't much in that body of data, but what we know is that you can get some permanency in the effect.
	Whenever you disrupt the energy system of the human body, it doesn't necessarily immediately re-stabilize.
	For instance, at the frequencies that you resonate in, correlate with certain uh... the same resonant frequencies
	of certain toxins within the body they could then trigger chemical reactions
	that might not be so easily reversed by just switching the device off so
	it would depend on what was happening with the device that was being used in
	whether the operator was fully knowledgeable about the effects of what what might be
	happening with a frequency ranges that they're spanning you know doctor
	there was a day in america
	when i thought uh...
	anybody who would suggest the american government would experiment on its own
	was out of their mind You know, conspiracy nutcase stuff.
	But I'm sorry to say, we have evidence that it's already occurred.
	With plutonium given to children and pregnant women and all kinds of people.
	They just settled the lawsuit.
	Now we hear about this business of biological chemical testing that can be done on the population.
	And here we have a technology you're talking about that isn't even covered by regulation.
	Right.
	And you know, even when they are covered, this is a really important part.
	And we cover this within our book as well.
	And everything that we're speaking about we footnote, which is, I think, important when you cover these kinds of topics.
	Absolutely.
	It is.
	You know, I mean, it certainly raises controversy, but the more important thing is it raises debate.
	And to raise that debate properly, people need to know, you know, where does this information come from and from what source?
	And most of what we've done is just put the data together that has been compiled by the government, by major media folks.
	I mean, a lot of different people have built bits and pieces, and we just put it together in one place.
	And these technologies, the idea the government would use them, is not new.
	In fact, we cite one Presidential report from 1975, it was the CIA Commission report on CIA activities within the United States, and by way of example, back then they ran a program called MKUltra, which was the idea of mind control, but what was covered in the Congress really just scratches the surface.
	I mean, what they talked about was enough to get the Congress off their back, but I fully believe was really just the tip of a very large iceberg.
	But what it showed is that the CIA was using uh... psychotronic drugs hypnosis another means to to
	really to to experiment on uh... on america that time when
	uh... certainly anytime at no time and and and and the cia has no jurisdiction
	within united to to do that kind of thing and yet there they were and they
	were you know they were caught in it and the act of doing it but a lot of things we don't know
	about right now For example, originally they thought it was a joke that high voltage power lines could affect people.
	They're not laughing anymore about that.
	Originally they thought low levels of microwave radiation received by workers like myself, who worked in that industry for years, It just was not a problem.
	They backtracked recently on that really hard, and they now think there is a cumulative effect.
	So, when we're talking about the sort of thing that you're talking about here with HAARP, and this low-frequency re-radiation, and its effect on human biology, They don't know, or maybe even worse yet, they do know.
	I wonder which it is.
	My contention is that the military compartmentalizes, and what's happening with HAARP scientists is limited to the atmospheric effects, but I believe the military full well knows the effects of E.L.F.
	because I have documents in my hands that we footnote that say exactly that.
	They know what these things can do.
	They know how they work.
	It's a question of Whether it's accidental or purposeful in the case of HAARP, but the fact of the matter is they're going to operate within frequency ranges that are indeed biologically active.
	The military zone research shows that.
	And it's really a question of whether or not it's intentioned or not.
	And the other question is, is it fair, you know, what they've done in all these studies in terms of saying it's safe, is all those safety thresholds are set by analyzing You know, a series of, a type of energy is sort of as if it were existing in a vacuum at one constant rate.
	And what actually happens with these systems is the interaction between biological systems, other energy sources, and the pulse rates that are established that then trigger different things within human beings.
	And much of this has not been well laid out in terms of the regulatory side, but the research side.
	There's over a thousand papers showing that these kinds of Radiations can have profound physiological effect.
	Is it possible, Doctor?
	I know this sounds like a scene out of a science fiction movie, but when they crank up toward 100 billion watts...
	The scientists, the civilian side, working on HAARP, will be sitting there, working on the ionospheric effects, or the effects on communications, of this kind of high-intensity radiation, while the military is silently sort of standing next to them, but in the background, checking on biological effects going on in whatever area is being radiated.
	Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
	In fact, I would expect that's exactly what's going to happen.
	When you look at, you know, when you look at any of these technologies, and when you look at electromagnetic warfare, you know, people say, what's that?
	You know, well, it's the most important initiative by the United States military at this particular time, and it extends into all areas of branches of service, and all areas of research, and what, essentially, it's evolving.
	They call it a revolution in military affairs.
	In fact, in a document by that name, produced by the U.S.
	Army War College, They actually talk about the changes in technology are so profound right now.
	It's the equivalent of the changing of technology from the introduction of gunpowder, the introduction of atomic and nuclear weapons, to the earlier part of this century.
	And this whole idea of electromagnetic warfare, new systems that can really have a profound effect on life and on warfare, really deserve clear and absolute public debate.
	Because many of the things in the past that we've seen have not been How specific would the area of re-radiation be?
	For example, the Gulf War.
	as is do we really need to systems at this point do we do we need to spend
	this kind of money uh... and do we need to engage in this kind of
	experimentation without clear knowledge of what some of those effects might be at least
	and in terms of the general public
	house specific would the area of re-radiation be for example
	uh...
	the gulf war would have been possible
	uh... or may it be possible in the future to radiate this tremendous amount of power and have it re-radiate
	over a very small
	specific battlefield
	Actually, yes.
	There's one application.
	There's actually three patents surrounding it within the cluster owned by the company that originally had the HAARP contracts and it was on power beaming using a phased array antenna for focusing Energy into a lens that would be suspended in orbit and then refocused or re-channeled back down to the Earth for conversion or use at that location.
	And it could be used in that way.
	I didn't originally think too much about that.
	In the other place it could be used, the same base technology on a much smaller scale, on more of a scale of tactical weapons systems.
	I can see that the same basic weapons technology used in that way.
	In fact, earlier this year, 60 Minutes even had Uh, a microwave weapon demonstrated that produced, uh, the symptoms of seasickness or dizziness in the, uh, people that were, you know, in the path of the being.
	Alright, we'll talk a little bit about that after the top of the hour.
	Relax, you have several moments, Doctor.
	Doctor Nick Begich is my guest from Alaska.
	Angels, don't play this harp.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 26th, 1996.
	So, I'm going to go ahead and get started. I'm going to go ahead and start this. I'm
	going to go ahead and start this.
	I'm going to go ahead and start this.
	you Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight's program originally aired December 26th, 1996.
	Well, good morning.
	My guest is Dr. Nick Begich.
	The subject is HAARP.
	That's H-A-A-R-P.
	It's in Alaska.
	It's not on the planning boards, folks.
	It's, uh...
	Already built.
	Not all of it, but a lot of it is already built.
	And they've already been testing it.
	More tests, I understand, are coming up in January.
	What is HAARP?
	It is many things.
	It is an attempt to heat our ionosphere.
	Actually, literally, burn a hole or push the ionosphere up.
	The implications of it for humans on Earth, kind of unknown.
	The military applications are beginning to seem obvious.
	Talking to submarines, confusing troops on the battlefield.
	But in the meantime, how are they testing this, and who are they testing it on?
	The book is Angels Don't Play This Harp by Nick Begich, Dr.
	Nick Begich, and he will be back in a moment.
	All right, back now to Dr. Nick Begich in, or near Anchorage, Arkansas.
	Are you in Anchorage, doctor?
	I'm just a little north of Anchorage in a small community called Eagle River.
	Oh, Eagle River.
	All right.
	It's a talk radio hotspot, by the way.
	Oh, that's great.
	A lot of us stay up all night.
	I guess so.
	Listen, have you been up to visit HAARP?
	Yeah, we've been up on the site, and they've had a couple of open houses up there as well.
	When you look at the outside, it doesn't look so threatening, and they've been fairly open about looking at it.
	But it's like looking at the outside of an ICBM.
	What are you really going to see, unless you understand the technology?
	And I think that's part of what's happened in the course of all of this, is they've begun to respond to the issues we've raised by You know, having an air of openness, which is great.
	I mean, I just wish they would be honest as well as open and we get to the whole story of Harp.
	And what we find is everything that we get from them has been extracted from them.
	And it doesn't need to be that way.
	I think that we should be able to debate the issues openly and make some judgments.
	You know, as a population, on whether or not we want to see this kind of technology advance, at least in this direction.
	Can you tell us what the rough schedule is, power-wise, what they're doing now, when the next turn-on will be, when they're going to experiment with HAARP again?
	The next experiment is scheduled for January, and what they've, they used to post the schedule way in advance on their website, and since the last year or so, they've kind of paced that back.
	There was a lot, there was a big gap in testing From last fall until this fall, and then this fall they began from the 15th till the 22nd, they called a test of opportunity.
	In other words, it wasn't scheduled, it just sort of happened.
	I don't know that I buy that.
	What they were testing was interaction with one of our satellite systems and monitoring of HAARP in terms of its frequency and range, but basically diagnostic kind of Kind of testing, which has been sort of the whole thing this year, and what we see now is that the general schedule is shifted up to where they start to talk about the other applications.
	They've tested the ground penetrating application once, and that was one of the contingencies for further funding.
	When the Congress allocated money for this year, it was to prove up this aspect because they felt it was priority, and then from there, you know, we'll go ahead and continue to fund the program.
	And it's being advanced now as really, you know, as a very beginning stage, and I think that's why it's, again, important.
	A lot of these programs in the past have sort of happened around us, and we've listened to the public pronouncements on their safety and on their intent, and then 50 years later, 20 years later, or even 10 years later, we find out there was much more to the program than originally met the eye.
	In this case, I think we've identified at least some of the risks in the course of the
	program and and we started to cause a little more scrutiny
	which has been our goal along with to get people to look at it
	ask ourselves a question do we need it and is it safe to operate in a problem make sure that we
	back off long enough to be to be sure we have had this kind of experimentation
	well surely it's not possible to imagine that a government would want to control
	the actions of its people Oh, I'm sorry.
	You know, this is interesting.
	We quote the big new Brzezinski on that point, and he was a national security advisor to Jimmy Carter back when he was at Columbia University.
	He wrote a book called Between Two Ages, and within that, he talked about the use of electromagnetic weapon systems that he actually said within that text of that book, if you could electronically stroke the ionosphere in just the right way, you could manipulate the behavior of humans over a large area.
	And then he went on to say that no matter who is in power, liberal or conservative, the temptation to use technology to further political ends would be greater than one's good sense to restrain.
	And, you know, this is from a major policy player in American politics back then and today.
	And I think that is the concern that we have, is that no matter who's in power, the temptation to use these kinds of systems is going to be greater than the good sense to restrain.
	And I think on many of the international treaties, and we point to a couple of the chemical weapons treaties and the weather modification treaties, both of which have exemptions for domestic use.
	So even when we enter into international agreements, there isn't necessarily safeguards against domestic use.
	Well, you know, what we can do, Doctor, as men, even with our mighty weapons, short perhaps of nuclear devices, is nothing at all compared to what Mother Nature Can do.
	For example, a hurricane, a severe one, passing over Cuba can do more damage than we could do with the biggest conventional strike we could ever mount.
	And if HAARP could eventually cause droughts or floods by parking higher low-pressure stationary fronts over specific geographic areas, Could it possibly do such a thing?
	There is some evidence of that.
	When you talk about weather modification, you really have to go back in time quite a ways.
	In 1976, the United States and over 60 other countries signed an accord in which we agreed to not use weather modification as a weapon of war.
	That same issue has been revisited by Perry most recently in an article in Defense News.
	Talking about the idea that weather warfare ought to be reconsidered on the basis that the technologies are so much better now than they were when those reports were signed.
	And you know, what's funny is here we are, we have an international agreement, it's like, okay, we need some time to catch up on our research, but once we're there and it's really good, then we want to use it again.
	And that's nonsense.
	I mean, when you start pushing against weather patterns in one area, The inadvertent effect on another area might be quite profound.
	Of course.
	You look at what the weather is in the states.
	Where does it come from?
	When it hits the lower 48, most of it comes from the Gulf of Alaska and this region.
	That's right.
	And weather moves, okay?
	I mean, that's the whole ballgame.
	And if you're going to affect it in one place, to imagine that man can play God and predict what it's going to do in every other place I think is ridiculous.
	I don't think we're that sophisticated.
	I don't think our technology is that good.
	I think we're still discovering a great deal about our upper atmosphere.
	Even last year, or the year before, with the discovery of sprites and some of the other upper atmospheric effects, these are new things not factored into many of the equations leading to HAARP and other programs of this nature.
	And again, one of the reasons you're tampering with the ionosphere, a protective layer, a layer that's more important even than the ozone layer in terms of what it screens out, and yet you're tampering with it with energy that's never been All right, well that's an important point.
	way and that that is going to get uh... perhaps triggering frequencies that
	cause on an unintentional and perhaps even cataclysmic kind of event all right well
	that that's an important point now
	uh... it's important that people understand that what we're talking about
	here is a leverage in the sense that the energy that they're going to send the ionosphere while
	it is massive is still not a great deal in terms of really affecting wide
	regions The way those regions are affected is a small effect causing a large ripple effect, right?
	Right.
	This is sort of a non-linear approach.
	I mean, when you think about it, if you think about it in terms of the primer on a bullet or the trigger that causes The bullet to go off.
	It's what, you know, what creates a reaction, a sufficient amount of energy.
	And what we know about upper atmospheric events is that within certain frequency ranges or window frequencies or triggering frequencies that cause larger releases of energy.
	In one particular experiment done by Stanford that we also cite, within the text talks about a VLF, a very low frequency broadcast, hitting the upper ionosphere.
	Many, many miles above the Earth's surface, but then being amplified, picking up energy from what's called the magnetosphere, which is about 600 miles above the Earth, where it starts, and picking up energy there and actually amplifying the signal again by up to a thousand times.
	Now, when you think about HAARP energy, which is focused, concentrated, high-energy output, and it can be modulated within that range, then creating an energy release that can perhaps create amplification effects.
	You know, what happens then?
	Well, it can get caught up within the magnetic lines of force around the planet, causing triggering events.
	Who knows?
	Some of the things have been pointed to as destabilizing kind of events that might actually cause serious disaster.
	No one really knows what those window frequencies might be, but there's been, certainly, speculation over the years.
	some people think they know but the fact is the fact that it's unknown
	uh... the fact that we know that energy gets released we know that there's a lot
	of the facts that are unanticipated in the end here we are we're about to to to play with more
	power than we've ever played with short of thermal nuclear detonations
	and thermal nuclear detonation which are in the car literature
	in the patents compared to heart uh... system
	what's important to note is they were sort of scattered energy
	They weren't controlled where you could hit these specific window frequencies taking advantage of energy releases that otherwise you couldn't take advantage of.
	So you have a much more precision system in HAARP.
	uh... and yet with with huge energy capability well i know when they were
	off the first atomic bomb a lot of very mainstream scientists had sincere worries
	that it might actually ignite the atmosphere in a chain reaction now
	course fortunately that did not occur but in a way this is similar since they have no idea
	what is going to occur when they really do go to these high power levels and
	apparently where angels fear to tread the pentagon has no problem
	Right.
	I mean, it is what you say about the earlier experimentation in atomic power.
	That's correct.
	I mean, that was always the idea that, hey, maybe we were wrong, and maybe we'll have a horrible disaster.
	And the same is true here.
	We cite literature going back 20, 30 years in some instances, but certainly material that is as valid then as it is today in terms of projection of what can happen with these systems.
	What was different between then and now is they knew what could happen if they could ever control these upper ionospheric processes.
	And now you have a system that might allow them to do that.
	And certainly the experimentation so far shows that they're on track.
	It's going to do what they think it's going to do.
	But what they don't know and what they've stressed throughout their material is they're going to hit an energy level that then creates a runaway event that then destabilizes at some higher level.
	It's the idea of creating chaos with an already chaotic system to see how it reorganizes.
	And this is just, again, it's just reckless from our perspective, very reckless.
	When you present these arguments to authorities or to committees that look at this, What kind of reception do you get?
	Yeah, you know, it's actually been pretty good.
	The first committee hearing we had here in Alaska was very end of the legislative session and really resulted from listeners to this show and other shows like it, putting pressure on elected officials saying, let's get to the bottom of this.
	And that initial hearing we had, I had a physicist, an atmospheric chemist, and then on their side they had a geophysicist, The HARP program manager finally came for a public meeting to debate the issue with another gentleman.
	And, you know, that discussion was pretty productive in the sense of drawing everyone out.
	What was unproductive in the sense of not getting to the bottom of it was at the end of the session.
	We really needed another hearing.
	Because what that did is get everybody's argument sort of on the table.
	After that, we contacted Geophysical Institute.
	Uh, people that were involved in that discussion and said, Hey, look, why don't we have an open scientific conference, invite specialists from each camp the best we can find in the world to look at this project, assess what we're asserting, and let's come to some conclusion.
	You folks aren't biologists.
	There's no biologists on the project.
	That's another major gap in this whole thing.
	There are no biological scientists with backgrounds in electrophysiology assigned to the project.
	Let's get a full team.
	Let's look at, let's have open public discussion at the same time presentation of Appropriate papers in appropriate form.
	They agreed, they suggested we contact the military and propose that that happen, which we did, and the military promptly responded with a no, we're not interested, which was really too bad because I think that would have, at least for the public, answered the questions for us, would have brought the debate to the kind of head that it needed to come to.
	The legislature was receptive.
	I think that we'll see additional hearings if the public continues to ask for them.
	And that may lead to the right steps.
	At the local level, there's not much can be done except monitoring.
	On an international level, we've been contacted by members of the European Parliament, who've contacted independent scientists.
	In fact, one of those scientists is one of the lead medical people, as well as a physicist who's been doing the Bhopal disaster, who's just finishing up that work and is now looking at HAARP and what it may entail.
	Okay, back to the biological effects for a second.
	I guess I've heard that very low frequency vibration is able to cause a high degree of irritation in people.
	issue of uh... space war warfare electromagnetic warfare they're back to
	the biological effects for a second i guess i guess i've heard that
	very low frequency vibration uh... is able to cause
	a high degree of station in people i've heard that
	you don't think it's a two-edged sword You know, ELF, again, by a skilled practitioner, knowing what they're doing, pulsing frequency energy into the human energy system can cause healing effects.
	It can cause damage, depending again on the operator.
	That's what's interesting about this whole area, is you've got an area of science being used on essentially kill systems, non-lethal, what they call non-lethal weapon systems.
	Well, at the same time, The basic knowledge can be applied to healing systems and has been in many instances with some profound effect, but you have the ability to resonate a frequency in to where the effects actually causes what's called brain entrainment, the idea that brain frequencies then lock onto these external signals and begin to move with them, which then cause chemical reactions and behavioral changes.
	That's the whole premise under which these systems work and they can be delivered by pulsed
	microwave, by pulsed radio wave, any number of pulse modulations, even light and sound can
	create brainwave frequencies that change chemistry, that change behavior in certain ways.
	Is there a parallel to radiation?
	In other words, with radiation, as you know, we can treat, if we use it specifically, and we can kill bad tissue, usually, hopefully, without killing a lot of healthy tissue and treat, say, a tumor.
	Or, with the wrong kind of radiation, generally applied, You'll make somebody sick and kill them.
	Right.
	The same kind of analogy can be drawn.
	I know that very specifically in the case of electric current, even pulsed electric current is used in a number of methods.
	For instance, electroacupuncture utilizes that principle.
	Again, with a low frequency, but modulated in a specific way to cause a very profound physiological effect.
	But at a distance now, what we know from Yale research and other research is that you can create these same kind of chemical reactions at a distance that aren't necessarily for healthful reasons.
	For instance, if everyone has in the body a certain amount of iodine as an example, if you resonate a frequency in that resonates to the same frequency as iodine externally, you can create a toxic effect or a chemical reaction within the body that when you test the person, They have all the symptoms of iodine toxicity, and yet, when you do the blood work to see where the iodine levels are, or any other test to check iodine levels, you're not going to see a disproportionate amount of iodine in the body.
	But, still, you can trigger those events.
	So, again, here you have a situation where, either purposefully or accidentally, you have a system that, over a large area, has the potential of triggering chemical reactions within biological systems, like people.
	And have serious problems and serious side effects.
	Or directed effects.
	When will they get to the power levels when we've got to begin to get concerned about these kind of biological effects?
	Well, from what was done at Yale University, they found that energy levels at 150th of what the Earth naturally produces were sufficient within the right frequency range for triggering these events.
	And what the military has said about HAARP is that it will be operating at energy levels approximating what the Earth naturally Creates so it is sufficient probably even now if operated
	within the same even right window frequency even now Oh, yeah, very large area that was interesting, right? Dr.
	Standby will be right back to you. Dr Nick baggage author of angels don't play this harp right
	back You're listening to our bells somewhere in time tonight
	featuring a replay of coast to coast a.m. From December 26th 1996
	Oh Oh
	Oh Got a black magic
	Oh God
	Oh Oh
	you you
	You're listening to Art Bell's Somewhere in Time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 26th, 1996.
	My guest is Dr. Nick Begich, author of Angels Don't Play This Harp.
	and we'll get back to him in a moment.
	For those of you who would like more information about HAARP, detailed information, Dr. Begich
	has a wonderful webpage up.
	I just went on it myself.
	It's called earthpulsepressglobal.com and it looks just absolutely excellent.
	Boy, good graphics and everything.
	And it's got HAARP updates Health and Environment, Earth Pulse Products, Flanagan Technologies, New Science, all kinds of categories.
	Now, if you go to my webpage, Political Empowerment, if you go to my webpage, you will find at the very top a link that will take you over there right now, and you can learn a lot more about HAARP.
	It's also got a rotating globe with something that says 7.83 hertz.
	7.83 hertz.
	What a wonderful web page.
	Anyway, you'll find a link on mine right now to get there.
	It's www.artbell.com.
	www.artbell.com.
	So you can see exactly what we're talking about.
	Doctor, what a great web page!
	When did you get all that up?
	We put that up in September, actually.
	We spent some time Kind of conceptualizing what we wanted to say and really we wanted to show a little bit more about what work we're doing and provide a lot more information to folks so it was available on the World Wide Web.
	The web really was a lot of how we put together our basic research.
	We used the web extensively when we were I'm networking with other people involved in this side of the project, and so it just seemed like that was a place where it all started.
	We really need to have a presence there.
	7.83 Hertz.
	What does that mean?
	That's Schumann's Resonance, and that's actually the pulse rate, or was the pulse rate of the planet at the point at which it was measured.
	And again, Earth Pulse Press, it seems a good logo for who we are.
	I've got a fax here, a three-page fax.
	Uh, from somebody, I'm sorry I don't see a name here.
	Uh, yes I do, Ken.
	Ken says, Art attached is an email reply that I received from the HAARP facility itself.
	Naturally, they deny everything.
	I thought you might like to take a look.
	And they cover, um, well let me read it.
	There are no ELF, VLF safety risks.
	None, it says.
	And then they go into the details about how there are absolutely no risks.
	Major point two, HAARP has no ability to affect the weather in any way, it says.
	As you may know, weather exists and is formed in the ionosphere, troposphere rather, at altitudes below about 30 to 40,000 feet.
	Harp doesn't interact with anything below altitudes of 250,000 feet.
	It will not affect the weather.
	Major point three, harp cannot be used as a weapon.
	Again, the rumor mills have distorted fact from fiction.
	The site is not surrounded by fencing, as the rumor mongers would have you believe.
	You can walk onto the site any time of the day or night.
	Snowmobilers have a trail that passes within a quarter mile of the antenna system, and so you can walk right up to it if you want.
	Major point five.
	There is no safe containing secret HAARP papers.
	The project is as open as you can get.
	If you'd like to research HAARP, when it is eventually ready for that, you'll be free to submit proposals along with other interested scientists throughout the world.
	So, They go through it here, point by point, and deny everything.
	That's been the standard line from the beginning, but again, we were very careful in how we put our materials together.
	Most of it is their own material.
	It's well footnoted.
	There's over 350 footnoted sources, most of which are government documents, military documents, and major media reports.
	And the facts are the facts.
	I mean, I think that you can make the statements, but they fail to challenge us on the points that have been raised in any meaningful way, aside from that blanket denial.
	And that's been the standard fare for every military program, every military initiative.
	And quite frankly, show me the research projects the military is involved in that don't eventually become weapons systems.
	They're just not out there, these kinds of programs at this level of sophistication.
	And with what they've laid out, quite clearly show it as a weapons technology.
	Now, where they can deny it at this stage is small in terms of a developmental prototype compared to where it's going.
	So, I mean, at this stage, you can make a lot of claims about what it can't do with some reasonable surety, but at the same time, you can't deny where this project is going, because it's on record to say where it's headed and what it can do, and everything that we have said has come from From them, ultimately.
	All right.
	Page 126 of your book.
	Dr. Biggage, would you please expand on the difference for the non-technical person between total radiated power and effective radiated power?
	Okay.
	What they've talked about in terms of the energy levels, when we asked them about the effective radiated power, it was after calculating in antenna gain.
	And this is one of the points where the Air Force and the Navy and we have had some sharp disagreements.
	In terms of power, because whenever they want to talk about the system, you know, it depends on whether you're talking about the power going in, the power on the ground, or the effective radiated power, which is the way they measure the energy coming off the array.
	And because of the antenna gain, which is up to a thousand times, this is where the effective radiated power ramps up so vigorously in the course of all of that.
	And that's really what we're talking about.
	At this early stage, It has huge capability compared to anything else ever utilized, but where it's headed is even more important because these are in the regime of areas that no one really knows.
	All right.
	I've got, so that people understand the amount of power they're going to be running, I've got big clear channel radio stations that carry my program.
	50,000 watts of AM.
	I've got some FM stations that run as much as 100,000 watts.
	The ultimate power to be run by HAARP is 100 billion watts.
	That's an inconceivable amount of power.
	You know, and that's exactly what we're talking about.
	I mean, you read a statement, and we have a link to them, you know, through our webpage, because we think people ought to look at both sides of the story.
	But the fact of the matter is, You know, you can't have all of that power and not have it, too.
	And on the one hand, they want to tell us, oh, don't worry about it.
	It's nothing that outstanding.
	On the other hand, when they're going after the money to get it funded, they're talking about how big it is.
	And, you know, you can't have it both ways.
	And I think when you look at the technical gobbledygook, if you will, surrounding this project is huge.
	I mean, we had to learn a lot along the way.
	We relied on a lot of outside experts to assist us along the way.
	And I think we've put together a very compelling argument for what we've laid out, and the power levels are what they've laid out.
	We've just put it in one place to be grasped and read and understood.
	All right.
	I'm reading from your webpage.
	It says, Vandalism in the Sky.
	This article is a summary of the U.S.
	military's Project HARP.
	It describes a weapons system which could influence your mental state, provide a system for weather warfare, and be part of the government's plan to control the environment, or maybe even destroy it.
	In the name of national defense, destroy the environment.
	What possibilities really are there?
	How could you envision our environment actually being destroyed?
	Well, there's a couple ways to look at it.
	One of the things that the military has said is, in fact John Hatcher said it on Canadian television, he said that in the course of blowing holes in the ionosphere, it wasn't a problem that they would quickly replenish or refill.
	And yet we know the ionosphere keeps out cosmic radiations and x-rays and various kinds of radiations that would make life impossible on the planet if they were allowed to come through.
	People think of ozone depletion as a major problem, letting UV in, which can cause sunburn and some types of skin cancers.
	But here we're talking about something that, if those holes don't readily fill in, If the runaway effect that they're anticipating creating doesn't re-stabilize, as they hope it will, perhaps that these holes stay open.
	What will happen then is it will have an effect on the entire genetic blueprint of what's under it.
	I mean, it can alter genetically what happens then on the planet.
	The idea that cosmic radiations and x-rays can cause genetic mutation is well known.
	The idea that ELF, in fact, a primary A frequency range that they intend to create with this device can also create genetic deformation.
	There were six Navy studies commissioned that actually showed that.
	And, you know, now what do you hear in the Midwest?
	In fact, your show has covered it.
	The upper Midwest, what do you have in the amphibious populations in the area of the old ELF transmitters in Michigan and Wisconsin?
	You have genetic deformations in amphibians that you might link to chemicals or you might link to Other sources, but you certainly could make the case that it could be an interaction between ELF and chemicals within the immediate environment causing that deformation, and that would go a long way in explaining that as well.
	The research is there.
	It shows the effects.
	Where it's controversial, and again, where heart planners can deny it, is there's about probably 2,000 studies, I think, now that the Navy's cataloged on the effects of what's called non-ionizing radiation, low-level radiations, including ELF.
	Some say it's effect is profound, others say it's not.
	And yet, when you look at those studies, the most recent studies from 95 and 96 even, those are showing increasingly so that ELF frequencies do in fact cause, and can cause within window frequency, profound biological effect.
	And this is now being exploited, and it's documented well in the military literature in terms of non-lethal systems.
	When you look at Star Wars weapons, the end of the debate, this presidential debate, uh... in terms of weapons technology when star wars was
	raised there was a lot of discussion about the cost of star wars dropping
	and what tagged along with that for those of pay close attention was a
	reason that dropped if the intention is to go from a totally satellite based
	system to a ground-based foreground based systems augmented by
	satellite technology which starts to sound a lot more closer to what
	heart that at least on a prototypical level and what heart will likely become
	if it's ever fully deployed at the star wars weapons system
	Alright, from San Francisco, uh, if HAARP can really detect incoming ballistic missiles from far away, and maybe even whether or not they are nuclear, doesn't that constitute a violation of the ABM Treaty?
	You know, in fact, the treaty itself, this is interesting, our U.S.
	Senator here raised this issue in the media during the summer.
	He said, look, Alaska and Hawaii aren't covered by the shielding systems that our treaties allow for, and yet here you have, then, at the same time, this experiment.
	It's not a weapon system, remember, it's just an experiment.
	It just happens to have the same capability of over the horizon radar, not only for detecting
	incoming objects, but at high power levels, they can create a field around those incoming
	objects that using gamma ray detectors, which is part of the patent project or patent package
	on this project, you can then tell which are carrying nuclear payloads, and then at a higher
	level you can disable them.
	You can call it a research project, but its capabilities are still within that realm as
	they increase the power levels, but tagging it a research project masquerades it so that
	they are in compliance with that treaty and others.
	Well, I wonder what the civilian scientists up there think.
	I mean, they're milling around, doing their work, thinking it's a pure research project, but they must be wondering, aren't they?
	What are all these military folks doing, milling about?
	Well, I think they, you know, I think they are, on the one hand, and on the other hand, it's kind of like an institutional denial.
	I mean, let me tell you something about the University of Alaska Fairbanks in the early 60s.
	Their program with the military was Project Chariot or Project Plowshare, which was the idea of detonating in Alaska six thermonuclear weapons on a North Slope for excavating a bay.
	You know, today we look at that and we laugh and we think, you know, what are you going to do, use it in 10,000 years?
	You know, when it cools down.
	But the university embraced that then.
	The biologists that opposed it were blackballed.
	It took 35 years for them to finally be recognized for what they did, but they stopped that project in the 60s.
	This same university is now embracing this military initiative with the same enthusiasm, and yet this time there are no biologists on the team, no electrophysiologists on the team to really speak to the issues that we're raising and many of the issues other scientists are raising.
	And it's just like, you know, draw the money out of the money flow and put it in the academic establishment and develop the science.
	And it's as if the science were somehow devoid of any deeper thinking in terms of how it might interact in other scientific areas.
	I believe we also at one time had a fairly serious plan to use thermonuclear devices to blow a canal through Nicaragua.
	Yeah, and this whole thing was actually part of the same program.
	And when it was conceived originally, It was believed that you first had to show that it was okay by doing it on U.S.
	soil, and the place they wanted to try it was the North Slope of Alaska.
	The problem would have been, had they actually done that, they could have created a huge fallout problem.
	Right now, for many that don't know it, Alaska, the North Slope, is the primary producer of domestic oil products, in terms of oil.
	to a million and a half barrel today very important for national defense it
	may have been uh... seriously uh... impaired and for in terms of its
	development for strategic purposes if that actually has been taken place to
	make all the worry about yellow snow be nothing huh
	uh... well you know i think it would have had a little bit little certainly a
	little more uh... toxic effect but uh... the whole situation is again it's a
	idea of recklessness in this particular area of science.
	The idea that you can come to Alaska, play these games with our immediate environment on a small scale with the stated intention on their part of taking it much, much higher.
	I think that kind of science deserves international debate, certainly national debate.
	And, you know, Star Wars was voted down.
	This is another skirt around the law, which is a skirt around Congress and every one of us.
	That's ridiculous.
	That's what I believe a large part of this is.
	It's a question of semantics to avoid the intent of Congress when it said no to Star Wars.
	Well, now, Star Wars may have been voted down, but I recall a recent news conference when they found water on the moon.
	And the Pentagon, of all people, held the news conference.
	The people in the audience, the newspaper people, asked, excuse me, why is the Pentagon doing this?
	And they gave a rather straight answer.
	They said, well, you know, we have all this Star Wars technology, and we didn't know what to do with it.
	And we needed, their words now, a target.
	And the moon was a convenient target, so they sent this thing to the moon to test Star Wars technology, and that's ostensibly how they found the ice.
	Who knows what else they did.
	Yeah, I mean the whole situation, and I think HAARP is another reflection of it, is so much, and you said in the introduction, my father had served in the United States Congress, and for me personally, to see what's happened in terms of national government, I think is I agree with you.
	20 years ago, 15 years ago, we would have said, hey, our government wouldn't do this kind of thing.
	Today, because of the amount of information that's come forward about what's happened within the federal system, I think a lot happens without the consent of the population.
	A lot happens by bureaucracy running on its own, without appropriate oversight.
	And I think that's really what our issue is about here, is about this whole branch of Military initiatives is not being properly scrutinized by the American population, and I think that's really the real crux of the issue, is here's just one more project that is headed down a road that's going to get quite large.
	They acknowledge it up front, and we've not properly debated the merit or the risks associated with it, and I think that those kinds of risks need to be discussed so that we all understand what the trade-offs are as we pursue A new technology to make sure those trade-offs are rational.
	Alright, so if you would agree with this from Laguna Hills, weather is a zero-sum game.
	When you look at it globally, there is only so much heat and rain.
	When one part of the world is dry, another one is wet.
	When one is hot, another is cold.
	There's no way for HAARP to change the weather in one area and not change it somewhere else.
	I agree with that, absolutely.
	In fact, we'll carry it a little bit further.
	You know, when you think about the whole global system currently, what can we observe about it that we can all agree on?
	A, we can agree that the weather patterns internationally are bizarre, that they're more intense.
	We can agree that Earthquake intensity, depth, and frequency have increased significantly over the last 30 years.
	No question.
	We can look at studies on the North Sea and tidal heights, which show tidal heights steadily rising over a 35-year period.
	All of these things indicate something every one of us is well aware of, a big exchange of energy taking place, a big shift in energy taking place nationally on the planet.
	And yet, and within all of that, within all of that moving complex system, we're going to inject In a precision way, surgically into the acupuncture meridians of the planet, into the magnetic lines of force surrounding the planet, bursts of energy to create specific weapons effects.
	And the question we've raised, and we continue to raise, is which is the straw on the camel's back?
	How much energy can you input?
	Do you hit those specific frequencies that cause resonance effects, the kinds predicted by Tesla and others, that are cataclysmic in nature?
	Do you create the kind of effects that scientists like J.F.
	Gordon MacDonald, who is a geophysicist, who is also a science advisor to Lyndon Johnson, predicted in terms of human behavioral changes that Delgado predicted and actually demonstrated in terms of behavioral changes?
	All of these things are coming underneath one banner of HAARP, and yet you have a highly destabilized system that you're now adding energy into.
	That you may or may not be able to stop the effect that you trigger.
	Alright.
	Doctor, hold on.
	We'll come back and try to get to the phones after the top of the hour.
	Relax.
	You've got several moments.
	My guest is Dr. Nick Begich.
	His book is Angels Don't Play This Harp.
	If you've never heard about it, Stick around, you will learn.
	If you have, stick around, you'll get an update.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 26th, 1996.
	26 1996.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm a
	man.
	I'm Nick Vegich about a project called HAARP.
	H-A-A-R-P.
	And it is not something on the drawing boards.
	It's something that's already reality.
	and uh... will get back to it in a moment earlier in the day i spoke to a gentleman in moscow
	On iPhone, actually.
	I saw him, too.
	And the temperature in Moscow right now is 60 degrees below zero.
	I just heard on a newscast this last hour that in Portland, 100,000 people, the Portland area, 100,000 people are without power.
	The Northwest is getting clobbered.
	In Northern California, they are experiencing up to, or will have up to, 10 inches of rain.
	We are having a hell of a winter.
	Now, I know we're now at lower power levels, but Doctor, is there any possibility that through some sort of resonance effect, the weather could be affected already?
	You know, that keeps getting raised by a lot of the people we work with.
	You know, and I'm not... Here's the difficulty.
	We could say Again, the military is announcing a schedule of terms of operation that we have to accept essentially on faith right now, but that is what they're doing.
	I believe that they're reporting it correctly, but there's no way to do that and know that conclusively from our perspective, given their history without independent monitoring.
	Could it create a chain reaction?
	I think that's within the scope of possibility.
	At this power level, could they Generate enough power to create huge weather changes?
	Directly, no.
	But indirectly, by releasing energy within certain frequencies, I think that's possible.
	And I think others will agree with us.
	And the only question is, is it responsible for the weather that we're immediately seeing?
	And that, you know, that we can't answer.
	But this whole area of scientific inquiry in terms of weather modification, what we really want to emphasize is, A, it's not new.
	B, HAARP isn't the only system.
	That can modify weather.
	That's something that has been out there a long time.
	It was experimented with as early as the early 70s using electromagnetic means at China Lakes, again on a Navy project.
	There's a lot to be said for weather modification technologies.
	And what's more important even now is that we have a system that is already demonstrated clearly out of balance.
	Situations that adding more power to can certainly not help, and I think that's where we take part as far as the military's view of it being benign and safe.
	Alright, well, the other aspect is human behavior.
	And again, in this last newscast, they reported yet another case where somebody walked into a McDonald's.
	I forget where.
	No robbery.
	In fact, there was no robbery.
	They just walked in, killed three people, and took off.
	It's aberrant human behavior, and there's more and more and more of it.
	It's either a social aberration of some sort, or there's an external effect.
	Is it possible?
	Is it possible?
	There's beginning to be an external effect.
	People are acting in totally indecipherable ways.
	You know, it could be related to HAARP.
	It could also be related to just the overall Again, talking about electromagnetic pollution as such, here's how we look at it, and in a different way to look at it.
	First of all, it creates stressors and agitation, so you have already situations that then become destabilized, but what we know about these kinds of weapons technologies, whether they're applied deliberately or accidentally, is that they can raise the overall stress levels, they can cause chemical changes in the body, and again, create One of the things that's spoken to in low intensity conflict in modern technology is the idea that by resonating frequencies and at a high enough range, you create high states of agitation and anger that break out irrationally.
	Exactly.
	And so here you have this spoken about, but at the same time, when you think about the human body, what do we do in Western medicine?
	We look at the outside of the body, then we look at the body parts, and then we might do some blood tests and do some chemical workups, and we kind of stop.
	But if you think about the human body as energy, atoms, molecules, chemicals, compounds, body parts and body, what you affect at an energy level can have a profound effect throughout the living system.
	And this is what HAARP is getting at.
	This is what these kinds of weapons technologies are getting at.
	And this is what a lot of debate around the world taking place now about the effect of energy fields that we're immersed in within our modern society might be contributing to our overall ill health.
	Look at cancer increases, look at all of the physiological kinds of problems, and the psychological snappings, if you will, that get reported from time to time.
	All again, you know, what's the cause?
	Is this contributing to that overall effect?
	And we believe it is, and we think there's plenty of evidence to support that.
	And now you have weapon systems that are being specifically designed to capitalize on that knowledge.
	HAARP happens to be a huge weapon system that has operating frequencies within that capability, and how we know this Alright, Doctor, how about this one?
	planning contract document measured off against an international red cross
	document that we fight within our book that talks about specific frequencies with that which are
	within the capability of part
	for creating biological changes and and creating a number of the weapons of that so we've
	we've spoken about beyond what's actually spoken about the heart planning
	all right doctor how about this one uh... we know that aircraft
	navigator named variety of ways Some of them with signals from the ground, some of them with backup signals, GPS-type things from satellites.
	There have been an awful lot of aircraft accidents recently.
	And I have had a couple of private reports by email of people flying commercial aircraft to the Far East.
	And as you know, when they do, they get very close to your coast there in Alaska.
	And they have had complete navigation system shutdowns.
	Right.
	This technology for interfering with airplane avionics, there's actually a short book called Revolutionary Military Affairs in Conflict Short of War by the U.S.
	Army War College, written in 89.
	At that time, they had that technology to use for that specific purpose, and they talk about it.
	But when you look at HAARP's effect on airplanes, the military says, don't worry, we've installed all these safeguards.
	And yet, there have been occasions where people have raised the issue of, hey, could this be interfering with my flight path?
	And in one instance, I know, I understood that the HAARP was operating at a time when an aircraft experienced exactly what you're talking about.
	And that's the kind of effect that you would expect to see in anything crossing the beam of this transmitter.
	So it would interfere with the avionics to the point of causing serious problems, not just with navigating.
	But also, many of these aircraft now have what are called fly-by-wire technologies, where the radio signal goes to the flaps, for instance, and tells the flap motors what to do.
	Precisely.
	If you have something coming in that's telling a flap to move when it's not supposed to, you can cause an airline disaster, not just a miscalculation of where you're flying.
	And so this, again, is another area that we're highly concerned about.
	When you look at You know, here's a weapon system, a universal hammer, a tool that has huge potential capability from a military perspective, and certainly many of those applications the military has sought for years.
	I mean, we have evidence going back 30, 40 years of looking for this specific technology, and now they have it.
	And their intention is to develop it, exploit it, and use it.
	And they'll take a certain amount of risks along the way.
	I don't think those risks should be taken.
	All right, well that leads me into this question.
	There are a lot of known technologies that once they're known and utilized become I mean, there's oversight of varying sorts with regard to the technology.
	But with these newer technologies, whether it's biological warfare, chemical warfare, the development of those substances, or something like HAARP, or any other cutting-edge science, Who the hell watches over the people that are getting ready to do this?
	Or do they just do what they want to do to hell with the consequences?
	I think they move it along until the bell rings and people start saying, hey, wait a minute.
	And I think that's, I mean, look at any of the technologies that now we're trying to sort of sort out.
	Genetics?
	Yeah, I mean, genetics, nuclear, atomic.
	I mean, all of it.
	You look at the whole thing.
	Now we're looking back and saying, geez, you know, there's some good applications here, but look at the mess we've made.
	And I think we can say the same here.
	Look, it's early enough, it's different.
	It's not like waiting 50 years after an atomic test in Nevada.
	We're early in the game here, let's look at it prudently, and the people that will create the oversight, and what we've seen, this has been a very interesting thing for us, is we published a few articles, we published a book with the idea of getting this issue debated, and to a large extent that's happened by virtue of the fact that people have acted on what they've heard, which is I mean, that's what talk radio has been.
	That's what all of the mediums that we've been able to go through to raise this issue.
	And that's the way the issues get addressed.
	And what's happened now, and the technologies that are present today in the world, has allowed for much quicker response and ability to collect data and disseminate data.
	And I think that's what's led us into this whole array of dealing with the HAARP problem.
	I mean, suppose they fire up the 100 billion watt model, and they blow a hole in the ionosphere.
	And it doesn't close.
	Uh-oh.
	Uh-oh.
	Too late.
	Look at this in these terms.
	The ozone hole that we all think, or at least we've been led to believe, are created by aerosol cans is the big villain.
	Yet, when they launched Skylab in the early 70s, they discovered that it made a hole in the ozone layer.
	That every time you launch a rocket or a satellite, it creates a hole.
	And it's not like an aerosol can.
	It is a huge, millions and millions of aerosol cans worth of hole.
	And what they said about that was, oh, don't worry, because we wash it for several hours, and then it gradually dissipated.
	It's like, you know, pulling a cup of water out of a pond repeatedly and saying, oh, look, everything looks the same level, but eventually the pond's dry.
	It's the same analogy, only it took 20 years of satellite launches to make a hole big enough to now create a huge problem that they want to blame on aerosol cans.
	And I think they're just as culpable, and yet they fail to measure up to being accountable for their culpability with that problem.
	And yet they're willing to take on new technologies, experiment again, and who are they going to blame next for things that they contribute to as a consequence of experimentation?
	Alright, let us try a few phone calls here.
	First time caller line, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich.
	Where are you calling from, please?
	Oh, this is Chris from Ashland, Oregon.
	Okay, I can barely hear you so you're going to have to speak up good and loud.
	Okay, this is Chris from Ashland, Oregon.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Right.
	You covered some of the material I was interested in already about the behavioral effects and how the heart might act as a stressor, a biological stressor on human beings.
	Just carrying that a little further, one of the things that keeps on cropping up in the media over the last, I don't know how many years, are the new levels of Of violence on the part of young children and heinous behavior on the part of young children and whether there might be some correlation there in terms of younger organisms being more vulnerable to that kind of agitation and that kind of effect.
	Well that's right.
	It's not just children either.
	If you drive the highways these days, there's almost no tolerance.
	People have almost no tolerance for each other anymore.
	It's like they're on a hair trigger.
	You know, I think that there's a lot of things that contribute to that.
	I mean, you can look at it with young children.
	First of all, the ELF affects genetically on young children.
	That's what the research showed in embryonic and young pre-adolescent organisms is where you get the greatest genetic effect, including human beings, but where you also have, in terms of stress contributors right now, in terms of young kids particularly, you know, diet contributes a lot to that.
	I think electromagnetic pollution of various kinds affects that.
	In other words, adds stress onto an already stressed system.
	And then just the nature of living anymore.
	I mean, you think about how households have changed over time, but all of those contributing factors, anything you add onto that with a lack of understanding in terms of stress and what the results of that stress are, I think are manifest throughout our society in terms of behavior, in terms of uh... disease and disorders uh... you know you can look at
	cancer rates you can look at uh... heart disease you put all that him
	markers for a healthy society you can say look we've we've got some
	problems and most of the problems are stress related and i'm going for you
	uh... whether it's the ozone or whether it's harp or something else
	we've begun to notice over a wide area the u s japan canada
	all over Deformed frogs, Dr. Loh.
	Lots and lots and lots of deformed frogs in some areas of the upper Midwest.
	More deformed than regular.
	Scientists are baffled.
	We had a headline here in the Las Vegas newspaper about four weeks ago.
	Deformed carp.
	In Lake Mead, which, by the way, is drinking supply water for Las Vegas and points south into Southern California.
	Deformed carp.
	Now, these are canary-like things, are they not, with regard to the environment?
	Yes, I think they're good markers, and when you look at Like me, you're talking about a huge hydroelectric facility there.
	You're talking about 60 cycle ELF essentially there.
	You're talking about, you know, a situation where it's a question of is it chemicals in the water or is it a combination of naturally occurring chemicals or man-made chemicals interacting with electromagnetic fields.
	There's been a lack of study in terms of electromagnetic field interactions with chemical compounds, but a sufficient body of study has been done to say, hey, look, electric current can create profound chemical changes, which translate into all kinds of changes as well as genetic changes.
	And this research has been done and sponsored by the same military establishment developing HAARP.
	And yet they have none of those experts that ought to be associated with this project.
	I'm involved in the oversight on this project, and I think that's, again, you know, a big demarcation point.
	When you're talking about genetic alterations around the world, I think you have to look at, you know, a hundred years ago, man-made energy into the naturally occurring spectrum wasn't there.
	You know, I mean, we've added all of these things in with the expectation they have no effect.
	I mean, that's ridiculous when you consider, on an energetic level, the understanding of energy exchanges in humans going into acupuncture and some of the other Sciences that are clearly showing a large amount of effect with minimal amounts of energy, and now you're adding in all of these things and expecting no effect?
	I think that's absolutely ludicrous.
	I think the research is showing that there are profound effects, and they show up first in lower species and eventually show up in man.
	And I think that, again, we need to be aware of these things, not from a standpoint of being afraid or fearful, but of being knowledgeable and proactive.
	Let's look at what we're doing.
	Well, interestingly, there was just a study showing that in men since World War II, there has been a 300% increase in non-smoking related cancer.
	Now, that's a very non-trivial number.
	And I can't imagine why, since World War II, a 300% increase, non-smoking related, they were forced to add.
	Now that's coming from something.
	When you look again at all of this, you can look at the breast cancer figures for women, you can look at all of these various markers, and what we know is they're increasing, and what do they want to blame it on?
	Where's the villain?
	And yet, you can look at any number of things that are contributing to that, but I think we can't discount The effect of various kinds of electromagnetic radiations having a profound effect, and that I think is really the way it goes.
	But at the same time, as we gain a greater understanding of that, and many people do have an understanding of that and are applying it in the healing arts and developing the whole area of electromedicine for positive effect as opposed to using it on weapons technology.
	And this is kind of the big loss within HAARP in the sense that Within these kinds of programs, within programs in the non-lethal weapons programs, you're developing knowledge of biological mechanisms for creating physiological changes.
	They're doing it for destruction as opposed to enhancing human health.
	Well, other researchers independently in the world are developing methods of healing based on the science of the body being electromagnetically mediated.
	That are quite profound and quite exciting.
	Well sure, but you're dealing here with people with missions.
	Colonel, do you want to try to orient this energy so we could try to cure cancer?
	Or do you want to try to disable an entire battalion of troops on the battlefield?
	And what do you think the Colonel is probably going to say?
	And we know.
	And that's the problem with this kind of technology.
	Resting without proper accountability in the heart I answer the military.
	I mean when you were talking about secret projects There's a good example in the Washington Post this summer.
	I'll tell you what hold that thought doctor hold that thought Thank you, and what we believe there was a touchstone, which we didn't want to get on the network Can't have touchstones on all right.
	We're gonna break here at the bottom of the hour dr. Nick baggage author of angels don't play this harp is my guest if you have questions We're gonna be getting on the phone heavily in the next half hours You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 26th, 1996.
	I hear the drums echoing tonight.
	She hears only whispers of some quiet conversation.
	She's coming in twelve-thirty flights.
	The moonlit wings reflect the stars that guide me toward salvation.
	I stopped an old man along the way, hoping to find some old forgotten words...
	The Moonlight Wings The Moonlight Wings
	The Moonlight Wings Premier Radio Networks presents Art Bell's Somewhere in
	Time Tonight's program originally aired December 26th, 1996.
	It is.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Here's the wire copy on what I told you about a little while ago, hours ago.
	An unidentified gunman stormed into, of course, a McDonald's restaurant in Vallejo tonight, shot three female employees in the head.
	One of the victims, a 17-year-old from Vallejo, is in critical condition now.
	Another victim, a 21-year-old, in fair condition at a Vallejo hospital.
	A third victim is now in stable condition.
	So three shot in the head.
	It was not a robbery.
	Nobody has any idea what the motive might be.
	He just walked right in and shot three people.
	You tell me.
	My guest is Dr. Nick Begich, and we're talking about HAARP.
	That's H-A-A-R-P.
	and we'll get back to it in just one moment alright back to dr bigot in alaska
	Doctor, this is an interesting question.
	Could HAARP be used to kill?
	You know, at this power level, I don't see that possibility.
	I think that technology, the basic root technology, certainly can be used in that way on smaller scale tactical weapons with high power.
	On a large scale, as HAARP ramps up, then that possibility becomes more likely or more probable.
	It just depends on how it's used, the intent of the operator, and how much power they have and how they shape it.
	For some people, certain biological frequencies will have certain effect over things like heart rhythm, for instance.
	So in that sense, you could create a high enough energy state that causes a change in heart rhythm.
	For some people, you might be able to induce heart attack.
	In fact, that's actually spoken about within a document by Maxwell Air Force Base called Low Intensity Conflict in Modern Technology.
	And they talk about developing weapons for that specific purpose.
	The HAARP, as it's currently fit, I don't see that.
	As it grows and gets larger, and the capability becomes more broad, and the power level's higher, those possibilities are there.
	Lots of people on the phone, so let us go here.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich in Alaska.
	Good evening, Doctor, and Art.
	Just an observation, a question.
	You know, the Soviets developed the Lita machine, which at very low power levels was able to put people to sleep.
	Oh, and I think we probably got first news in this country during and after the Korean War had been used in brainwashing.
	I've discussed some of the aspects at heart with friends of mine, and of course they throw out from their engineering viewpoint applications of the inverse square law, but one thing they don't understand A little machine operated literally in a very low RF field.
	When you start poking stuff out at the alpha and delta brainwaves, RF in that area, you start causing problems.
	And you brought out, of course, stress.
	And I'll throw fatigue in that.
	Does anybody ask that question?
	That's why so many of the kids are on Ritalin.
	Why do they have this attention span disorder?
	Why do more people, if they're off the road because they're going to sleep at the wheel, there's a lot of questions that haven't been answered.
	And of course, the main physiological differences with the body are associated with the higher frequency where you have a whole body and a brain cage resonance.
	Two different, usually whole body and centers down in 50 meg, brain cage up to 450, in which At which point you can start getting actual audio, neural,
	and of course some of your writers in your book, Dr. Witsch, I congratulate you on,
	brought out that you can actually hear things in your mind.
	The thing about using harp is you can ionize the upper atmosphere to the point that you
	can use it as a reflection for these frequencies where normally they would not reflect back
	All right, well that's exactly what he's talking about.
	Yeah, and the LIDAR machine we actually cite as well in terms of what it did, and it was used for putting prisoners of war in a trance-like state for extracting intelligence using very low frequency with a radio frequency carrier.
	But when you're looking at this technology, we use a number of examples, cite a number of examples of how this technology could be applied.
	And most recently, we started demonstrating some of this technology using an ultrasonic carrier for transferring sound through the nervous system into the center of the cranium where you perceive sound signals in the brain.
	Now, we know it's possible.
	We know they can do it.
	We know they can also do it with modulated microwaves.
	We also know There's a lot of possibilities with heart modulating ionosphere to create behavior effects.
	What we don't know, we haven't been able to show, is whether or not you could transfer specific ideas or specific information, if you will, carry information on that.
	But what we also know about military planning right now, in a project called SpaceCast 2020, forecasting what's coming up in the next century, the idea of using at a distance technologies that could actually cause uh... a person to
	have memories that were false memories or
	uh... get information that uh... perceived as if it were internal but
	the externally driven it's all within the capability of of planners and certainly
	we we believe it with their capability now
	uh... but it's within the planning sequences to what their issue into the
	public as where they want to go right here is a question again from the group on a well and
	it's really a good one it's a basic one and it's simply this is hard
	really necessary
	Uh...
	You know, I don't believe so.
	I think that, you know, at this stage of the game, when you're talking about weapons, at least the weapons applications here, you know, I don't know that we really need it.
	I think there are certainly something to be said for the idea of being able to detect and intercept ICBMs or nuclear carrying apparatus, but at the same time, There may be other ways to achieve that.
	I'm sure there are.
	There are that we have now.
	So let's look at the technology.
	What do we need to maintain a secure world?
	But more than that, what do we need to advance science along more humanistic lines?
	I don't think HAARP is necessary at all at this point.
	Good answer.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
	Good morning, Mr. Bell.
	I have four things to bring up.
	Nick, have you met Wayne Green?
	I wonder if you are taking into consideration that we are in the minimum of the silver flux cycle.
	We are, yes, that's true.
	I wonder if you are taking into consideration that we are in the minimum of the solar flux
	cycle. We are, yes, that's true. We may just be starting up the upside, but we're very
	near the minimum. We've seen the very bottom, absolutely.
	Yeah.
	Have you been to Nikola Tesla's museum in Belgrade?
	No, I haven't.
	You should do that.
	It may be too late.
	I hate to say it.
	I was there a few years ago.
	It was fascinating.
	All right, sir.
	That man was thinking ahead.
	Well, in fact, if you look at his book, the subtitle is Advances in Tesla Technology.
	Well, I've got like five of his books.
	I like especially the Colorado Springs Notes.
	You know, Tesla was doing some interesting things.
	In fact, this whole basic technology, when you look at the base patent surrounding it, they all reference Tesla's work.
	And, you know, in the body of the patent, where they talk about references and for where the inventor drew his creative stimulus, they always point to certain things.
	In this case, it was to Tesla's work with energy systems, weapons, technologies, and kind of the way HAARP started really dealt with an oil and gas company in Alaska going to a physicist and saying, hey, look, we want to figure out a way to burn natural gas, create a market for gas.
	That's huge what is out there you know and this guy went off and developed this weapons technology was based largely on Tesla's ideas about energy weapons and many of the same things Tesla was talking about in New York Times articles as early as 1915 and then 1941 ends up being presented as new technology within the context of the Harp uh... uh... original patent on the heart
	concept of focusing radio frequency energy all right west of the rockies you're on the air with dr
	nick bigotry higher this is a this is a time programmer from portland
	yes sir and uh...
	uh...
	i just wanted to ask dr bigotry uh... if he has ever heard of the uh...
	the uh...
	testimony needed uh... involving nuclear weapons uh...
	detonated in the ionosphere uh... that produces kind of effects you know the
	psychological effects uh...
	It was called Project Argus.
	Yeah, what we understand about that, and we cite it again within the book, its footnote it is, you know, it caused power failures in Hawaii for several hours.
	This was the upper atmospheric detonation of nuclear weapons where they discovered, in one instance, the electromagnetic pulse, the idea of creating a pulse that would knock out electronic circuits.
	What HAARP and the HAARP patents, when you look at them, it talks about HAARP technologies or this technology of pulse radio frequency replacing thermonuclear detonations in the upper atmosphere in the sense of being able to create an electromagnetic pulse that could disrupt not only electronic circuits, but we believe also biological circuits, if you will.
	But the technology is there.
	It's more precision.
	They're able to hit specific frequencies that they want to hit, like tuning your radio into the right station.
	They can tune the frequency to create very specific effects.
	And then by shaping the waveform a number of different ways, they can manipulate the beam.
	They can create innumerable effects along the various weapons lines that we've talked about tonight.
	And that's the crux of it.
	What you've got is a versatile tool.
	Depending on the intent of the operator, it can be used for innumerable effects, and yet, again, it's compartmentalized research.
	When we were talking just before one of the breaks here, we were talking about how much is hidden from American public.
	Sure.
	You know, the Washington Post ran an article this summer, written by Sweetman, that showed that up to 40% of the Air Force equipment budget are black projects.
	Projects are secret.
	Even the U.S.
	Congress doesn't know what they're funding.
	Forty percent of the equipment budget of the Air Force.
	That is a huge, huge amount of money that's being spent without proper oversight.
	And that's the kind of thing that, you know, we don't need to know, you know, the nitty-gritty of how do you create these kinds of weapons, but we certainly need to know what their effects are, what the potentials are, so that we can decide whether the trade-offs are reasonable ones.
	Doctor, over the last couple of years, we have had at least two truly massive Unexplained, ultimately unexplained power failures that have affected about the western two-thirds or more of states.
	Right.
	And they never have been really adequately explained.
	They finally end up talking about, well, this power station or that in Idaho.
	Took down the whole thing.
	The whole thing.
	For extended periods of time.
	And I know that some spots Or solar storms are capable of affecting long-line electrical transmission lines.
	Right.
	And this is, again, this is something that has come up repeatedly.
	When you look at the HAARP planning documents by the military, they talk about other transmitters around the world being similar.
	Several that they point to are in the former Soviet Union that, back in the mid-70s, were attributed, in the early 70s, to creating Uh, the Woodpecker signal, which was, interfered with ham radio operators as well.
	Drove me crazy.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And it also was attributed to having caused a significant power outage in Canada that was actually investigated.
	Um, and I met the congressional investigator in the course of lecturing this summer and he shared with me a number of the documents and what apparently had happened is this, um, experiment was conducted that caused, A huge power failure caused problems within the power plant that caused it to basically knock out, and they attributed it to these signals.
	Those stations are pointed to as being a reason why HAARP ought to be considered safe.
	I mean, they say, look, these other things have been operating, and yet the same ones early on were thought to have caused these various problems.
	The idea that HAARP could do that on December 15th, which was one of those major power outages in the western states, I believe it was 1994.
	It was the same day of the beginning of a test series for HAARP.
	Now, it could be coincidence.
	Again, without really good independent monitoring, we won't know ever, probably, definitively, whether that was them or whether it was just a coincidence, if you will.
	I wonder if they wonder.
	They probably do.
	You know, the same time, you remember the AWACS plane crash up here in Alaska?
	That was the day after a testing series ended.
	Um, with HAARP, and again, the question is sort of in the minds of many people, was it, you know, related to this project?
	And you can bet the AWACS plane was up here, and when it was here as an opportunity, I'm sure they were monitoring the testing going on in those preceding weeks going up to that event.
	At the same time, you've got, you know, a lot, you know, a lot of things that anecdotally start to say, hey, we're right, but you need that independent monitoring so we can say definitively, Look, they're firing it here, these are the ranges they're firing it, these are the effects that we're seeing, and start to draw those correlations.
	We would hope that they would be drawn on the drawing boards rather than by experiencing the event because we think that as they
	move further along those events are going to become more pronounced and extreme.
	And doctor, what about the operators of HAARP?
	I mean, here are people that are right at the very center of the area that the radiation is coming from
	and while there may not be a lot of lateral radiation, surely those working at the facility
	would be subject to intense amounts of radiation, particularly up toward the 100 billion watt level.
	And once they get there, it's gonna certainly have the effect.
	But the other thing people need to recognize is the way the contracts were drawn on design.
	This can be operated remotely.
	Any location in the world.
	Well, they may want to get down actually.
	They don't have to be there.
	Yeah, I see.
	And so they can send in whoever they want to do monitoring for, you know, their weather instruments and some of their other diagnostics.
	But the fact is, everything is set up remote.
	They don't have to be even in the same state.
	They can be completely around the world and operate with Comlinks.
	So you've got a system that can be remotely operated.
	I mean, recently what we've seen, and the reason they sort of report the effects as you've got, you know, a team of scientists show
	up in a community that has no people in it to speak of in terms of large populations.
	It's easy to see people that are there that are out of place.
	Check into the local hotel and do their experiments, but there's a lot that can be said for how much of the
	facility can be operated off-site, because that's how it was designed.
	Well, I've worked near 50,000 watt AM transmitter towers, and I can tell you the maximum exposure
	any human can stand is about four or five minutes.
	After that, you better get out of there or you're going to begin cooking.
	Now that's 50,000 watts.
	It's inconceivable to me.
	VHF range, 100 billion watts.
	I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that.
	You know, this is the whole situation with the community that's in this region of Alaska.
	You know, this is a small community in terms of population.
	They're highly concerned about what's happening in this area.
	I would be too, sure.
	More importantly, and not to discount that, but when you think about the ionosphere as a global system, not something regionally unique, but something important to all of us, and the fact that these systems are designed to grow consistently over uh... over the years and when you look at the whole scheme of how weapons programs advance you know before you know it's got a major initiative tied to it and then it's you know the the game is over it's too late to really start to look at it and much has gone down the road i think in this case you have a system that need that scrutiny it's certain to get that scrutiny and and we're finally seeing political bodies that have the power to make a difference start to take a look at it.
	Are there any of these civilian scientists on staff That have had, that have had questions that they've had the guts to vocalize.
	Not that we've seen.
	I mean, I know there's been a lot of questioning on the part of scientists, you know, privately.
	But, you know, even with us, when we raised the issues after the legislative hearing, you know, we were attacked on the one hand by some geophysicists, and on the other, after discussion of, look, here's what the research shows, go look at it yourself, you know, dial it up on your database and see it.
	Uh, you know, we need to ask these questions out of your specialty area.
	Who from these requisite specialty areas is on the site?
	And they had to say, well, we don't have any.
	We don't have any electrophysiologists.
	And then I said, how do you know?
	And then look at the research and their answer was, well, let's do that.
	Let's look at the research.
	Alright, there are a lot of scientists in the audience listening.
	We've got a link to your webpage.
	If somebody goes on to your webpage, Doctor, is there enough hard information there that a scientist can sit down and draw some of his own conclusions?
	I think there's enough to trigger some serious looking, but we don't give as many footnotes on the website as we probably do in our book, and I think that's really where you have to go.
	If you want the data, the detail, look at our site.
	Look at the military site.
	We're linked to them, too, so that you can see both sides.
	There's a good overview.
	If a scientist is reasonably and willing to take a look at the data, we can provide any of our footnoted source material and have done so, you know, to folks that are in opposition to this project.
	And the evidence is there.
	I mean, there's enough in the literature to Well, I'm going to be honest with you, Doctor.
	If I was a high official in the government, and I examined behavior as it appears to be developing in the civilian population right now, and there was a possibility that I could embrace a technology that might modify human behavior, I might be tempted, I guess I would be tempted, to pursue it, at the very least, experimentally.
	It's trying to determine if I could control human behavior, and I suppose that makes me sound like a Nazi.
	I'm not saying that I absolutely would do it, but I certainly would pursue experimentation, and I just can't help but believe... They are.
	...that that's exactly what they're doing.
	You betcha.
	They are.
	Doctor, hold on.
	We'll be back to you in a moment.
	Good rest here at the top of the hour.
	My guest is Dr. Nick Begich from near Anchorage, Alaska.
	And we're talking about HAARP.
	That's H-A-A-R-P.
	And it's a pretty wild technology.
	Stay right where you are.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an Encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 26, 1996.
	The Coast to Coast AM presentation is presented by the Coast to Coast Am Museum of Art.
	The Coast to Coast AM presentation is presented by the Coast to Coast Museum of Art.
	Mama Mama Celebrity all too well
	studying abroad going to school
	going to school You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time on Premier Radio Networks.
	Tonight, an encore presentation of Coast to Coast AM from December 26th, 1996.
	In a moment, back to Dr. Nick Begich, who is my guest.
	We are discussing, among other things, the Harp Project in Alaska, which is where Dr. Begich is.
	coming right up the
	Alright, uh...
	Doctor, earlier in the year, I had an interesting gentleman on the show just recently repeated, a fellow named Ed Dames, a remote viewer.
	He predicted that the jet stream would literally Come down on deck, causing tremendous winds.
	And then surprisingly, or maybe not, here recently, I've heard people on the Weather Channel talk about, I'll be doggone, they're talking about the jet stream coming down, and we've been getting 100, 125 mile an hour winds in some parts of the western coastal areas, Oregon and California, with the jet stream literally dipping Down, is this also a possible effect of HAARP?
	You know, the idea of diversion of jet stream, we explore a little bit in one section of our book.
	And what we say, essentially, is we talked earlier about the idea of lifting the ionosphere to create sort of a void where the lower atmosphere rushes in.
	Another way that we see weather modification perhaps taking place with a system is by creating, if you will, a standing wave of energy that
	actually acts like a wall deflecting wind patterns.
	And this is a question that we ask, could you do this, could you actually do it on a full jet
	stream size scale?
	And I think once you get into the hundred billion watt range,
	those things become very possible.
	But I think even in the lower ranges, and this is again what we've raised, is the non-linear effects.
	The idea that you can act as a trigger for releasing larger amounts of energy that then cause effects that otherwise wouldn't be expected.
	And I think that's really part of all of this.
	We looked at one document in particular.
	It was actually a book called Unless Peace Comes, with a chapter by J.F.
	Gordon MacDonald talking about He was a geophysicist, actually, at UCLA, but he talked about how to create natural releases of energy using triggering events, nonlinear energy releases, and he was also a science advisor to Johnson, and he predicted all of these kinds of things, from triggering earthquakes to tidal waves to massive winds to even biological changes in humans.
	as being possible if you could manipulate the ionosphere and at the time
	1969 when that work was written that wasn't possible the technology wasn't there what harper
	offers military planners today is
	a technology that they've long fought uh... and now they have the capability which is to to
	operate within the radio frequency
	a regime into the upper ionosphere with a focused amount of energy a laser
	radio uh... being if you will i got a most i mean i'm sure they
	have theories about what what might occur but i can almost see them up there
	going let's push this and see what happens
	I think that's fair, because when you look at, I mean, your show and others have reported on those high atmospheric phenomena, electrical phenomena, sprites.
	Which were detected by the Alaska Geophysical Institute just a few years ago.
	Right.
	Now, none of that was factored into the equations on what HAARP would do as an added energy input into that system.
	So here you have upper atmospheric electrical phenomena that are just now being discovered, not being factored into any models globally in terms of what might happen if.
	And now they're going to inject more energy without really knowing the system completely that they're trying to affect, and yet at the same time acknowledging Look, we're going to create a runaway effect and see where it stabilizes.
	That doesn't make me feel too secure, and I don't think it's the kind of issue they want to be confronted with.
	But at the same time, pure research as such can't exist without some moral deliberation ethical deliberation on the potential effect.
	Well, I'm sure if you ask them, if you say, when you focus this hundred billion watts, do you know exactly what's going to happen?
	I'm sure their answer has to be, uh-uh.
	That's the nature of experimentation, right?
	They want to find out.
	And unfortunately, or you know, from our perspective again, I mean, you know, we want to believe, and I think everyone wants to believe, that our government's acting in our own best interest.
	The fact is, It doesn't work that way at all, unless the population forces them to be accountable to something.
	They're interested in us.
	I'm not sure they're acting in our best interest.
	Yeah, exactly.
	First time caller on the line.
	You're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich in Alaska.
	Hello.
	Hello, this is Bill.
	Hi, Bill.
	Nick mentioned briefly MKUltra.
	Yes.
	That's the mind control program.
	And there's a number of MK programs that are connected with the germ warfare.
	The German Warfare and Mind Control is connected.
	The spin-off in the German Warfare, they used also in the Mind Control program.
	You know, that whole mind control program, you know, many people say, well, did that really exist?
	And it's in the congressional record.
	It's pretty easy to reference.
	What exactly did they do?
	Well, you know, what was released were the use of LSD, for instance, on servicemen without consent to see how they might modify behavior of these folks, as well as a number of hallucinogenics, chemicals, as well as hypnosis, hypnotherapy, a number of things.
	What they didn't get into, that they certainly had access to at the time, were electromagnetic means of altering brain states.
	And this is well known within the literature, even back as far back as the 60s, with the discovery of the LIDA machine that they captured during the Vietnam era, with what was coming out of Korea during the Korean War.
	I mean, they knew about these technologies, but yet in the Congressional hearings on mind control, That got skirted and what we got were really the grains of sand on the beach of what was going on.
	Alright, well I think it's fair then that the American public, look everybody, ask yourself, if you have a government interested enough in mind control to give people, without their permission, LSD, or interested enough in the effects of radiation to inject pregnant women Children and people with terminal diseases with plutonium to see what would happen.
	Imagine the kind of technology we're talking about now.
	And are you going to really sit there and say, well, they wouldn't use that?
	Come on.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich in Alaska.
	Hi, Dr. Begich.
	How are you?
	Very good, thank you.
	I have a three-part question.
	All right, sir, where are you?
	I'm in, this is Tony, and I am in Las Vegas.
	I can't listen to you off the air, though, because KXNT's transmitter's down.
	I know.
	By the way, I ought to tell everybody, they had a fire in their transmitter.
	They're hoping to be up by noontime later today, but they had some damage, and they're trying to get it repaired.
	Awesome.
	I got a three-part question that I could Say all at once and get the short answer, or say all at once and get the long answer?
	How would you like it done?
	All right.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	Does the doctor see, quote, visually, the heart project's effect to cloud and storm directional dynamics and or physics?
	Not at this point.
	I mean, from where I'm sitting, it's a good distance and a couple mountain ranges between us.
	Okay, so you can't see it on the weather channel, right?
	Not observable from where I'm sitting.
	And do you think Red China and Russia are countering with applications and or warfare-related or maybe even UFO short-circuiting applications?
	Let's cover the first part.
	Do I think that other countries have the technology?
	Yes.
	Do I think the former Soviet Union has technology?
	Yes.
	The situation with this type of technology, however, is that it's very Observable.
	It takes a large land area to put the antenna array.
	It's easily observable with any sophisticated country's technology today.
	You can spot these kinds of facilities, not like an ICBM in a silo hidden under the ground.
	They have to be on the surface.
	So in that sense, you know, I think people are developing it, but it's the kind of technology that you could really verifiably, in a comfortable way, know whether or not it was being deployed and used and developed.
	So I think it's, first of all, controllable.
	Secondly, I think that the idea that the Soviets are advancing it, at least they are up front about it.
	They acknowledge these types of phased array antenna for specifically weapons applications, specifically a ground-based Star Wars application, and they're just more up front about it.
	But I think the technologies go back years.
	I mean, you can go back to the microwave beaming of the U.S.
	Embassy, which was again purported at that time in the 60s to be responsible for behavior modification.
	We believe that is exactly what it was.
	And I think that it's a case of the technology finally getting more and more well-known, but still has remained hidden from the average person for decades, when it should have been debated decades ago.
	All right.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich in Alaska.
	Where are you calling from, please?
	This is Jim from Fort Myers, Florida.
	Hi, Jim.
	I have a question.
	I was, um, the other day, actually, I was, uh, looking through, um, in this computer system, and I was talking about, uh, high frequencies before, and it said something about, uh, it was, uh, 24.5862 GHz, and I was wondering if that had anything to do with the HAWP thing?
	Their primary broadcast frequency is 2.8 to 10 MHz, but the actual range of frequency they can affect, either with primary or secondary frequencies created with the system, Run from ultra-low frequency to visible light, which is a really broad chunk of spectrum.
	And that came out of a 1995 executive summary prepared for the Congress by the Hart Planners out of one of their offices.
	Maryland University, if I can't remember.
	Doctor, you said visible light.
	Is there a chance that we will all see some strange glow in the atmosphere?
	That's a possibility.
	From this facility, it's within its capability.
	One of the other things that they've done is using barium-laden rockets launched into the path of the radiation.
	Oh, yes.
	For, actually, for a combination of things.
	For marking, first of all, the magnetic lines of force surrounding the planet have been mapped
	using 200 barium-laden rockets over the last 10 or 15 years here in Alaska.
	And what they are able to do is by sending energy in, you can create a light effect that looks like a, actually when they did this with HAARP, it created a corkscrew kind of effect around the magnetic line of force moving the opposite direction of the normal flow of energy, which was sort of unexpected.
	But that's kind of, that's what led to this whole idea of global shielding, which is sort of the other part of your question.
	In the UFO context, it's out of my area, I really can't say, but in terms of disrupting an electronic circuit on a global basis, that was the original intention of PARC, was to create a shield that when you visualize that shield surrounding the planet, it can be looked at like an envelope around the planet, and anything passing through its electronic circuits are disrupted.
	Well, gee, Doctor, if a glow were to begin to emanate, say, just above the area being radiated, Alaska, nobody would notice.
	Alaskans would think, oh, more pretty northern lights.
	Exactly.
	You know, here you have the active auroral, high frequency active auroral research project.
	You know, again, it's sort of a misnomer.
	You know, you title things to lead people to believe one thing when something else is going on, and that's very deliberate on the part of military planners.
	That's something that's actually laid out in their instructions to contractors and subcontractors, how to make a project appear one way while it's doing something else.
	Anything else, Collar?
	I was just wondering if that specific frequency that I told you, if that had any significance to You know, when we get into that area, I don't know that it would.
	I don't see where it would, from what I've seen.
	All right, good.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich.
	Hi.
	Yes, hi.
	Frank in Seattle.
	Hi, Frank.
	Hi.
	One of the weather-affected areas, and we've got quite a bit of snow here, probably about eight, nine inches or so.
	I've heard that.
	That's unheard of in Seattle.
	Yeah, we didn't have anything yesterday, and then it all came in today, and it's still going.
	And it's really icing up.
	It's really bad.
	But anyhow, my question to you, Dr. Bagage, is this, and I don't know if you know this yet or not, but are you familiar with a Title 50, Chapter 32, Section 1520 of a United States Code regarding the chemical and biological agents testing on American citizens by the Department of Defense?
	I may be, but I don't know the citations.
	You'll have to refresh me.
	I know that... Well, I can tell you, Doctor, I referenced it earlier.
	It simply, basically says that the government can experiment on American civilian populations, given 30 days notice to local authorities, unspecified, dog catcher, whoever.
	And within 30 days they can then begin experimenting, biologically or chemically, on the American civilian population.
	I know it seems bizarre, and people sit there and say, this can't be true, but Caller, I'll bet you've seen it, haven't you?
	Well, listen, I called you once before, Art, in regards to this.
	i have a friend and he uh... you've got a lot to the government right now
	in regards to radiation experiment that were done on him right now back in the
	in the fifties okay and what i did it i did research for him on the internet
	and i picked up by his file pulled his file and got him to him okay those files
	uh... on his uh... been experiment on on the radiation experiment okay
	and told me that you know if that uh... things to his lawyers and others
	uh... in a class action lawsuit against the government Sure, well, if I can comment on that.
	The idea that chemical and biological weapons could be used in the United States, we cite within the book the paragraph and section of the Chemicals Weapon Treaty that was recently signed last couple years.
	And within that treaty, as well as most international treaties, is an exemption.
	And the exemption is you can continue to utilize these kinds of systems for domestic use.
	And specifically what they call for is riot control and police actions.
	And what's interesting is on the whole non-lethal weapons technology, which chemical and biological certainly would fit within, there's been a huge transfer of technology between Justice and the Department of Defense, which we also cite within the book.
	Because the Department of Defense can no longer develop those weapons systems for warfare purposes against a declared enemy, the Department of Justice uh... and others for domestic policing actions are
	specifically permitted under those international agreements
	this is what's very what's very important about this is that
	when these international agreements passed where we agree to not use
	something against an enemy of the united states declared enemy of the united
	states we should also consider parallel domestic legislation that
	forbids the use of that same technology against americans and we don't
	and that's a big mistake in all of our major international treaties is
	allowing things to go through that we can use against ourselves that we can
	get someone else That's ridiculous, and that certainly is not the intent, I think, of most Americans when they review these treaties.
	Ridiculous, yes, yes, but true.
	And here, let me ask you a question.
	Answer honestly.
	If you were the President of the United States, Doctor, and Los Angeles, or at least a good part of it, was going up in flames, rioting, or any other big American city, And they came to you and said, look, Mr. President, you may not have been aware of this technology because it's been a black program for some time now, disguised as scientific inquiry in Alaska, but we have the ability to literally throw a switch and calm the residents of Los Angeles and a few hundred miles around, and this riot will quickly quiet down, Mr. President.
	Do we throw the switch?
	Yes or no?
	You know, and this is, it gets to the root belief, the individual, and for me the answer would be, you know, the cost of human lives is there, but, you know, when we start messing with the way people believe, what they think, how they feel, as objectionable as it is, once you open that box you'll never close it again, and I don't believe that we can interfere with the thought processes of human beings in any way, and do it in a humane way.
	I think it's a violation of who we are.
	In terms of the very essence of who we are.
	But I would argue, Doctor, I'm the military guy here for the moment.
	I would argue, look, we can calm this whole area.
	We've got this situation well in hand.
	We know that if we radiate the ionosphere and direct it, that Los Angeles will be very calm.
	People will be going to sleep all over the place, or at least relaxing.
	We know it'll work, Mr. President.
	Right now stores are burning and people are dying.
	What do you think?
	It would be a tough call.
	I mean, for me, personally, that's the reason we stand in opposition to this project.
	I don't believe interfering with human beings' thought processes is appropriate, humane, or moral, and I think that it's just like chemical weapons.
	We could say, well, we could gas everyone in that neighborhood, too, and it would have the same effect, but we've decided that's immoral.
	You know, I think we really have to look at the whole picture and say, you know, is this what human beings are becoming?
	Are we going to become Manipulated, modified, and who's going to make those decisions of what's right and what's wrong?
	Well, probably the guy I just talked about.
	Doctor, hold on.
	We'll be right back to you.
	My guest is Dr. Nick Begich.
	To get a copy of this program, and I'm getting a lot of questions about that already, please call Beginning Now, 1-800-917-4278.
	Looks like we'll go the whole way.
	It'll be a five-hour program.
	Looks like we'll go the whole way. It'll be a five-hour program.
	That's 1-800-917-4278.
	In addition, if you would like to ask questions, I'm in a chat room on America Online.
	And the way to get there is just go on AOL and type in keyword Art Bell or keyword Periscope.
	Doesn't matter, either one.
	And when you get there, when you get to the Periscope area, click on the Grassy Knoll chat room.
	And there you will find a lot of people arguing about what we're talking about and much more.
	That's Keyword, Art Bell, and then the Grassy Knoll chatroom on AOL.
	We'll be right back.
	You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
	Tonight featuring a replay of Coast to Coast AM from December 26th, 1996.
	This is a test.
	PLEASE SUBSCRIBE!
	Thanks for watching!
	Bye!
	Hope to see you again soon!
	Bye!
	Bye!
	Is the power up, Doctor?
	Yes, it is.
	Well, let's push this button and see what happens.
	Well, look at that.
	The entire ionosphere is glowing red.
	Cool.
	Simplified, yes, but you get the idea.
	They don't really know what's going to happen.
	I'm Art Bell.
	My guest is Dr. Nick Begich.
	The book, is angels don't play this part and if you would like to ask a question or engage in a conversation we uh... have a chat room going right now in america online so if you're in america online subscriber uh... simply uh... a log on and uh...
	I'll go to an area called, well actually, go to Keyword.
	They've got a keyword, you know, you just click on Keyword up there, and enter a keyword, Art Bell, or Periscope.
	Either way, you'll go to the same place.
	When you get there, click on the grassy knoll chat room, and you'll be in with the group.
	And if you submit a good question, I'll ask it on the air.
	Back now to Dr. Nick Begich, doctor.
	Um...
	Not very long ago, there was a shuttle experiment in which they had a tether.
	You remember the tethered satellite?
	Well, the tether began glowing like a giant slinky in space.
	I mean, really glowing.
	It was very, very bright.
	And a lot of people thought that possibly HAARP was radiating energy as an experiment.
	To try and light that tether up.
	Could that be?
	That's a possibility.
	I think it was probably, you know, the ionosphere has a lot of energy in place, and I think it was picking up a lot of energy that was in place, but it could have very likely been used in conjunction with the HAARP facility.
	I know that was proposed by Hoagland, and we had even been on the air a little bit with him on that subject, and I think that everything that he suggested is quite plausible.
	And here again is where we face the dilemma.
	We have no Way to concretely say, okay, this experiment did this effect in this instance, but what we do know about the tether is it was not, again, a project not disclosed fully to the American public or anyone else.
	I think they were experimenting with ELF, and I think they were also experimenting with tapping energy, which has all been part of that whole mystique behind much of what's been associated with HAARP.
	In fact, our U.S.
	Senator When Harp was first debated, he was talking about tapping the ionosphere for energy and utilizing this system.
	He was kind of poo-pooed by the scientists involved in the project, which was kind of strange because he was the guy in control of the funding.
	It was a very unusual situation.
	It was as if he had said too much and they needed to be quiet about the project rather than he had made a mistake.
	The fact that he went on to be an advocate for the project, even after being embarrassed by the very planners who would be the beneficiaries of the funding, was out of character with Senator Stevens in that sense.
	And in the same sense, here he is advancing a project, talking about, in our newspapers here, about not being covered under global shields for ICBMs and those kinds of things, and looking for that technology.
	And here we have this project, a research project, mind you, That has that capability.
	I think it really goes, it goes a lot further than what's been said.
	I think the tether was probably, very likely, a part of this whole experimentation happening here.
	All right, Doctor.
	East of the Rockies, you are on the air with Dr. Nick Begich.
	Good morning.
	Hello, Art.
	Hello, where are you?
	Hagerstown, Indiana.
	All right.
	Yeah, I was wondering, 50 gigawatts, right?
	100 billion watts.
	Okay.
	I know what it takes to power a million watts.
	I've seen the six-foot tubes.
	What is it going to take to power something that big?
	It's an excellent question.
	The power to achieve 100 billion watts, Doctor.
	What they're talking about, after factoring in antenna gain, is using a number of magnetohydrodynamic generators, which are gas-fired electrical generators for creating Pretty large amounts of power, but when you factor that into antenna gain is where they would eventually get that.
	That's what's always been spoken about from the very base patents all the way through, is to utilize these kinds of power sources.
	What's interesting about that is across the north slope of Alaska are the old dewline sites, which was their early defense warning system sites, which include base installations, small installations, as well as, for many of them, magnetohydrodynamic generators as their fuel source.
	Now, whether you use one large array or perhaps even a series of smaller array across that old dewline infrastructure, that's probably the more likely scenario.
	I think what we'll see with HAARP where it sits today is to develop the technology, develop the idea, and then transfer that idea out to these remote sites working remotely.
	All right, here's one.
	Since it penetrates the Earth, is there any possibility HAARP might have an adverse effect on the Earth's molten core temp?
	That's from the Internet chat room.
	That, you know, that I don't know, but when you talk about resonant frequencies of the Earth, and we had talked a little bit about Schumann's resonance earlier, 7.83 Hz, there were some ideas of Tesla, again, dealing with these advanced weapons technology, that if you could resonate a frequency that correlated to the Earth's frequency, with the right kind of oscillator, you could actually create such things as earthquakes.
	If I keep propose, you could even split the Earth entirely.
	What he was basically talking about was this, again, nonlinear releases of energy, small amounts of energy in the window frequencies that harmonize with frequencies that are naturally in place, causing large energy releases.
	Could it melt the core, increase the temperature?
	That I don't know, but certainly nonlinear events could occur that are cataclysmic along the lines of earthquake activity, if, in fact, enough power is generated And at the right appropriate frequency to cause those kinds of triggering events.
	All right.
	First time caller line, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich.
	Where are you calling from, please?
	I'm calling from Salem, Oregon.
	Okay, you're going to have to speak up good and loud.
	I'm calling from Salem, Oregon.
	Yes, ma'am.
	This is Charlotte.
	And I'm wondering, Dr. Begich, was there a specific time that they began testing this particular system in Alaska, a certain year, or Was it something that's just been recent?
	Well, that's a good question.
	Let's get the whole timeline.
	When did they first begin testing, Doctor, and what's lying ahead?
	What they did is, the first test was December 15, 1994, which, as we said earlier, correlated with a large western states power outage.
	They've tested then in March of that year.
	They then tested again in November of that year and September of that year.
	They broke for almost a year until this November.
	...where they began a testing series on the 15th and ended on the 22nd.
	They're scheduled again for testing in January.
	And each of these tests is progressive.
	I mean, they add more power.
	Initial tests were dealing with the circuit itself, making sure everything worked properly.
	They had some problems with it, but they adjusted it out.
	But this year, it's 48 antennas, which is the most antennas they've had in the array operating at one time, and for earth-penetrating tomography, which is what will lead then to further funding.
	That particular application, It's very important from a defense perspective, but also is the one that we consider the most intrusive in terms of its potential effects on life, including human beings, because of the frequency ranges you're going to operate within.
	All right, again from the chat room, somebody wants to know, in your best estimation or your best guess, Doctor, what is the end objective most likely of those operating HAARP?
	From my perspective, they're going to try and get the full power capability.
	I think they're going to try and replace the satellite-based Star Wars defense system with this ground-based technology.
	I think that they'll extend the use of that technology as far as the perimeters will allow.
	In other words, covering all the areas that we've spoken about today, the ones that they can legitimately do within the boundaries of international agreements, they'll do, and the ones that they can't, Openly do, I think they'll do covertly, and they'll continue to operate experiments and tests in areas removed from public view, unless the public demands that kind of scrutiny, both in the United States and elsewhere, because it really is an international issue that just now, in the last few years, electromagnetic systems are just now beginning to be debated in the international community.
	I think that's where ultimately this will go.
	I think people all over the world that we've spoken to about this project.
	We have our book out in Japanese this month.
	It's out in German.
	It's second printing.
	And a lot of people are becoming familiar with it and are acting on that knowledge constructively within their own political systems.
	I think that's what eventually will change the direction of this project, if anything does.
	All right.
	Again, somebody on this group would like to know, Doctor, how much accuracy ultimately can be achieved With this energy, in other words, in reflection, how tight an area might they beam down to?
	That's really, for me, at this point, impossible to say.
	You know, we've heard people say it can be focused pretty narrowly.
	From what they say, it can be focused from reflectors into a really narrow path that then could convert the power back into electrical energy, which indicates something fairly small.
	I think that's fair to say that that can happen.
	How much directional control within all of that would depend on what they had to augment the system on the ground, because it can't be just the system on the ground.
	And this is part of how they've masqueraded this project.
	When they talk about HAARP as such, they negate the fact that it interrelates with a number of other Programs like they have a supercomputer at the University of Alaska, which is funded separately.
	We have a rocket launch facility funded separately.
	We have diagnostic equipment funded separately.
	Satellites funded separately.
	But as these programs interweave and interrelate, which is what we try to show in our work, how they do connect, clearly show a much, much broader, much bigger project than originally meets the eyes in terms of HAARP specifics.
	So when they say HAARP is totally open, Parts of that may be true, but when you look at what it's connected to that isn't totally open, then the whole story takes on a much greater dimension that people do need to pay attention to.
	All right.
	Back to the phones.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begichai.
	All right.
	Good morning.
	This is Joaquin in Yuma, Arizona.
	Yuma, yes.
	Right.
	I have two questions, one for Art and one for the Doc.
	Okay.
	Art, did you get my floppy for the black helicopters?
	You can answer when I hang up.
	But anyway, Doc, In about the 60's era, over here, we have a Proving Grounds, and you remember Proving Grounds?
	Well, I was involved with it a lot later, about in the 80's, and we've only done two tests since the 60's.
	But the 60's, we used to do extensive tests.
	I remember when I was a little kid, I used to watch this thing go off all the time.
	What I'm talking about, it's a Navy gun.
	It's the big 1650 Navy gun, which are on the big Navy ships and there's an extension that is extended on that it's like a gun and then you put an extension on it and we send these projectiles they're almost 20 pounds shy of a ton into the I forget there was the ionosphere they said 25 miles high and we used to send these things off of course it was classified and you know I did my test and I
	I only knew what I did on my test.
	I was a flash x-ray technician.
	Well, anyway, this thing would go up into the sky, and it would leave a vortex, or a contrail.
	It would turn blue, green, and purple.
	It was so beautiful to see this thing go up.
	And, of course, it hit impact somewhere, as we were told, but I'm sure that they were sending something in space.
	And maybe a pressure plate would open up the projectile.
	Or at the very least in the lower atmosphere.
	Right.
	I don't know how high 25 miles is, but this thing went super high.
	And for being so heavy, you know, it could probably, if they lightened the load, it could be even went higher.
	But I said this to say all this, this project was also known as HAARP.
	The gun is called HAARP.
	Now, I don't know if it's two A's or just a single A.
	It's interesting.
	I don't know that it's connected.
	It's interesting, but I don't see how it's connected.
	Well, that would be, what, 125,000 feet or a little better than that, so that would be... It would be below the ionosphere.
	It would, but it would be on up there.
	That's interesting.
	Very interesting.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich.
	Hi.
	Art?
	Yes.
	This is Chris from Northern California.
	Yes, sir.
	I called you a couple weeks ago, you know, brought up the subject of HAARP being the star shield.
	Okay, well, here's the man to ask.
	Yes, one of the things I understood was that the heart was running in the multiple terawatts, not in the hundreds of billions of watts, you know, but more like a thousand times that.
	And that, you know, basically, I mean, with those terawatts, it's going to do a lot more than, you know, some of the small things that they claim it to be doing, you know.
	Anyway, what's your comment on that?
	Well, you know, all I can do is quote from the literature, which is their literature, and going beyond that, there's a lot of... The thing about the Harpe story that's important to note, at least at this stage, is there's been a lot of speculation beyond what I think the literature really shows, but I think the literature is enough to cause concern if it goes beyond the power levels that we've described.
	I certainly think it's possible, particularly when you take in non-linear effects, that it could go well beyond what we've been talking about.
	I think the overall issue here is how far do we want this to go and under what constraint, if any.
	And really, that's the crux of the issue for us.
	We're going into an area that's way beyond what we think is safe.
	We're going in a direction that we think is unnecessary militarily.
	But more than that, it gets back to the fundamental trade-off.
	Here we have a weapon system that either accidentally or purposefully can influence human behavior.
	We think that's wrong.
	I mean, fundamentally, we think that's just a big mistake in a wrong direction, and one that's not new.
	It's been sought for decades, and occasionally it's surfaced at congressional hearings and been dealt with to some extent.
	But the program marches on, and non-lethal weapons technologies, HAARP and electromagnetic warfare technologies are all part of that.
	And I think that needs an open airing.
	It needs the kind of discussion that we're having tonight.
	I mean, if it wasn't for these kinds of programs where we could explore it for a long enough period of time to explain it, this issue would have never, ever been even in the point in which it is today of being discussed.
	I think that's... Yeah, they'd just be doing it, wouldn't they?
	Yeah, exactly right.
	I mean, at least at this point, they're responding.
	They're making the attempt to deal with the issue, at least in a public relations vein.
	But at the same time, enough scientists are looking at it that are saying, hey, wait a minute, the points that have been raised here should be looked at and scrutinized more carefully.
	And that's happening, and it's happening independent of us, which was always our hope to begin with, that people would take the issue up and explore it.
	And with that comes all extremes on all issues, as it is in debate.
	But that part has happened, that is happening, and it can continue to happen as long as people express concern over the issue.
	Alright Doctor, somebody here again on the group on AOL is asking about relay stations.
	I'm going to modify that question a little and I'm going to ask, are there other HAARP installations, other than the one near you there in Alaska, in other parts of the world that are doing similar Yes, absolutely.
	In fact, the military, in their planning documents and press releases, indicate Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Turismo, Norway, and a number of other locations around the world, including the former Soviet Union, where these transmitters exist, except most of them, up until recently, were configured differently.
	So, like when we talked earlier about how the energy dissipates with distance from the transmitter, for most transmitters, That's how the earlier versions were set up.
	The newer version, the HAARP version, which is a phased array antenna allowing focusing, there are two in Alaska.
	One is High Path near the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
	The other is HAARP.
	Both are used together for a number of the weapons effects.
	You also have Arecibo, Puerto Rico being retrofitted, and other facilities we understand being retrofitted to have this focusing capability.
	So there are other facilities that are being used.
	And again, you know, when you look at HAARP, it is one of many, one of the leading edge, if you will, in terms of the technology, but it will be replicated around the world if it just continues.
	And that's again where we want to see that international interest in taking a look at this before it goes too far.
	Because as we said earlier, the United States Congress said that Star Wars, no, and yet programs continue.
	What we also show is that our allies, March forward realizing that with the change of administration or change in the Congress, those issues get revisited.
	So everyone marches along and they sort of wait for us to catch up.
	But this kind of project goes on.
	There's a number of facilities and how they're being used in conjunction with HAARP.
	Some shows up in literature and other issues don't.
	Is it possible, Doctor, that again They will conduct tests unscheduled, not telling us, maybe even higher power, with no notice.
	In other words, just do it.
	Yeah, in fact that's what they just did in November the 15th through the 22nd.
	They called it a test of opportunity, an opportunity to do this experiment because a satellite was positioned just the right way to diagnose the transmissions emanating from HAARP.
	And when you look at that, you go, wait a minute, you know the flight path of your satellite, this isn't a test of opportunity.
	You knew where it would be, and when it would be there, and when the systems would be operating, and you did your test.
	And then you announced it after the fact, because you didn't want to announce it before the fact for whatever reason those were.
	But it's ludicrous to imagine that this planning group He does things by accident.
	I mean, that's just out of the question.
	They plan it.
	They map it out.
	It's just when they disclose it is really the issue, and that's been our objection all along.
	If they don't properly disclose, and when they do, they don't give the whole story and the evidence is in.
	All right, Doctor.
	Well, we have come to the end of the program.
	Amazing.
	We did five hours.
	It went by in a hurry.
	Whoosh!
	Just like that.
	There are so many questions and so many angles to this that you could probably do 25 hours on it.
	At any rate, it has been a pleasure having you here, and I wish you luck in the continuing fight, and be safe.
	Thank you very much for all your support.
	Dr. Begich, good night.
	Good night.
	Bye-bye.
	That's Dr. Nick Begich in Alaska, and the subject was HAARP.
	H-A-A-R-P.
	Well, folks, that's it for tonight.
	Don't forget, tomorrow night, we begin the process of prediction for 1997.
	We've got last year's predictions from the Bell Family Vault, and we will begin constructing a list for next year.
	Well, that's actually tonight.

▲