All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 1997 - Art Bell
02:05:55
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Nick Begich - HAARP
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Dr. Nick Begich is the eldest son of the late United States Congressman from Alaska, Nick Begich Sr.
and political activist Peggy Begich.
He is well known in Alaska for his political activities.
He was twice elected president of both the Alaska Federation of Teachers and the Anchorage Council of Education.
He has been pursuing independent research in the sciences and politics for most of his adult life.
Dr. Begich received his doctorate in traditional medicine from the Open International University for Complementary Medicines in November of 1994.
He is chairman of Earth Pulse Press, Inc., a research publishing and consulting organization.
He co-authored the book, Angels... Angels Don't Play This Harp, Advances in Tesla Technology, and wrote Towards a New Alchemy, The Millennium Science.
He is the editor of the Earth Pulse Flashpoints, a continuing new science book series.
The Good Doctor has published articles in science, politics, and education.
And is indeed a well-known lecturer, having presented throughout the U.S.
and in 19 countries over the past two years, has been featured as a guest on gazillions of radio and TV broadcasts, on his research activities on the HAARP project, new technologies, health, and environmental issues.
He has also appeared on dozens of TV documentaries and other programs throughout the world, covering the various areas of his work.
Since Dr. Begich was last with us, I would suggest we've got about a hundred new affiliates, which means we have literally millions of people in big cities like Boston, Philadelphia, blah blah blah, on and on, who have never heard of Dr. Begich, have never heard of Project Harp in Alaska, and are going to be shocked to find out What it's all about, which is what we're going to find out beginning now.
Dr. Begich, welcome to the program.
It's good to be with you all again.
It's been a while, and as I said, we've got an awful lot of people out there who have no idea whatsoever what HAARP is.
And I might even refresh my own memory, Doctor.
How did you first learn about HAARP to even think about investigating or, you know, Well, you know, that's really a good story.
When I was looking at this issue, it was purely by accident.
We had read a very short article in a magazine, actually.
Many of your listeners will know the magazine.
It was Nexus, and it was maybe a five-column-inch article that mentioned HAARP.
It caught my attention because the article was startling.
I mean, as we talk about it, everyone will know what that means, but it was startling.
I said, you know, this is something happening supposedly in my own backyard.
I like to think that I'm pretty informed on what's happening in Alaska because of my activity here.
It was something I knew virtually nothing about, so my first stop was to our community library to pull the sources that were referenced in the article, which is sort of my habit when I see something that That really requires some attention and may be highly controversial.
My first thing is verify the sources, so that's what I did.
All right.
Well, roughly, what did Nexus say?
I mean, it had to say enough to get you intrigued.
They did.
They were something.
The article was about a super weapon being developed here in Alaska.
This weapon was designed along a series of patents by a gentleman, Dr. Bernard Eastland,
who's a quite brilliant scientist and physicist.
In that, what they suggested such things as being able to block global communications
would be possible, alter weather and climate, affect human behavior.
A number of other things were cited in this article, all of which I find quite shocking.
The idea that it could be happening in Alaska, we have a small population but a big area,
so things tend to circulate within that small population pretty readily.
You ran over that awfully fast.
Blocked terrestrial communications.
Correct?
Yes.
What else?
Can affect climate and weather.
In terms of being able to manipulate it or move it.
And?
The idea that it could affect human beings, biological systems, in a negative way was pointed out as well.
And the idea, and I don't know whether I did mention this, the idea of over-the-horizon radar capability and a number of things that went along with that.
And those were the things that just showed up in that really short article, but they were all very startling kinds of activities.
And it was really characterizing and describing to me something You know, in the back of my mind, having read a lot over the course of years and read some references to Nikola Tesla's work, that was my intuition.
And what the intuition proved out with the library stop and pulling the documents was, in fact, much of this technology, at least the creative stimulus for this technology, was indeed based on earlier ideas of Nikola Tesla, who was a quite brilliant turn-of-the-century inventor.
Were these all Well, obviously, then, at that point, you went to investigate yourself.
I mean, these are not trivial goals.
And is this a private... Let's start out this way.
Is it a private venture or a government venture?
It's a government project.
It's run by the Air Force and Navy in cooperation with a number of academic institutions and large private corporations.
The private corporations actually develop the science The military develops the applications and the academic community provides a core of scientists and researchers who also have of course other interests in the project as well.
I'm sure their research involves non-military uses as well as the military applications.
Do you think, and this is kind of a sensitive question, we'll get into the details about HAARP, but do you think that there are A benign scientist, or scientists who are relatively benign, who are working kind of in the dark.
In other words, the military frequently manipulates scientists into thinking they are doing and
developing some technology for the good of mankind when the military and their investment
in the project is not necessarily for the reasons they have told the scientists.
Absolutely.
Part of the nature of developing weapons technology is the idea that first you compartmentalize the research, make it into the smallest little parts you can that still are functional.
The other is the concept of need to know where people only know what's necessary for them
to complete their small piece.
A lot of times technicians, scientists and others get involved in projects and they really
don't see the big picture deliberately.
That's the way these systems are designed.
They may work along for quite a while and never realize what they're doing or at a very,
very late date finally realize how what they've done interacts with other scientific research
which then produces a new system.
That's how the Manhattan Project, as an example, that brought us the atomic bomb, was entertained.
And virtually every other major weapons system has been developed in the same basic pattern.
HARP is an acronym for what?
High frequency active auroral research project.
When you think about, first of all, high frequency is a bit of a misnomer in this sense.
The initial stimulus for the ionosphere, which we're going to talk about with the Aires-Jay
effect, but this is an area well above the Earth's surface, is in the high frequency
range but it has a much broader capability.
As we get into the more technical areas, we can cover that later tonight.
It's got a very broad range of frequency that it covers.
essentially a very large radio frequency A transmitter on the ground that has just some very unique characteristics to it.
As we go through, we'll talk about that.
Where is this project physically located?
The HAARP facility is at Kokona, Alaska, which is about 250 miles north-east of Anchorage.
There's a companion transmitter, a smaller one, called High Pass, located near Fairbanks, Alaska.
And there's a number of similar systems operated throughout the world, but none with the capability, at least the capability, where HAARP is headed.
All right.
I know Anchorage because I lived there.
In fact, I was there not long ago.
And Anchorage is a very interesting city.
It is a full-size city, no question about it.
But the moment you leave Anchorage, past, say, Eagle River, you're nowhere.
That's right.
So 250 miles northeast of Anchorage.
Well, that's kind of got to be out in the middle of nowhere.
Yeah, in fact, you know, there's there's a book that I think it is called The Middle of Nowhere, but it's basically describing where the military locates these projects.
Yes.
And it is in the middle of nowhere.
I mean, there's a very small community there.
It's very rural.
I mean, rural in a sense that people who don't live in Alaska have very little concept of what rural is, unless you're in Canada or Alaska.
Oh, it's true.
And there's no fences, it's wide open, very sparsely populated.
The bulk of the land in Alaska is federal land, so there's plenty to choose from.
In this case, it's an area that was initially intended for the backscatter over the horizon radar that they've actually built the harp on, so it's a pretty good site.
In terms of size, and it's remote, meets the criteria of remoteness, and yet far enough north to be in the position that it needs to be in to do the kind of work.
Well, yeah, but the people in the project maintain that there's no harm to human beings that would come from HAARP, right?
They maintain that, yes.
Then why did they have to build it 250 miles northeast of Anchorage?
Well, one of the other problems is it does interfere with communication systems.
I mean, much smaller transmitters have been tried in more urbanized areas, and at least that's the public excuse is, you know, this will interfere with communications.
In fact, it's funny, is when they were locating it in Alaska, they were so concerned about the communications, a couple of locations were eliminated that were near, that were probably more suited in many other ways, but were near military installations, and it would interfere with their communication systems, so they moved it out.
...into Bush, Alaska, and the problem there is Alaskans in the rural parts of this state rely on communication systems for, I mean, for our very life.
I mean, once you get out of the urban areas... Oh, I'm well aware of that.
I get calls from many Alaskans in the Bush using satellite phones and various other forms of radio or satellite communications.
There's no question about it.
Dr. Begich, hold on, we're at the bottom of the hour and we will be back in a moment.
...industrial communications...
Affect our weather.
Yeah, like we really need that.
Affect biological systems.
Now, that means you and me.
Or provide over-the-horizon radar.
Or even map underground tunnels and bunkers.
What could do that?
Perhaps... HAARP.
You know, HAARP sounds like such an innocuous thing.
A HAARP has a nice tune.
A relaxing tune.
One thinks of an angel, in fact, when one thinks of a harp.
But not necessarily this harp.
One other item, when you go to my website, by the way, Keith, if you're out there listening, attention, Keith!
If you can put a front page pointer to the antenna array of harp, I would really appreciate it.
I'll try and back that up with a phone call to see if perhaps Keith is, you know, he may not be listening to every minute of the show, but We've got a photograph of the antenna array, the HAARP antenna array, and it is relevant.
So you're going to want to go up to my website and take a look.
So Keith, if you can get a front page pointer in the new items to that antenna array photograph, I would heartily appreciate it for tonight at least, or maybe through the weekend.
And one other note, when you get up to my website to see Bigfoot or the antenna array, whatever reason, be sure and go over to the The Rogue Market.
And buy some Art Bell stock.
You wouldn't believe it.
My stock price now, per share, is $43,849.35.
per share is $43,849.35.
Not only have we surpassed all the other talk show hosts offered up there, but just about
everybody else in the rogue market as well.
It is astounding, and those who buy Art Bell stock now in the rogue market are bound to
get rich in rogue dollars over the next week or so as the stock continues to go right through
The roof.
I am of course worried that Alan Greenspan will say something about irrational exuberance with relation to my stock price but I can assure you it is not over overpriced and in fact Our earnings report is very bright indeed, so I expect the stock to soar.
Here, once again, is Dr. Nick Begich.
Doctor, these are very, very, very serious things.
Blocking terrestrial communications.
Let's think about that.
Why would we want to block terrestrial communications?
Well, if there was some kind of conflict, some kind of war, we might want to do it.
But that's the only reason I can imagine?
Yeah, that's the premise under which it's sort of unveiled in the course of the patent.
We've been very careful to try and keep the documentation in order in terms of laying this out, so we footnote everything very carefully.
When you look at the whole idea of knocking out communications, one of the attributes
of this system as well is not only can they knock out everyone else's communication, but
they can also use the same system while they're doing that to carry their own communications.
In other words, they can talk to each other, but no one else can talk to each other.
That would include radio like this, television, virtually all forms of communication, including
landline communication.
In fact, you have got to be kidding.
Now, for example, I can understand that they could affect the ionosphere.
At night, a lot of the radio stations I'm on right now bounce very strong signals off the ionosphere and back to the ground, and that's how people are able to hear these big 50,000-watt radio stations hundreds of miles away.
Now, are you telling me they could block that?
Absolutely.
At high enough power levels, of course beyond the developmental prototype stage, but the full power array, system that they envision that's exactly right
it's it's similar uh... you know the talk recently about the uh...
uh... solar event that's even if that heads our way and and create disruption
in communication and it creates uh... sometimes can even create power grid failures and so
on you know essentially what that is is that uh... an e m p e
electromagnetic pulse coming from the from the sun and and passing through
our system as a matter of fact doctor uh... there are bulletins all over
the place there are there have been two x class events on the sun which are
considered to be the strongest of all
and that are headed our way.
that are headed our way right and that you know this is from what you have here if
Right.
This is what you have here, is you have something on the ground that's operating essentially
you have something on the ground
that operating essentially in the cavity between uh... the uh... up ariana's fear and and the earth and so
in the cavity between the upper ionosphere and the earth.
it's working a little bit differently but it's a controlled coherent
It's working a little bit differently, but it's a controlled, coherent, rhythmic, if
you will, signal that's allowing the energy in some cases to bounce, in some cases changing
the state of the ionosphere and others following magnetic field lines that surround the earth.
But whichever application or however they're applying the technology, in the case of communications,
it's essentially an artificial electromagnetic pulse.
We used to be able to create those with a thermonuclear detonation in the upper atmosphere
or they could occur naturally with solar activity.
You mean it can be that strong?
Now I understand a nuclear detonation up high would provide an EMP that would knock out computers, would prevent communications and all the rest of it.
You're telling me that HAARP could conceivably Exactly.
And so from a military perspective, it obviously has advantages because you can control it
with some precision as well as you don't have the radioactive fallout that you would get
from a thermonuclear blast.
Good Lord.
I should add that I already looked.
Heath is a fast guy and if you'll go to my website in the new items right there at the
top you'll see a link.
Go look at the HAARP antenna array.
We've got an actual picture of it, and a doggone good one, I might add, on the website right now.
It is a remarkable sight, Doctor, to look at this array.
Now, let's move to another category.
Before we begin describing what HAARP really is, technically, there is a suggestion it could affect the weather?
Absolutely.
In fact, one of the things that comes up in the patents, initially, is the idea that you could use this for creating a couple different ways, actually.
One, by making a hole in the ionosphere, which is one of the stated military uses.
What happens is a hole appears, and this hole appears 30 miles where the ionosphere begins, about 30 miles above the Earth's surface.
And would extend several hundred kilometers up and maybe be around 30, 40 kilometers in diameter.
What happens is lower atmosphere then rushes in to fill that void.
And there's a number of uses for that atmosphere being in that place.
But what it also does is alter localized weather patterns.
Now this is with a small array.
With a much larger array you can do a lot more with it.
Now let me understand.
The HAARP transmitter blasts a hole through the ionosphere Uh, and you said 30 to 40 kilometers, um, diameter?
Yes, that's the potential, yes, at the first phase.
At the first phase, good lord!
And then the lower atmosphere rushes in to fill that void, and the lower atmosphere, of course, is where our weather is.
Clouds, uh, winds, whatever.
Uh, and so it literally, it literally sucks the weather up.
More or less.
I mean, it eventually re-stabilizes, as at least they tell us it does.
But the idea is what you then have is, in the localized area, you have a big shift in the way weather patterns are moving.
And in Alaska, where much of the weather for the lower 48 states and Canada originates, I mean, this is a very significant factor, because it can certainly move things around in an undesirable or maybe a desirable way, but we're playing with something that uh... what you affect in one part of the planet is not
going to operate in a vacuum it's going to have a profound effect if things move around
in the way the way the earth is more or less an interactive
uh... system you can't just do it here and expect it not to have any effect
anywhere else well in other words if you cause it to rain through some manipulation in area A that means that
it would not rain in area B where it would have otherwise rained
Is that roughly true?
That's a good example.
In fact, there's a quote that I can give that was given earlier this year, much after our book came out, by Secretary of Defense Cohen.
Talking about weather change, and he was actually lecturing, he was lecturing at the, well let me see, it was a Mahler Auditorium, University of Georgia on the 28th of April this year, and he said, this is our Secretary of Defense, and I quote, others are engaging and even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely to the use of electromagnetic waves, unquote.
And what Cohen was referring to was this new class of weaponry that can be used for manipulating geophysical systems.
In fact, talking about HAARP in this context, there's another writer, Brooks Agnew, who published an article called Looking Through the Earth, which talks about the Earth penetrating tomography, the X-ring, if you will, in the vernacular of the Earth, and using this HAARP system.
And he suggests that if they hit the specific resonant frequencies that he discovered in
his work in the early and middle 70s, what will be found is that you can in fact trigger
these kinds of geophysical events within the earth.
And now we have our Secretary of Defense suggesting in the context of this question and answer
period at the end of his lecture in Georgia, that terrorist organizations may also possess
this capability.
And yet here we have an Alaska system that's being designed that will operate within the
frequency ranges necessary for creating exactly these kinds of events and will operate in
modes that fall along that same line.
So we're obviously concerned about it.
Whether they know this at the front end of the project is a concern to us as well, because this is something they may inadvertently do as a side effect in the course of their experimentation.
How much do they know about the effect that a harp will have when it's cranked up to full power?
And we'll be covering that here in a bit.
And how much is guesswork?
I know that before we exploded the first atomic bomb, there was considerable opinion that the entire atmosphere might go into a chain reaction, and we'd blow ourselves to smithereens.
That, of course, did not happen, but they thought it might, and frankly, at the moment, they pushed the button.
They weren't absolutely sure what was going to happen.
You know, I think that's a fair analogy and one we've used in the past.
When you look at this system, the first thing we note is that they don't know.
Once they hit certain power levels and certain thresholds beyond anything they've experienced before, and they know that it will throw a portion of the ionosphere into a state of chaos, and then
they suggest that that energy release as it finds a place to re-stabilize it or re-organize
it at some higher level, and they don't know where that higher level is.
John Heckscher, who was the program manager on this project for the military, even in
a piece of film I saw recently, indicated they don't know.
That's the whole purpose of the experimentation.
And the view of it, in some of the literature that they've produced, they talk of it as a plasma laboratory in the sky.
And that's the mindset going in.
And that's part of the problem as well.
Well, this reminds me of scientists who are sort of You know, inquiring minds and saying things like, well, let's take a whole buck full of C4 and put it down here in this earthquake fault zone and see what happens!
You know, I think that's another analogy that could be applied.
I think in some instances, however, a lot of these scientists really don't have a clue.
In other instances, I think they're well aware, and for whatever reasons, You know, they feel like they can do this safely.
What we found, and one of the things that came up with Brooks Agnew's work, which is, again, this Earth-penetrating tomography or X-raying of the Earth, he was able to do with 30 watts of electrical energy in the radio frequency range, was able to penetrate the Earth a couple of kilometers deep And actually demonstrate in nine states and 26 drill logs, drilling programs, demonstrate that just as accurately as the drill logs showed, his earth-penetrating tomography method with 30 watts could lay out the strata of the ground, including showing oil fields, gas pockets, and so on, with 96% accuracy.
Was this an on-site application?
In other words, he had to go And apply this 30 watts of RF energy directly to the area he was examining?
Yeah, but it covered a very large area.
And what he suggests in this is that with the amounts of energy involved in HAARP, if they hit those same resonant frequency ranges at sufficient power levels, He equates it to possibly a couple of things occurring.
One thing that he projects might occur is you get this more or less a standing wave that keeps amplifying in energy until energy is released, and what ends up happening is you trigger energy that's maybe in place in the earth, like along a fault line where there's stresses building up, and you get the right resonant frequencies, you could call it that, stress to release prematurely or release more energetically than maybe it naturally would, triggering an earthquake.
The other thing that he suggests is that when they're running the system, that it might actually, in some modes of operation, act as a shunt, or a carrier of current, if you will, allowing the ionosphere to follow that, which is a charged area, for the electrons to discharge through the ionosphere, through that shunt, back down to the Earth.
And what he suggests, and this is his worst case, I must say, his worst case scenario, Would be as if the largest bolt of lightning in the world were striking the earth 40 times a second in that spot.
Now that's, from his perspective, a worst-case scenario, but it echoes of what the earlier statements by our U.S.
Senator Ted Stevens when he was on the Capitol Hill in the early 90s pitching this program.
On the floor of the House, or the Senate, he suggested that That's exactly what the system was designed to do, was to shunt energy out of the ionosphere for use on the Earth, and he was quickly dismissed by a lot of people for that.
But the fact is, here it is coming full circle, and now someone else is expressing not the wonderful attribute of that, but that there might be some real problems associated with that particular... Alright, Doctor, I'm a ham radio operator, and though I now live out in a very suburban-type area where I don't bother people, Hams run a lot of power.
Not to compare with harp, but they run power.
And frequently, when you're in a suburban-type neighborhood, with homes close by, you know, people are watching their TVs or listening to their stereos, and any little tiny hiccup in the picture, any little unusual sound in the sound system, and they will inevitably go and bang on the door of the ham radio operator in the neighborhood and blame them.
And I wonder if HAARP is suffering some of that kind of psychology.
In other words, we get El Nino, there's big waves, bad weather, it's HAARP.
I've got a headache today, it's HAARP.
Communications are rotten today, it's HAARP.
Could some of that be going on?
Absolutely.
In fact, I would say if there's any discouraging points along the way of trying to get this
story out, it's been that.
In the sense that it's a lot of sincere people that are concerned about the project, but
making correlations that aren't necessarily there.
I mean, is it plausible?
Certainly.
But is it happening and is it credible?
That's something that would really require independent monitoring to know, A, it's firing
at the time in which the observances are being made, and B, that those observances are frequent
and reoccurring as the system fires within a certain frequency range.
I mean, that kind of analysis and monitoring is not being done.
It's one of the things we've been trying to have happen since we started this, but there's a lot of connections.
All right, Doctor.
We're at the top of the hour.
Stay right there.
Tell us the truth about a project like this.
I live in the state of Nevada.
Pretty sparsely populated.
We have the nuclear test site just across from me here.
And when I used to live in Las Vegas, the government would consistently assure us that the underground tests that they were doing Had no possibility whatsoever of leaking radiation into the atmosphere.
None!
Absolutely safe, they would say.
However, on days when they were going to conduct a test, they would send out a warning that anybody on a high building in Las Vegas should get out of any precarious position they might be in.
But even more worrisome, after stating there could be no leak, If the winds, the prevailing winds, happen to be blowing from the test site toward Las Vegas, they called off the test.
Now, I always found those assurances, and then the reality of the calling off of the test when the winds were going the wrong way, to be a bit of a problem.
If nothing can leak, then what difference does it make which way the wind is blowing?
And I'm not sure which way the wind is blowing with harp.
Doctor, welcome back to the program.
Good to be back.
Let us explain to the audience, for those who don't know, what the ionosphere is.
Now, we're the big radio station, a lot of people listening at hundreds of miles of distance, they don't know that there is this This ionosphere, it goes all the way around the Earth at about what altitude, Doctor?
It starts at about 30 miles and then goes up several hundred miles high, and it's an energized area.
It acts as a reflector for radio signals, more or less, allowing them to go across and over the horizon so people can hear this broadcast tonight, for that matter.
The condition of the ionosphere has a direct effect also on the quality of that signal.
So part of the whole idea of learning about the ionosphere is to learn how to better manipulate and control the processes of the ionosphere so you can have clear communication.
That's certainly part of this HAARP project as well.
The thing about the ionosphere is it also is a protective layer.
It keeps incoming radiations of various kinds from coming into our medium environment, like x-rays and cosmic rays and various particle streams.
I was going to say, even though it is convenient to bounce radio signals off of, one has to imagine there is a use for it in the greater ecological sense for the Earth.
Absolutely.
In fact, when you think about holes in the ionosphere versus, for instance, holes in the ozone layer, ozone filters out ultraviolet light.
If it comes through, we get sunburn and skin cancers.
On the other hand, the ionosphere filtering out these much more powerful particle streams
basically keep everything intact.
If they were allowed to pass freely into the planet, they would alter the genetic blueprint
of the planet.
They would have profound effects on every living organism in the world.
Really?
It's a very important layer.
What happens there is very relevant.
The fact that we're playing with it is one of the things that concerns us.
Can radio operators like myself transmit signals that bounce off the ionosphere in short waves?
Now, we begin with an antenna on the ground that has the various sorts of antennas, there are many, that has a very broad, excuse me, narrow beam width.
Very narrow.
When we start transmitting, if you can imagine, it's just a very narrow little pinpoint.
And as it goes toward the ionosphere, it broadens out and broadens out and broadens out.
And so when it hits the ionosphere, it is indeed a very broad signal.
And then it is reflected back to Earth, and the next time it goes up, it's even broader.
So it hits the ionosphere, in effect, very lightly.
Yes.
And as it spreads out, as that energy spreads out, more or less, what you get is a decrease in power density, which is why the further away you get, the softer the signal.
What you have with HAARP is something much different.
You have a phased array antenna field, which is nothing unique about phased array antennas, except the software and the configuration of this field.
And when you look at ART's website, you'll see it.
I mean, what happens is they fire the antennas in a specific sequence to create a focusing ability using a principle of cyclotron resonance.
They're able to focus the energy into a relatively small area.
So instead of spreading out with distance, It focuses or concentrates.
In the same way, an analogy could be drawn with the way that a light leaves a flashlight.
It spreads out very quickly and dissipates with distance, whereas through a laser it's focused and concentrated.
You could think of this as a radio frequency laser, although it's not focusing quite so narrowly and tightly, but the principle is there.
It's focusing the energy as opposed to letting that energy... Alright, should I think of this as ...a radio signal that, uh, the HAARP signal that leaves, uh, the Earth in a laser-like way and remains roughly the same diameter when it strikes the ionosphere or, in fact...
Does it start out the exact opposite as a broader signal on the ground, which then becomes focused at a very small, relatively pinpoint size when it gets to the ionosphere?
It focuses, it's correct, it's a big field on the ground and it focuses to a small size.
A pinpoint is...
Maybe too much.
I mean, that's one of the things that they beat us up for, because we use the expression of point.
And in the mathematical sense, that's that infinitely small area.
What we're trying to do is illustrate it, focusing it.
And then by moving it, by being able to move the array, they can actually steer it the way they can fire it and manipulate it.
So even though it's a small area, They can affect in milliseconds the steering of it, so it impacts a larger and larger area by more or less making broad sweeps at a very, very rapid rate, driven by very sophisticated computer software.
Alright, and as you said earlier, one of the things it's going to be able to do is to literally poke a hole in the ionosphere, this very important protective layer, Poke a hole in it 30 to 40 kilometers in size, literally burning a hole in it, actually.
Right.
And the thinking, or the hope, is that it will fill back in again after they poke their hole in it.
Right.
And, you know, the question comes up, and we haven't even breached it, is what do they want to make a hole in there for in the first place?
Well, alright, let's ask.
Why do they want to make a hole in the ionosphere?
The thing that we found early on that was interesting is once that lower atmosphere rushes in to fill that space, low orbiting satellites, if they encounter that pocket of atmosphere, it creates drag forces and actually destroys the object.
The other thing that we found more recently, and it was sent to us by one of the largest research institutes in the world, sent us this little blip on uh... new technologies for instance for breaking up on the
comments are asteroids and so on to a lot of discussion about that these
days players and it when you think about a commenters uh... for
instance the atmosphere thing we all hear about as most of them burn up
in the upper atmosphere
you see how badly said from the lower ionosphere to the earth you have about
thirty miles Right.
If you could, and you can, with a large antenna array used in the manner that HAARP can, you can extend that 30 miles of lower atmosphere, that dense atmosphere, you can push it out another couple hundred kilometers.
At the same trajectory, at an angle, at the same trajectory as an incoming object, you give more time, almost five, six times more time for that object That's incredible.
Now if I'm trying to picture this in my mind, here you are blowing a hole in the ionosphere and literally pushing the ionosphere up or pushing the atmosphere up.
So you're saying if they were to detect an object coming toward us, they could add a couple of hundred miles more of burn time for this thing to burn up.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
That's the way it's described.
This is by one of the top Alright, we also have, in fact I use, every day I take weather photographs, NOAA satellites, which orbit just a couple hundred, three hundred miles, whatever it is, above the Earth, and they are called polar orbiters.
more accurately than us, call it an SDI system.
All right. We also have, in fact, I use every day, I take weather photographs, NOAA satellites,
which orbit just a couple hundred, three hundred miles, whatever it is, above the Earth,
and they are called polar orbiters. Now clearly, they would be in the range,
you said the ionosphere goes thirty miles to hundreds of miles up,
so they could blow a hole ahead of one of these satellites, and when the satellite
hit this denser atmosphere that had been pushed up, it would create drag and bring that sucker down, wouldn't
it?
That's correct.
That is absolutely correct.
Wow!
And the thing about it is, if they're right and it does fill in relatively quickly, once you switch it off, it's one of these unexplained events.
You know, it's not like a missile hitting it that leaves a trail.
You could certainly monitor it with the right equipment, but it's one of these things you can possibly deny as well.
So it becomes interesting as, again, as a ground-based Star Wars weapon system.
And the interesting part of that is, at the very end of the last presidential election, When Dole was debating the issue of Star Wars and starting to raise that again, he said the cost had dropped substantially, and the reason he said it had dropped is he also said that it went from a satellite-based system augmented by some things on the ground to the opposite.
Four ground-based systems augmented by satellites in orbit.
With HAARP, really, a developmental prototype that presents some of that technology for the military, the things that we're concerned about is not so much the defense applications, because I still think we're in a volatile world, but it's the risk factors associated with getting us that capability, and we need to make sure that we're approaching it from... Well, we'll talk about the biological effects of this.
They tried firing a laser at a satellite here recently.
And they did fire a laser, a ground-based laser at a satellite, and I have not heard the results yet.
Are you privy to those results?
I haven't seen the results, but we've been tracking, you know, laser technologies for quite a while, and you know, there's the testing of these systems that supposedly, you know, if you'd read press reports three years ago, they were denying that anything exciting was happening there.
And now they're telling us they're doing the test.
And that's very typical of the way these kinds of projects are developed.
So, they're still very obviously interested in ways to disable orbiting satellites.
Very, very interested.
And HAARP might be a much better, more efficient, cheaper, and again, effective way to disable a satellite than a ground-based laser, which has to penetrate a very great deal of the lower atmosphere, and that's very hard.
Exactly.
And the other part of all of this is when you're talking about technologies, the military follows several lines of research at once.
What you have with HAARP, and we've touched on just a few of the applications so far, is It's a very versatile tool.
It has a lot of different capabilities.
It's that variety or that versatility that make it unique.
I mean, in the sense of here you have a system that you can use, as we said, for penetrating tomography, for communications.
You can also use it for communicating with submarines.
At higher data rates, you can use it for transporting energy from one place on the planet to another.
Oh, brother.
In fact, there's a... Okay, hold that thought.
We're at the bottom of the hour again.
We'll be right back.
Dr. Nick Begich is my guest.
All right.
Now, they're up there, many of them, looking at that antenna ray.
Now comes the really scary part about all of this.
As a ham radio operator, I've got a station here next to me.
I love it, as a matter of fact.
And I run 1,000 watts of RF energy.
And that gets me around the world quite handily.
Thank you very much.
Then you might look to commercial broadcasting.
And I've got AM radio stations scattered all over the country, many of them running as much as the legal maximum 50,000 watts.
That enables people to hear literally sometimes all the way to New Zealand and Australia and all over the world.
So it gives people a sense of what we're about to talk about.
I run 1,000 watts.
The big stations run 50,000 watts.
50,000 watts.
What are the plans for this HAARP project?
The first phase is for 1 billion watts.
1 billion watts?
That's correct.
The second phase goes 4 to 10 billion, depending on which of their documents you read.
And this is effective radiated power.
And then at the very highest desired level, according to one of the technical memorandums we found in our research, their desired level is for 100 billion watts.
Which is the level of power that John Heckscher on CBC TV in Canada acknowledged it would take to modify weather on a very broad scale.
So you're talking about unprecedented, huge amounts of energy, coherent energy that can be controlled on the ground, manipulated in various ways, and create tremendous weapons effects.
At the same time, creating these side effects that we've started to... That's absolutely an unimaginable amount of power.
A hundred billion watts.
You know, we had a physicist actually look at that and compare it to a Hiroshima-type bomb in terms of if HAARP is operating for a certain amount of time, you know, what does that equate to?
And I believe, if I recall correctly, it was about an hour of operating time.
I just recently came back from Egypt.
kind of energy release at its upper power levels in the space.
All focused very tightly on the ionosphere.
That's just astounding.
Now, I just recently came back from Egypt.
Got a chance to lay in the sarcophagus in the Great Pyramid.
And there have been a number of experiments, Doctor, of recent days, acoustic experiments
done by scientists, which show that the resonant frequency in the pyramids, in the chamber
itself, is approximately 7.8 hertz, which also coincidentally, interestingly, happens
to be the resonant frequency of the The Earth itself, roughly 7.8 Hertz, something like that.
Now, the HAARP project will use some higher frequencies, but I have heard rumors that they may transmit down in this extreme low range.
Is that true?
Absolutely.
In fact, the Schumann's Resonance, which is what you've talked about, 7.3 was discovered by a scientist in the 50s.
And has now coined the phrase, Schumann's Resonance, the resonant frequency of the earth.
Yes, sir.
In fact, right in the middle of our website, it's in our trademark, 7.83 hertz.
And what you see in that is that also is the brain frequency of human beings in the alpha state.
And in a very good, that particular frequency is extremely good for accelerated learning.
And, you know, what we know about HAARP as it relates to extremely low frequencies, ELF, is that what they do in this situation is they pulse the high frequency energy from the transmitter into the ionosphere.
And the pulsing ends up causing the ionosphere to more or less pulse back.
In other words, it starts to resonate, vibrate with that incoming pulse.
They can even play music and have it vibrate to the music.
but when it vibrates a convert from a c which even bc current a c current and becomes virtually
like an antenna in the sky that instead of
being a uh... a few kilometers long on the ground it's thousands of
uh... kilometers long and it then send back to the earth uh... an e l f
at the polls for it so they can go everywhere from ultra low frequency
uh... all the way up uh... by paul king in shaping
uh... the wave uh... the waveforms on the ground so it's a very versatile tool
for the e l f then comes back to the earth this is what's actually used for the earth penetrating tomography
application In fact, the range of frequency for that application, according to the heart planners, is 1 to 20 hertz, which correlates to the predominant brainwaves of human beings.
Great.
Alright, so, if I understand this correctly, they will fire at the ionosphere, this higher frequency, causing it to pulse back to resonate And fire back toward the Earth this frequency, which is virtually, as you mentioned, the Schumann Resonance Frequency, or the same operating frequency of our alpha brainwaves.
Absolutely.
Okay, fine.
So, here's what's always scared the hell out of me.
If they can take this and cause it to penetrate the ground to great distances, searching for underground tunnels and bunkers, right?
Right.
For whatever reason, they would search for these.
That's a whole other subject.
Before it can go into the ground, penetrate the ground...
It's got to go through the biological organisms that are above ground.
Us.
That's correct.
In fact, we were very careful when we wrote our book to document each of these areas so that people could come through that portion of our writing and understand clearly what this means because what happens uh... in the lf range of what more and more research is
showing is that you can trigger chemical reactions within the body
in fact there was a document that we fight uh... called low intensity conflict in modern technology
that was put together by maxwell air force base
where they describe the use of a pulse radio frequency weapon for debilitating
uh... troops to the point of being combat ineffective and also i mean what
can it do to you well essentially uh... you know if you can uh... manipulate
uh... the the brain frequencies of humans one of the things you could do is
make people very lethargic
You could create a situation where they were disoriented.
You could, on a more tactical scale, a similar system, but on a much smaller scale and more directed, you could actually, in the course of that document, low-intensity conflict, actually stop a heartbeat.
So, you're talking about something... Wait a minute.
You never said that before.
You could stop a heartbeat?
With a directed energy weapon of a similar nature, but it would be much smaller and much more concentrated in a closer range device, but the same basic technology is there.
And this shows up again in military documents that we very carefully cite, because this is all those important aspects.
Now with HAARP, It's operating at a lower power density in terms of what's coming back to the Earth.
In fact, let's just assume for a minute that the military, as they've stated it to us, are absolutely correct at the energy level coming back with the prototype, which is the small system they have now.
Yeah.
What they say is the energy coming back is approximately the energy density of the Earth.
The only difference is that it's coherent or controlled within this 1 to 20 Hertz frequency range.
Assuming that's correct, and I personally don't believe that that is correct, I think that it's higher than that, but let's assume it's correct.
Research done at Yale University through the 80s actually, the early 80s, by Jose Delgado, who had been there for some decades before doing work on the effects of energy on the brain, electric current particularly, later radio frequency, and what he found is that energy at 150th of what the earth naturally produces was sufficient to change the chemistry in the brain sufficiently to change behavior almost as easily as turning on and off a light switch and he demonstrated this with primates and humans in a laboratory environment using a pulsed radio frequency signal.
Now his research was actually cited in the military documents surrounding these new weapons technologies and it becomes highly disturbing.
There's even Newer documents that have come out since, one in particular, New World Vista, which was put out by the Science Advisory Board for the Air Force, projects even more incredible weaponry in terms of this kind of what they're calling non-lethal applications, things that can disturb people and change the behavior of people without necessarily killing them.
Is it within the realm of possibility?
I mean, you know, things are heating up with Iraq again.
Yes.
Now let's say that everything went south and we got ourselves into another conflict and we got past the point of lobbing these cruise missiles in, which is what we do when we want to punish him lately, and we had to actually have troops on the field and we had Uh, troops on our side, a half a million.
Troops on the other side, a half a million.
You've got a battlefield situation.
Uh, tension is building.
Would HAARP conceivably, could it be conceivably used to direct a very, very high energy reflection from the ionosphere to a rather specific point on Earth?
And what I'm asking is whether a battlefield force Could be disabled or confused or made ineffective at a great distance.
You know, it's interesting, as one of the things that we found in the patent cluster surrounding this project, in terms of focusing the energy, which is really important, because for that to work, you really have to focus and maintain the integrity of that focus.
Correct, of course.
Through huge distances.
Yes.
And what they had is three patents surrounding the idea of transferring, first of all converting
electrical energy to radio frequency, running it through this array, bouncing it off of
a large reflector in space, and then coming back to Earth so that it could be reconfigured
back into electrical energy and introduced to the power grid.
Which implies, of course, that you have to be able to control the focus relatively narrowly
in order to do that.
narrow focus or you'd be burning things up on the ground.
And at the same time, a reflector that gets hit with a solar wind and moves an eighth of an inch, when you cover that distance, we know what we can do with getting out of plum with being off a little bit.
This is another risk.
Is it possible?
Yes, I think it's possible.
The thing that I think is probably more probable, however, is that they'll take the basic knowledge of pulsed radio frequency energy systems and put something together that's much more battlefield appropriate in terms of size and compactness.
One of those such devices was actually demonstrated about a year ago on 60 Minutes, creating some controversy, but it really quickly got shut up.
I mean, you never heard another word about it.
And the problem with it was the side lobes, the energy coming off, not necessarily off
the front end of a machine like this, but off the sides, affected the operators as well.
So you've got a lot of energy being generated.
One of the things with HAARP that's interesting is this summer they just put, along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, they put in a new fiber-optic cable and they put a spur over to HAARP so they would be able to have really high data rates communication.
So essentially, the unit, the buildings and the facilities We're designed to run remote, and now they have the fiber optic cables put in this summer to allow them full remote.
If I understand correctly, you're suggesting the operation of the unit itself.
And it is true that transmitters affect those near them.
As a matter of fact, Get this, folks.
At power levels way, way down, a thousand watts, much lower, ham radio operators are now facing the prospect of the Federal Communications Commission regulating their power output down because of concerns about cancer and other biological effects uh... at normal shortwave frequencies of ham operators and
they're going to be p a
studies that are going to have to be done all the rest of it
and these are at very very low power levels and so you're telling me
that the heart facility may be dangerous
for the guys operating it So they may not operate it.
They may do it remotely.
Absolutely.
In fact, that's been in the very beginning planning documents of this facility.
It was designed to be operated remotely and designed modularly so they could continue to add to it without losing any of the previous investment.
And, you know, I mean, at least they're prudent about that side of it.
But I mean, in terms of as a practical matter, here you have this unprecedented amount of energy.
They want to convince the world it's safe.
And yet, as you said, ham operators now can't even operate safely at a thousand watts.
What makes them believe they can operate safely at a billion watts is well beyond me and well beyond many of the specialists that we've had on this.
Or a hundred times that, the ultimate hundred billion watt figure.
Exactly.
Is anybody speaking up and cautioning against this project?
I know certainly you have.
You've talked to the people at HAARP.
I have invited, as a matter of fact, the people at HAARP to come on and debate you and to straighten out any misconceptions or scaremongering that they figure you might be doing, and they don't want to come on the air.
You know, it's interesting.
They used to grant interviews, at least short ones that they could feel were fairly contained, and they even quit doing that this summer.
They denied an interview to Spiegel TV, the largest TV in Germany.
They denied an interview to this Learning The Learning Channel Ultra Science Program wants to do an interview.
Really?
And so that's quite uncharacteristic.
It's a big shift.
It tells us that the questions that are being asked are becoming more and more sophisticated.
One of the things that happened early on, about a year ago, we got the interest of Alaskan legislators and we had a public hearing, a legislative hearing on HAARP.
Right.
We brought in a physicist.
Uh, Patrick Flanagan, we also brought in an atmospheric physicist from Princeton, New Jersey.
Yes.
That was a lively debate.
It generated a lot of interest.
The legislator was told not to do another one, so she never would give us another hearing.
Uh, the next thing that happened was we were contacted by Tom Spencer, who is Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee in the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee for the European Parliament.
Right.
We've been, now, because he's taken this issue on, he read, actually, he read our book.
And the interesting thing is, he got our book, From an individual here in the States who heard us on this show.
Oh, really?
So, I mean, here we are again.
But Tom got the book from him, he read it, he passed it to scientists that he knew in Europe, and they basically said, yeah, we're aware of it, but you might want to let this one go.
And Tom Spencer is one of those rare politicians that just, that's the time when he fully engages.
Tell me something, Doctor, if I were being affected by this high energy Biologically affected.
What would I feel?
Would I be just lazy?
Would I feel confused?
It depends on how they use it.
Certainly, you know, those things can be created.
In fact, it shows up in some literature.
They tested a similar system, a small system, however much smaller, at a protest in England that created a dizziness and it also created uh... bowel movement
protesters is a bad situation i mean obviously but it was uh... not all that will be slow up a protest at
the hotel and the real quick
but they you know they can do all of those things but the it depends on how
And what we know from the latest research is you can create a number of effects in terms of behavior, being happy, being sad, enamel switching as quickly as switching a light switch.
What about fear?
Absolutely.
They can create a highly agitated state, they can create a fear state using the same system.
Because when you look at the brainwave patterns of people who are in those states of consciousness, if you can drive a signal in that more or less reproduces what the brain will entrain or lock onto those signals, more or less mirror them, if the energy is correctly administered.
Doctor, now having heard all this, the military denies HAARP is a weapon, correct?
Uh, yeah, they do, but it's getting more difficult to maintain that at this point, yes.
Yo, yo, you could disable people on a battlefield, you could cause confusion, you could cause fear, and they're not going to use that as a weapon.
Check.
Doctor, stand by, we're going to take a top of the hour break and we'll be right back.
Those of you who have never heard Dr. Begich, nor heard about HAARP, You now should have a basic understanding of what's up there in Alaska and what's coming.
Doctor, here is a fax from Tom, listening in Tucson, who says, Art, good morning.
I seem to recall reading that the HAARP project was one of last year's most under-reported stories, according to a media monitoring service.
The project sounds similar to Cassini.
Where guesses, hidden assumptions, minimization of risk are the rule.
Does Dr. Begich feel that bureaucrats are the driving force behind HAARP, as opposed to the scientists involved?
Shouldn't the public be appraised of the true risks involved in this project?
Yeah, absolutely.
That was the whole purpose in us writing our book.
In fact, Project Censored, which is the project he's talking about, was the news that didn't make the news, named The Harp Story in 1990.
five the most one of the top ten stories under reported stories in the country
and named our book last year as one of the twenty two most important books of
the year because it did disclose the risks uh... in a way that at
least asked that the the top and and salient questions
do i think it's um... something being driven strictly by bureaucrats
no i think it's a combination of factors i think the basic thrust
is the military's interest in gaining the tool and they'll use any scientist or anyone else that they can
to reach the goal I mean, when we've talked about some of the applications militarily, one of the others is over-the-horizon radar, looking around the curvature of the Earth and detecting incoming objects from ICBMs all the way down to cruise missile heights.
So in that sense, strategically, it's very important.
They can also With the same system, in conjunction with its satellite-based gamma-ray detectors, they can determine which of those incoming objects are carrying nuclear payloads, and they can also, with the same system... No, wait, wait, wait.
I'm going to stop you.
I can understand they could detect an object as radar would return any signal, but how would they determine that An object is carrying nuclear materials.
The way they describe it, and again this is in one of the patents held in this cluster of patents surrounding this
project, they suggest that there's a unique energetic signal or
signature, as they call it, around that incoming object.
And because of the payload it's carrying, that signature is unique enough to distinguish it from, say, what would be considered decoys, because in a nuclear attack they always envision lots of objects, but only a few actually carrying.
Sure.
nuclear weapons. And what they also suggest is that if you increase the
power level even more that you can create what are called bit errors or
computer errors on the avionic computers that control those incoming crafts
causing them to malfunction and crash. You have a very versatile tool from a
military standpoint and that's the drive.
I mean, initially, the whole concept was driven by much different objectives.
It was driven by ARCO power technologies, the desire to find a market for huge supplies of natural gas on the northern slope of Alaska, and that's kind of where it started.
What became of that is the concept to use that gas was this system which got the military very excited because They have been waiting, at least what we can show in our research since 1969, for a system that would allow them to electronically stroke the ionosphere for various weapons applications with this kind of system and high enough power.
The document that we found was a book actually called, Unless Peace Comes, with a chapter written by a geophysicist who was a specialist in warfare who was a science advisor to Johnson.
And they had looked for this kind of system, and interestingly enough, for triggering geophysical events such as those we've talked about tonight, and for manipulating the behavior of human beings, are cited in this gentleman's chapter, and he was a world-class scientist.
That same research was later cited by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, Between Two Ages, published in the early 70s.
It took approximately 25-30 years to get from at least the public concept of this idea to the actualization of it, but here it is.
We have a system at a developmental prototype state that exists.
All right.
This is a very general kind of question, but I think it's worth reflection.
Dear Art Nick, there is an equal and opposite reaction for most occurrences on the planet.
When you bend something that resists, it usually bends back.
When the atmosphere bends back, what do you think will happen?
You know, it is a good question, and that's the nature of the experiment.
I mean, for these guys, there already is a lot of natural movement shifting within the ionosphere, so we know it'll take quite a bit.
What isn't known is how it will react with coherent a controlled energy from the ground because those movements
are generally occurring because of things coming in from outside in terms of solar
radiation and so on.
So, you know, yeah, it'll handle a lot of flexibility.
The difference is you're dealing with coherent energy.
And let me give you another example of why that's relevant.
One of the things that showed up in Stanford research that we cite in the book is the idea that if you pulse energy in to the ionosphere, to the very top of the ionosphere where the magnetosphere couples it, if you pulse energy in at the right frequency there's a window frequency that causes an energy release.
It acts like a trigger on the end of a bullet, releasing energy.
In the case of the bullet, it's the gunpowder.
In the case of the upper ionosphere, the energy release amplifies the signal up to 1,000 times.
Oh, great.
So now think about it in terms of we have this huge transmitter on the ground.
that if it hits that specific window frequency that Stanford's defined, you can then cause
this amplification effect, tapping, literally tapping the energy that's there and allowing
it to amplify the signal arriving.
That's very important when we talk about energy levels because the military keeps saying this
is just a developmental prototype.
It can't do as much as a big system, not nowhere near what we're suggesting.
And yet, at the same time, the key scientist that discovered this phenomena is one of the scientists assigned to this project, who understands the amplification effect.
And so we draw into question, look, you guys, how much are you really telling us?
And that gets to the crux of the problem.
This sounds like science madness.
In other words, it's like an alien spacecraft landing.
And some guys going on board and saying, hey, let's push this and see what happens.
Except that here we're talking about our ionosphere, our protective layer.
Now, let me ask what may be a dumb question.
We blow a hole in the ionosphere.
We are now entering a very active time over the next several years.
With regard to the Sun cycle, we've had a couple of X-class, which is the highest class, flares you can have.
Very, very serious flares, emitting immense amounts of radiation toward the Earth.
If we blow a hole in the ionosphere, and we have an attendant flare that strikes Earth, the energy of which strikes Earth, at about that point, what could happen?
That does come up in the course of our writing as well.
This is the idea that if you have it active at that particular moment, then it ends up shunting the energy down.
In other words, the radio frequency beam, if you will, becomes like a wire transmitting electricity.
In other words, it acts as the conduit for that energy to flow to Earth.
So instead of being screened out, what Brooks Agnew suggests is that it will strike the
earth with the force of the largest lightning bolt 40 times a second until that energy is
discharged.
That is a very scary thought.
I mean, that is a huge, unprecedented amount of energy until that energy is discharged.
So, the same token, when you're talking about changes within the planetary system, I mean, it's obvious to everyone that when people were talking about climate change ten years ago, they weren't kidding.
And we're experiencing that.
The question is, how much is natural?
How much is man-made?
And now we have another ingredient.
And laying that debate aside, because there's certainly room for lots of discussion around that.
El Nino.
You bet.
And now here, you know, I was in Brussels, as I was saying earlier, Tom Spencer from Europe has brought us over now.
We've been there three times to Europe.
In May I went to Brussels and lectured to parliamentarians from 40 countries on this project.
These are the questions that we raised.
What are these real risks?
What do they represent?
What are the things that ought to be looked at?
What can be done with this system in terms of prudent behavior on the part of scientists?
I don't know what to believe from scientists anymore.
They say we have an incredibly strong El Nino.
If you look at the Atlantic hurricane season, it's been nearly non-existent.
Watching the Weather Channel earlier today, this is, let's see, November.
It's November now, and they've got yet another gigantic circular formation off the coast of Mexico.
That looks as though it's going to turn into a hurricane, God knows, hit Mexico or the Western U.S.
or take off across the Pacific and become yet another super-typhoon with winds in excess of 200 miles per hour.
So the weather is definitely cockeyed, and I understand December is going to be the month when all of this really begins to hit.
And you're right, how much is natural And how much is manipulated?
How are we to know?
Climate change was one of the central themes.
We had a delegation of parliamentarians from the Russian Duma there, and we had the Europeans represented.
And there was a lively debate about this between the Russian delegation and others, suggesting maybe nature was more than man in terms of the fault.
And the end conclusion after that debate was, it doesn't matter.
It's an irrelevant factor who started it.
Was it natural or was it us?
The acknowledgement was it's a combination.
And now we're adding in another factor, which is a system designed to deliberately manipulate
components of a very complex system dealing with weather development, dealing with protective
layers, things that are going to be interacting energetically in any case.
And here in Alaska, the effects of El Nino are huge.
I mean, we had temperature changes in the water off the coast of Alaska, 8 to 15 degrees up this year.
Unprecedented.
And it actually, those temperature gradient increases began before El Nino was noticed.
Which makes one wonder what the heck was causing that much energy to go into the water and manifest in the form of heat.
And this is all, you know, part of that, you know, that whole thing of we're looking at the Earth releasing energy in unusual ways.
We're seeing weather.
We're seeing, in other ways, you can measure energy releases from the Earth.
Increase in earthquake intensity, depth, and frequency is something many have charted.
University of Washington runs a pretty good chart over that, the last 30 years on that subject.
Tidal heights in the North Sea have risen steadily over the last 30 years.
The British have followed that because of their oil exploration development there.
These are all energy releases occurring naturally.
Here's one other little item to add on to.
You're absolutely right.
Whether it's natural or man-made, I don't think anybody anymore questions the fact the weather is changing as we watch.
But here's another little item for you.
There's this horrible little thing called the cell from hell, Fisteria, which apparently got started in the estuaries of North Carolina.
They think something that was sort of waiting at the bottom, and when the right kind of toxins reached it, activated this thing, which began to kill fish, put bloody sores on fish.
And I've got a BBC report, received late last night, which says now Hysteria has spread thousands of miles into the North Atlantic.
I'm not saying, you know, I may be in danger of doing what I warned about earlier, that HAARP is responsible, because I don't know that it is.
And this is one of the things that comes up, but you know what also comes up is when the energy, what you had said earlier, it was during one of the advertisements about the fact that we're energetic beings first.
Becoming clearer to everyone.
We're electrical beings.
Absolutely.
And when you look at, you know, we're energy, we're atoms, we're molecules, we're body, what you affect at an energetic level has profound effects of creating chemical changes that are well documented.
So let's take it a little differently.
Let's just assume that some of it's man-made energy coming in, some of it's natural energy coming in, but what we do know is the energy is changed.
And that can cause changes within living organisms, and maybe it just mutated an organism, and that's what we ended up with.
Exactly where I was going.
All right, Doctor.
Hold on.
We're at the bottom of the hour shortly.
We are going to open the phone lines and allow you to ask questions by request, folks.
We are, and back with Dr. Nick Begich right now.
Doctor, what is the latest update?
For those who have heard the HAARP story before, since we last spoke, what has changed, if anything, with the project?
Well, there's a couple things.
First, the developmental prototype, the 48 antennae that are originally designed for this project are up, and they're fully operational.
The second thing that's changed is this summer, as I said, they brought in the fiber optics cable for the highest data rate communications with the system.
That's a major component, because it's always been there that that was one of the important attributes of this project.
The third thing deals with power.
They've had on-site generators, and then there was initially a $150 million power intertie that would have connected uh... that part of the state with the rest of the state's
energy grid that intertie was uh... originally intended to run a couple
hundred feet away from this uh... facility in the uh... literally
plugged into it uh... which would have given the kind of input power that
they needed for you know the second and and for future phases of the project
right what um...
they they didn't get that intertie funded That was defeated by groups in Alaska, so it didn't happen.
And what they did this summer is they put in their own link to the power grid.
They added in a... And this is the funny part, I'm laughing, because they told the world that it was because they needed to energize the small workstation that they have out there.
Now let me be straight about this.
The Alaska legislature Or officials in Alaska turned them down regarding their request for these great big increases in input power so they can run this output power up.
And it was denied?
Is that correct?
The power grid, the introduction of the intertie was killed.
And it wasn't just for them, it was for everyone in that region.
Okay.
So what they did is this summer they put in their own smaller system that would get them alone the power that they needed.
They put in $1.2 million to bring power from a power generation station near Glen Allen, Alaska that's running at about 20-25% of capacity right now.
Wow.
So they have more power available to them.
They spent $1.2 million, they say, to just energize the buildings on the site, which is ridiculous.
They could have done it with a $4,000 or $5,000 generator.
Absolutely.
what they brought it for what so they would be plugged into that grid and have
that power available now i think this is very important because
implies that they're lying to us
absolutely and i and i believe that from about as clear a way as you
can put it because they are lying to us on a number of counts and what we've
done in structuring
uh... our research is we should we show people very clearly and we footnote
every source uh... that shows exactly what they say for instance to uh...
legislator representative a lot for a presentation at james in a
letter and then we show how their own documents
that they also produced, refute the words that they gave Jeanette James.
In fact, that's what got her so excited that she actually called a hearing in the state legislature,
Community and Regional Affairs Committee, last year to give us an opportunity to present our case,
because it was obvious that they weren't being forthwith with their comments on the process.
Well, they'll lie about the little things. They'll lie about the big things.
Well, and the little things weren't so little.
They were talking about the $25 million supercomputer and a $31 million rocket launch facility upgrade that they were telling the legislator was unrelated to this project.
Internal HAARP documents, we found, showed that they were absolutely essential for this project.
It's not unusual.
In fact, even within our book, we cite a military document that actually teaches and instructs subcontractors how to lie so that they don't have to disclose the full uses or the real uses of projects they're engaged in.
For national security reasons, but what I don't buy, and I think many people don't buy, is the idea that, okay, we may not need to know how to build these things, but we ought to know if there's risks involved, what they are, and what those trade-offs are as we evolve technology.
And I think that's legitimately in the public debate and should be there.
Well, we sure know now that over the years, an awful lot has been done to our citizens, our citizens, in the name of national security.
Absolutely.
And it becomes a veil behind which people that would like to try this stuff can get away with it.
And quite frankly, you can go back to the stories coming out of Hitler's Germany about the kind of experiments and be appalled.
You know, each year we get a new revelation about some project equally as sinister that our own government did and hid from the population.
It's inexcusable and it's not what democracies are based on, not what a democratic republic is about.
I certainly agree.
And this is the whole swill of it.
It's not just harp.
Harp's a symptom.
One of many symptoms of a malfunctioning government in many respects.
And I think that the secrecy syndrome does not have enough accountability.
It does not have enough interaction by the population to really know that things are moving along safely.
You almost have to wait 50 years, find out what happened to us, and then you can scream about it.
With HAARP, we found out while it was still in the developmental stage, we were able to get the story put together with the help of a lot of people and get it out there.
It's early.
It's one of these that we really need to see at least stop long enough for us to make sure what we're doing is sound, sensible, safe, and serves the public.
Well, in a lot of cases, you're right.
The government waits 50 years and then they announce what they have done.
And, of course, most of the people who are victims of whatever it was are either very old or already dead and unlikely to sue.
I want to give you a chance to plug your book, Angels Don't Play This Harp.
How do people get that book?
Okay, you can get it a couple of different ways.
You can get it by calling 907-249-9111.
You can also look at it on our website, and it's www.earthpulse.com.
You can also look at it on our website and it's www.earthpulse.com or you can get it
via mail and that's at P.O.
Box 207-423-4232.
Box 2-0-1-3-9-3, Anchorage, Alaska, 9-9-5-2-0.
And the book is $17.95 with air shipping paid.
Alright, you're going to have to do it again.
First of all, the phone number, and if I remember from a previous show, be very careful about how you dial this number, please.
It's area code 907.
2-4-9-9-1-1-1.
Now.
Correct.
Uh, do not dial 9-1-1.
That gets you emergency services, and we don't want to tie up their lines, so be very careful what you're doing.
Again, it's area code 9-0-7.
That's Alaska.
Then 249-9111.
Now, since you're in Alaska, and a lot of people might not want to call Alaska, $17.95.
And the address again, please.
It's P.O.
Box 201393 Anchorage, Alaska 99520.
us again please. It's PO Box 201393 Anchorage, Alaska 99520.
Okay. Good.
Do you have any other materials that you've produced since the book that would be relevant?
Actually, we do.
We produced a Flashpoint series, which is a microbook series covering diverse sciences, but it also contains the updates on HAARP.
There's a series of actually the last six are available.
The full series is 1995 and We Pay the Freight, and it's a very good series covering a lot of different areas.
We've written another book called Towards a New Alchemy, which you mentioned, and we also are starting to publish other people's work, so if people are just interested in a catalog, they can certainly contact us.
We'd be happy just to give them one.
All right.
Excellent.
Let us begin taking questions from the audience, because now I'm sure they have them.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich in Alaska.
Hello.
Good evening.
Good show.
Thank you.
Where are you?
Fairbanks.
Fairbanks.
All right.
Yeah, Nick, one of the comments that I make is we see that the weather, which is something that this project might be able to manipulate.
Throughout our generation, we've seen typhoons in Bangladesh.
It kills literally tens of thousands of people.
We see hurricanes that have whipped through Florida, literally billions of dollars in property damage.
If we can learn how to manipulate the weather through this project to maybe prevent a hurricane or stop a typhoon or stop a drought, I'd say It's a good thing that we can do.
You know, that often comes up, and I won't necessarily disagree with you.
I think if we could do that, if we could, in fact, do that efficiently without creating a detriment to someone else on the planet, that would be fine.
The problem is, it's a very complex system.
I mean, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute, right where you are, Recently, in the last few years, discovered sprites and these flashes in the upper atmosphere, upper and in fact lower ionosphere, that were never noted before, that somehow play into this complex system that we call Earth.
And the problem is when you start playing God with this system on the scale that's planned here, We may trip ourselves up.
All I say is if we can get these, let's do it cautiously.
Let's be careful.
Let's make sure we're doing it in a very sound and safe way with a broader perspective.
Let me add something to this.
Let's get very specific, Collar.
You mentioned stopping hurricanes.
Okay.
It dissipates energy on a massive, massive scale, doesn't it?
Yes.
Now, if we stop that from occurring, stop that energy from being dissipated in the form of a hurricane, I wonder how it will finally be dissipated.
Or, in fact, if it is not dissipated, what effect that heat energy remaining would have on global weather patterns.
Have you thought of that?
Well, that's a terrific question, Art.
That's the kind of discussion that has come up in the course of the patent.
the weather systems in a way so that you send the hurricane out over the ocean where it
doesn't cause any damage.
That sounds pretty good.
Yeah.
And you know, that's the kind of discussion that has come up in the course of the patents.
The original inventor, as I said, Dr. Bernard Eastland, is really a good guy.
We have an ongoing dialogue with him.
I mean, he sees some problems, obviously, with what he's designed with this system, but at the same time, his thought initially was that, A, if you could deflect weather patterns, such as the one that was just described, it might be advantageous to trade off maybe well worthwhile.
Well, that being true, we do have international agreements dealing with weather modification as it crosses international boundaries that have to be considered.
Those agreements go back 20 years.
You know, the other side of it is the same system as another attribute that may be beneficial.
Dr. Eason suggested that you could use this system for increasing ozone, for taking out pollutants in the upper atmosphere by manipulating those elements energetically using this system.
And you know what, Doctor?
I agree.
There aren't, like any powerful force, there are positive things that could be done and negatives.
Absolutely.
The only objection that I have Is that the scientists seem to have the egotistical view that they can go plowing ahead without bothering to advise the general public of the risks.
And, you know, we're grown up out here.
We understand that science must progress.
But I would like to know what the risks are and have some say in a Democratic vote about whether or not it's a good idea.
It is reasonable.
Scientists, in many cases, and not all cases, but in many too often, believe that because they have the credentials that somehow their sense of what's right and wrong is better than the rest of ours, and I don't agree with that.
They may have technical knowledge.
But the value judgments about what happens within our society are made by the population generally, not some academically elite group.
And there is, I believe, a collective wisdom.
It's not necessarily that the public would say, don't do it.
But at least let's have some public discourse about it.
Let's not do everything black budget and in some sneaky way.
And if they don't let you have this, then you just go on a black budget and accomplish it in some other way.
In other words, public be damned, we're going to do what we want to do.
That's worrisome.
And this is a good example of it, because Star Wars was defeated by the U.S.
Congress as an area where we ought to be delving.
And so they give a new name to a project, call it HAARP, and begin a new program.
Dealing with other applications that fall in that same genre.
So here we are, you know, doing what we're not supposed to do.
And this is very typical.
I mean, in my introduction, my father was in the State Senate, the U.S.
Congress.
I know how politics works.
This is very typical when bureaucracies want to run their own agendas.
And they do run their own agendas.
Do you remember the last big congressional raise?
When the American public said, no.
Right.
No.
And Congress sort of was quiet for a while, and then came back and gave themselves a raise.
Period.
I mean, they just did what they wanted to do.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich in Alaska.
Oh, how you doing, Art?
Okay, you're going to have to speak up good and loud for us.
I'm from Suzuki in Indian Springs.
How you doing?
Okay.
How you doing, Nick?
Great.
Yeah, I've got two questions.
One small comment, two questions.
Is it your assumption, or do you speculate at all, that there are also some HAARP-style technologies designed to fit in, say, a van and are used primarily to cause mental disruptions and, you know, eventual possible retardation if, you know, used properly?
In other words, used, for example, In a standoff situation, I'll talk about Waco, but a situation like that, where they would use a localized version of HAARP to cause confusion and disarray, is that one realm of possibility?
You know, HAARP would be the wrong name to give to it, but this would fall into that classification of non-lethal weapons, which we explore quite a bit within the context of our work.
A smaller scale, uh... uh... weapon yeah yeah that runs along the same
principle using a pulse radio frequency exactly
uh... absolutely yes and i think that's what's right in a moment at the conflict
in modern technology related in a number of other military documents
and it was actually demonstrated on sixty minutes a year ago a a system that
would uh... as was described in a large van
uh... and and do exactly that Okay, I got one more question.
Do you think spontaneous combustion is directly related, and do you think, actually two questions, the HAARP project-style technologies are capable of creating gigantic fireballs, synthetic lightning, stuff like that?
And I'll listen off the air.
The issue of spontaneous combustion I really can't answer.
I mean, how that happens is still a really unknown thing because it's not been observed as it's happening in a scientific way.
So I don't know.
On the question of plasma weapons or bald lightning, and I think you're probably referring to what's been observed in Australia, There's actually a patent, and I'll give you the patent number for those that want to look it up, that'll describe exactly what people are probably observing down there.
And it's patent number 4959559.
And it was for an electromagnetic or other directed energy pulse launcher.
And this creates exactly what... Did you say Australia?
Yes.
There's been some observation of these bald... Doctor, let me tell you something.
I have got video from STS-80.
Have you seen that, Doctor?
No, I haven't.
Well, let me tell you something.
It shows the cameras, the external cameras on the space shuttle during the STS-80 mission.
And it shows the shuttle coming up on Australia.
It's near the Terminator.
In other words, they're coming up on light, I think.
Or the other way around, I can't recall.
And the operator down on Earth focuses one of these external cameras down on either Australia or New Zealand.
It's hard to tell.
It's Eastern Australia.
I'm sorry, I just don't recall the exact point.
And the camera stays focused on one city.
Richard Hoagland could tell you about it.
And without question, Doctor, there is a gigantic ball-like thing that comes shooting up at an incredible speed from the ground into space.
And it's obvious that whoever was operating the cameras on STS-80 knew Well, this patent describes exactly what's been described as what you would expect.
until it did happen. It's absolutely remarkable video.
Well, this patent describes exactly what's been described as what you would expect.
And this patent, the interesting thing about it, we dug it out because we kept hearing these bits and pieces
and rumors about what this system was. And I'd like to read just one short paragraph out of this,
because it really is, it's exactly what, it will give a good visual image, and it's right out of the patent itself.
Go ahead.
and I quote, as asked, As the battle, as the Klingon battlecruiser attacks the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk commands fire photon torpedoes, two darts or blobs of light speed toward their target to destroy the enemy spaceship.
Stardate 1989, Star Trek Returns, or 3189, somewhere in intergalactic space, fantasy or reality.
The ability to launch localized packets of light or other energy... Doctor, Doctor, I'm sorry.
I've got to interrupt.
The clock says I've got to go.
We'll finish it when we get right back.
I think so.
Okay, all right.
This is right out of patent number 4959559, and it reads, and I quote, as the Klingon battlecruiser attacks the Starship Enterprise, Captain Kirk commands fire photon torpedoes.
Two darts or blobs of light speed toward their target to destroy the enemy spaceship, Stardate 1989, Star Trek Returns, or 3189, somewhere in intergalactic space, fantasy or reality.
The ability to launch localized packets of light or other energy which do not diverge as they travel great distances through space may incredibly be at hand.
And then this patent, which is owned by the United States Department of Energy and was developed out of Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, describes Just one of the most incredible weapons.
I mean, they pull from science fiction in order to describe what it would look like.
And for those who remember what that looks like, that's exactly the way these phenomena in Australia have been described.
And here it is right in a US patent.
That goes back to 1990, which means they were developing the idea much in advance of that.
So I think that's an interesting point and one that people should bear in mind when they hear those kind of reports.
There's probably a patent out there that might actually pin it right down.
All right.
One criticism that has been leveled at you, Doctor, is that when you talk about the power levels of HAARP, you refer to effective radiated power versus the actual output power.
Uh, of the, uh, of the transmitters.
Now, maybe you could explain in a way people, the average person could understand the difference between ERP and actual, uh, output power.
In that criticism, and this is interesting, is the military at first was talking about the effective radiated power, and that was after factoring in antenna gain, which in the case of this system, it creates an antenna gain of up to 1,000 times.
So you've got input power, and then you have the output power, the effective radiated power, and in essence, effective radiated power is what the military initially considered the fair measure
for comparing this to other transmitters
but as we raise the controversy they switched and then they started talking about input power
because these power levels raise the kind of concerns that we've raised on
the show So it's a criticism now, but we can show you 1990, 1991, 1992 documents where that's what they're at, that's what they're talking about, that's what they're excited about.
Well, your critics will say, but television stations, for example, many of them run a megawatt.
And that's a lot of power.
But what the critics don't say is that that power is directed generally back toward Earth from an antenna that's as high as they can get it in the air, not directed toward the ionosphere at all.
Right.
Because that would be wasteful.
There's nobody up there to watch.
And the other point is that energy, as you said, is dissipating very rapidly.
It's becoming less and less dense.
Here you have a system that's doing the opposite.
It's focusing the energy.
It's manipulating the energy, not to communicate a verbal message necessarily, but to communicate in a different way, to affect a change, to create a reaction, to create a triggering event.
And depending on how they sweep, Alright, a lot of people waiting to talk to you.
within the spectrum determines what effects are going to come from it.
It's mixing of a chemical soup using an electromagnetic wand.
I mean, that would be a dramatic way of describing what's involved here.
It's a very, very different system than a standard radio broadcasting system.
All right, a lot of people waiting to talk to you.
First time caller line, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich in Alaska.
Hello.
Yes, hello, Art.
I would also like to say hi to all the ham radio operators out there worldwide, hopefully on full scale.
Alright.
Alright, I have two questions for the doctor.
Number one is, what do you think about all the aircrafts going down?
I'm going to hang up for my answer.
Do you think maybe in the inner city, maybe people are being tested, maybe just like the black people, especially in the inner city, maybe on a small town level, that's why everybody's going crazy on a hangout?
Thank you.
All right, thank you.
All right, yes, two questions.
One is with regard to aircraft crashes, and we've had a hell of a lot of them, military and civilian.
Too many recently, and I suppose his question is with regard to their navigational systems and whether HAARP could conceivably affect a navigation system of an aircraft.
It could affect.
In fact, that's one of the concerns that the military acknowledged early on.
They set up some facilities around, radar facilities for detecting when they come in.
Planes are coming close and they shut the transmitter down theoretically.
The thing is, there's also a document that we cite, it's called The Revolution of Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War from 1989 by the U.S.
Army War College.
And at that time they had technology that, using again pulse radio frequency, that they could send and direct towards an aircraft deliberately, which would then cause problems with the avionics and also problems, those are the controls, the computer controls that control the aircraft.
Right.
And because a lot of aircraft now are what they call fly-by-wire, where instead of cabling and hard wiring going to motors that then trigger flaps and things to move so planes go up and down and left and right, They now do it using radio frequency onboard the plane, which is why you don't use cell phones and all of this.
That's right.
Because it interferes.
That's right.
And so what they're concerned about is that these kinds of systems, if a plane moves through the beam or through an area that has a lot of electromagnetic activity, that it can alter or interfere with the fly-by-wire systems or the onboard avionics.
Yeah.
Think about this.
Remember, when you get on an aircraft, they tell you, turn off your cellular phone and keep it off.
Cellular phones radiate infinitesimal amounts of energy compared to the kind of energy we're talking about with respect to the HAARP project.
I think the answer to that question is a definite affirmative that it could.
Sure it could.
The other question deals with, would they be testing these kinds of systems in inner cities?
And again, let's make a separation between HAARP, which is huge, and smaller systems, non-lethal type weapon systems, that utilize the same basic science to develop different kinds of effects.
And the answer is, probably so.
And the reason I say that is, we published a little over two years ago, And there isn't a week that goes by that we don't hear from someone complaining about such things.
Now, half of those we kind of discard because the way they're written, you can tell there's probably more going on there than maybe a military project or a test project.
But others come from very, very credible sources.
They're well put together.
The people are people who've had respected careers and positions.
And, you know, there is some cause to say, you know, maybe there is testing of this kind of apparatus.
I can tell you this, that we've tested it in the war environments we've been in recently because they announced it.
They announced that they were testing not just the chemical non-lethal weapons that would melt tires and so on, but they were also testing the new electromagnetic weapon systems, some of which have been publicly demonstrated.
So, I mean, they're trying them both in war environments, which is the ideal place where you test a new weapon, and probably, I say that, given the history of our country, it would not surprise me to see 10, 20 years from now, some revelation.
In fact, they were, because there's limited law dealing with the area of electromagnetic effects on human beings.
All right, here's another little one for you.
I have noted, through my audience participation, Many times now, over the last couple of years, periods of time when we get a really strange magnetic deviation from true north.
Now, I have no idea, I had a guess the other night, Greg Braden who said that is a hiccup.
He called it a magnetic hiccup.
But it will last for varying periods of time and then suddenly snap back to normal.
Is there any reason to believe that tremendous amounts of electromagnetic RF energy would possibly affect compass readings?
Perhaps.
It would depend on how it was interacting with the system and what they were doing with it.
Perhaps.
The thing that would bother me more than interference with the Compass Rating is the fact that the Compass Rating is indicating some energy exchange that's different than the norm, that's leasing in a different way.
And in the midst of that, then we add in another factor.
That's not natural.
That's a lot of power.
And in one case, because you're talking about compasses, you're dealing with magnetic lines of force and orientation of the needle.
And one of the applications of HAARP is to deliberately pump energy into the magnetic lines of force surrounding the planet.
And this is what's visualized when that happens.
Okay, you have these magnetic lines moving from the South Pole to the North Pole, and intersecting the Earth.
The closer you get to the poles, the closer to the ground these magnetic field lines are, which is one of the reasons HAARP is located in Alaska, to be close to these magnetic field lines' intersection point, so you can push a lot of energy in by narrowing the distance you have to cover.
Now, what happens, though, to the energy when it hits the magnetic lines of force in being focused with a cyclotron resonance, you can picture it in your mind as the energy flowing from south to north through the normal natural channel, and then that forms a waveguide, and the energy coming from a harp-like system would look like a corkscrew of energy rolling back down towards the south pole.
As the Earth turns, it creates an energetic shield, which can be used for guarding against such things as intercontinental ballistic missiles.
This is one of the ideas of Bernard Eastland.
But by the same token, by pushing, by pulsing that energy into those magnetic lines of force, when it's already demonstrating unstable situation, the question is, is it the last straw on the camel's back that causes One more thing that I want definitely to do, and that is the following.
seen historically in the past that have been documented by Hapsgood in New England when
he talked about the idea of it shifting four times in the last hundred thousand years or
whether it's Greg Braden talking about those aspects that he's observing in the current
time.
All right, one more thing that I want definitely to do, and that is the following.
I actually, I don't know, a year ago or more, took the trouble to call some HARP administrators.
In fact, THE HAARP administrator.
And invite him on the show to debate you.
Right.
In other words, if what you're saying is all cock-eyed and wrong and scare tactics, then I thought, fine, let's have the other side, and I called him and at that time he said, no, I don't want to do that, uh, I don't want to debate, uh, Dr. Begich, uh, it's a losing proposition, he said, because Because he just didn't feel that he was equipped to debate you, that you would throw out sensational charges, and he would be in the position of proving a negative, which is very difficult.
I would like, again, to invite anybody, the HAARP administrator, HAARP scientists, anybody who's legitimately involved in the project, publicly, here on the air, to debate you.
And if they don't do it, I think that tells a story in itself, don't you?
I think it does, and I'm not a physicist.
I have an MD in traditional medicine.
I'm a different kind of a specialist, if you will, but basically what we did when we put our book together was go to the experts, many independent people, physicists, atmospheric physicists, electrical engineers and others, to look at each portion to make sure that what we were saying was correct.
And, you know, they've been unwilling to meet that challenge.
I mean, the one time they did in the legislature here, we went in thinking, okay, we're going to have a couple of hearings.
The first one, we're going to see what their points are, where their main points of contention are.
Second one, we're going to bring in another Corps of Specialists to refute those points.
Alright, we'll get to those right after the break, but I want to extend that public invitation right now, so if you want to debate, folks, call me up.
I'm open to it.
I know Dr. Biggage is.
Properly the ionosphere.
Here once again is Dr. Nick Begich.
Doctor?
Hello, how are you?
It looks like you're going to make the whole run once again.
We're going to make it.
You're a real trooper.
I love your show.
It's a great show.
It gives probably the best chance to really tell the story so it's clear and understandable.
I certainly appreciate the opportunity to do that.
Well, I hope we have done that.
Wild Card Line, you are on the air with Dr. Nick Begich.
Good morning.
Hello, hello.
Going once, twice, gone.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Bagich.
Hello.
Hello, Art.
Yes, sir.
Where are you?
Oh, this is John in Estero, Florida.
Okay.
I have a couple of questions for Dr. Bagich.
I was wondering One, when is HAARP going to be fully operational?
Good question.
Number two, in the beginning of the program I heard you mention briefly the ability to cause earthquakes and start volcanoes.
I'd like for you to speak on that for a minute if you could.
Sure.
And number three, when HAARP powers up and they aim their RF waves at the ionosphere. Now, when they punch a
hole in the ionosphere, it would be like punching a hole in a bubble. Could the bubble burst?
I'll hang up and listen to your answer off the air.
All right, thank you very much.
All right, let's take them in order.
When will HAARP be fully operational?
Okay, the HAARP system itself, the basic plan is that it's to be fully operational by around 2001, 2002.
Initially, it was much earlier than that.
The prototype is fully operational.
This is the 48 antennas, phase one of the project.
This year, which is the first time that that's happened, they ran some engineering tests earlier in the year.
In fact, I've got a schedule here.
They ran the last test between August 11th and the 27th.
I heard that test, recorded it, and played it back on the air.
Great.
That's the earlier stuff.
The winter time, November, tends to be the active month, so we'll be kind of watching to see what happens this month and next month and into the winter.
Earthquakes and volcanoes.
The quote that I had given was from the Secretary of Defense, and it was from Cohen, and it was dealing with The idea that you could trigger earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and climate changes through electromagnetic waves or by electromagnetic means.
There's another researcher, actually he was a geophysicist at UCLA, J.F.
Gordon McDonald.
That talked about this same idea back in the late 60s, the idea that you could create triggering events using electromagnetic means for releasing energy that's already in place in the Earth.
Right.
And this is exactly what we're concerned about.
We've expressed that concern.
Brooks Agnew, who has a very good article that we posted on our website dealing with
earth-penetrating tomography, is very concerned about this particular problem related to HAARP.
Finally, the bubble theory.
In other words, the universe bubble.
The bubble doesn't work.
I don't think that works.
It's a very thick layer.
It's not going to burst as far as I can see, and no one has suggested that from the experts
that we've talked with.
But, again, you're dealing with something that's unusual.
Who knows?
But I certainly haven't seen any evidence that that would be a likely outcome.
All right.
West of the Rockies, you are on the air with Dr. Nick Begich.
Hello.
Yes.
Good evening, Mr. Bell.
Hi.
Hi.
I just want to say, of all your interesting programs, this one really scares the hell out of me.
Where are you?
I'm in San Joaquin, California.
My name's Richard.
Okay.
I sort of have the same question as the gentleman just before mentioned about bursting the bubble.
I mean, doesn't air escape into a vacuum?
It reminds me of the time of, in material I read before, before they let off the first atomic bomb, they weren't sure if it was going to possibly crack the world or blow the air off the surface of the Earth.
Well, if that were true, then we wouldn't have any air right now, because what's surrounding us is, of course, A vacuum in space.
And so it is held, our atmosphere is held down.
And I'm not a physicist, so I can't explain the mechanics of all of this.
But now, does piercing the ionosphere have possible effects?
I think the answer to that is, it might.
It clearly might.
Or it might not.
I'm willing to come down on the other side of the question and say it might not.
All I'm annoyed about is that the administrators, the people, the scientists in HAARP refuse to debate it.
and that worries me well another
teleport the questions that the other as well i don't fear is there to
basically protect us from incoming things and i understand uh... x-rays that kind of thing is
and now we have all those uh... as you mentioned your uh...
magunga not of the energy for the
forging up from the inside it's sort of there's
we have this action reaction now promise i see as a possibility
well i think that's what the core worry is uh...
And, Doctor, you may have heard my somewhat flippant cosmic hope that HAARP would open a big hole just in a moment.
We'd have a flare that would hit Earth, a giant blue lightning bolt out there.
Let's make sure our congressional delegations are aware that we're concerned about it.
Let's ask for those extended hearings here in Alaska and elsewhere.
And do the things that, as I said earlier in the show, one listener sent a book to a guy in Europe that turned out to be the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament.
He's taken this issue on as one of his own.
You know, people can do an awful lot more than sometimes we think, and I think the main message is let's just act on what we know is right and true and default in the favor of caution.
Not to say kill the program forever, but let's certainly default in favor of caution.
And at least try and understand what it is and debate the advocacy of continuing.
It's getting late, or early.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich.
Hello.
Dr. Begich, I'm calling from Fairbanks, Alaska.
Yes.
And you mentioned that part of HAARP was in the Fairbanks area.
Can you pin that down a little closer?
Well, you have High Pass, which is operated just outside of Fairbanks.
And I can't give you the road, but if you call the Geophysical Institute up there, they can tell you where it is.
HiPASS is a smaller system of phased array antennas and that for certain HAARP experiments
will be used in conjunction with it where you need two antennas within a few hundred
miles of each other.
Oh, wonderful.
So it is operating.
It has been there actually before HAARP.
In fact, HiPASS used to operate in Colorado and it created too much interference and problems
there so they moved it to our neighborhood.
And now here we have it.
So the next time your ice fog up there starts glowing blue, give us a call.
Alright, thank you very much.
First time caller on the top of the morning, you are on the air with Art Bell and Dr. Nick
Biggich.
Hi Bert from Evansville, Indiana.
Thank you so much Art for your service to yourself and mankind.
Regarding the protection of the individual, can lead or copper or any other metals be
used to protect oneself from these adverse energies?
Good question.
Actually no, not that we can see.
There may be some things that you can do for certain applications of the system, but because
of their ability to move across the broadband.
And because of the way they can operate the system, I don't think that's, again, a proper approach.
The proper approach is to challenge it through the political process, because I don't think any individual is going to be capable of shielding.
These are weapons developed to take on the most sophisticated technological adversaries in the world.
Individuals certainly aren't going to be in a position necessarily to defend much against that.
There may be some things we can do in certain applications.
We've mentioned them before, but overall, this is too complex of a system, and it represents one part of a whole new initiative in electromagnetic weapons technologies, and those are the things that we need to address.
We need to know enough about them to be able to debate them, and we need to make sure that the public's included in that discussion.
That really, really is a reasonable position to take, a very middle, reasonable position to take, and again, I want to say it.
If there's anybody in The Heart Project who thinks this is alarmist, who thinks this is wrong, then for God's sakes, get hold of me by email, fax me, send a letter, do something or another, and I will put you on the air with Dr. Begich and we will have A debate about all of this.
The very fact that you refuse to come forward worries the hell out of me.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich.
Hello.
Good morning, Art.
Good morning.
Where are you?
I am in Austin, Texas.
Yes, sir.
Dr. Begich, sir.
Yeah.
When and if HAARP goes up, how will it affect Howard Stern and Baba Pui?
I missed the very end of that.
Oh, too bad.
It was the typical Howard Stern question.
And the answer to your question, caller, is that an intense harp signal could only improve Howard.
What about Baba Booey's teeth?
Same thing.
Thank you.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich.
Hello.
Hello there.
Well, they're listening to the radio.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Biggich.
Yeah, hi, how are you doing tonight?
Alright.
I've gotten a copy of the EPA's, I think it's the Environmental Impact Statement?
Yes.
It's about 400 pages long, it looks like.
Really?
Yeah, I haven't had a chance to really...
I haven't had a chance to really pick through it yet, but I'd heard that in that environmental impact statement that the power from it or whatever can heat the internal body temperature of a person or set off flares in the trunk of a car.
Have you heard anything about that?
What?
It comes up in the course of it.
The environmental impact statement, the actual summation of it is just a very short document.
There's a very long document showing the testimony.
Yeah, those are concerns that were raised.
They're certainly within that document.
I think we cite part of that at least within the book, but I don't believe we cite the portion with the flares.
I think we cited the heating of the body temperature because we draw a lot of material from military records dealing with using radio frequency energy for doing that, deliberately doing that.
We footnote everything.
There are 350 footnoted sources.
Most of those are in the public domain where you can go to libraries and get them the same way we did, through interlibrary loan or through government libraries.
They're all well footnoted, so you can find any source that I've mentioned tonight that we've been talking about.
The name of the one on the conflict was what again, please?
Low Intensity Conflict in Modern Technology.
Okay, that's why it was forwarded by Newt Gingrich, I think, wasn't it?
That's correct.
Okay.
All right, thank you very much, Culler.
Doctor, indeed, the human body can be heated.
Let me tell you a little story.
I used to work in microwave and antennas, and I was installing an antenna on a place called Fremont Peak, and I was about 270 feet, almost 300 feet in the air, working on a Stationmaster antenna, a certain kind of antenna, installing it.
And I noticed my leg was getting warm.
Really warm.
And it was a cool day.
I had gloves on, you know, way up in the air.
No reason for my leg to be getting warm.
Then it began to get hot.
I looked down and I was standing right in front of a microwave, a Ma Bell microwave dish, telephone microwave dish.
And so people should understand that RF energy Can literally cook you as we cook our favorite food items in a microwave.
Right.
And that gives them some sense, and I've worried about my leg ever since.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Nick Begich.
Hello.
How you doing?
My name's Albert.
Where are you, Albert?
Kansas City, Missouri.
All right.
What's on your mind?
I got a question.
Okay, back in the early 80s or mid-80s, there was a movie out called the Remo Williams.
And the whole deal about the, like he was like a little spy guy, I don't think, the whole deal he was out to do was stop this machine that was called a harp that was able to, what can I say, change the weather and everything.
Did somebody know something early back in them days and let it out of the bag and made a movie out of it?
That's interesting, I never heard that before.
Nor have I. What was the name, what was the name of the movie?
Remo Williams.
All right, well, I'll certainly check my catalog and see if I can get a copy of it.
No kidding.
That's interesting.
That is interesting.
I wonder, how long has HAARP actually been When was it conceived?
Mid-80s, actually.
It was conceived in the mid-80s by Bernard Eastland, who then took it to... Actually, he was retained by ARCO, which is a large oil and gas company, and then they asked him to find a market.
He developed it mid-80s and began the meetings with the military.
In fact, we have a whole list of military people he spoke with through the 80s into the early 90s.
All right, look, we are woefully out of time, so if you would please give the phone number to get hold of your book and your materials.
The book, I think, is $17.95, right?
That's correct.
And you can call a number, which is?
907-249-9111.
9-1-11.
That's a better way to say it.
Okay.
Now, the address.
The address is P.O.
907-249-9111.
91-11.
That's a better way to say it.
Okay. Now, the address.
The address is P.O. Box 2013-9-4.
Anchorage, Alaska 99520.
Read that one more time.
P.O.
Box 201393, Anchorage, Alaska 99520.
Alright, well, as always, Doctor, it has been a distinct pleasure.
I'm really glad to be able to recap for all those who have not heard it and get an update on what's going on with HAARP.
And it does not sound like they're slowing down.
Not at all, but we're working on it.
And I'm sure with your listeners' help, we'll make the progress that we need to make.
Is there anything aside from ordering your book to be informed that they can do?
I mean, can they contact their congressman, express concern, whatever?
Absolutely.
We encourage people to do that.
I mean, it's an important issue.
The way things get on the political plate is people listen to the voters.
I mean, it's still a matter of population lets people know things get on the plate and start getting consideration.
They're getting that from political leaders in Europe.
It's about time that more and more Americans give their congressmen the same express concern.
All right, my friend.
Until next we meet, I thank you a million times.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
That's Dr. Nick Begich from Anchorage, Alaska.
And what you didn't know about HAARP, you now know.
I hope.
Is it evil?
I don't know.
Is it something that we should know about and be informed about so we can make a reasonable decision?
Oh yes, absolutely so.
So that is the story of HAARP.
▲
Export Selection