All Episodes
Previous Next
April 1, 2015 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
58:22
Edition 199 - Dr Nick Begich

Dr Nick Begich and his research on HAARP and other important "earth topics"...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America and around the world, on the internet, by webcast and by podcast.
My name is Howard Hughes, and this is The Unexplained.
Thank you very much for all of your emails, your guest suggestions, and general contacts.
I know that I haven't done any shout-outs in the last couple of shows.
I'm going to put that right this time.
A lot of people to mention, a lot of suggestions to get out there as well.
Thank you for all of your emails.
Please keep them coming.
And also your donations, which are vital for the continuation of this show.
I think some people are under the impression or were under the impression, and I can quite understand why that is, that because I worked on a big radio show in London, I must be rich and must have bottomless pits of cash to fund things with.
As I think I've said before on these shows, in the world of radio and broadcasting, a lot of it is smoke and mirrors.
Some people, and I have worked with them, get very, very, very rich.
And the rest of us don't.
And some of us, you know, have to scrape our way by, but we're doing the thing that we love, so that's why we're quite happy to live that way.
And I think maybe I, to some extent, fit into that category.
So I do not have loads and loads of money, which is why I ask for donations to this show.
And if I did have lots of money, then I wouldn't ask for the donations.
If you're able to make a donation to the show, please go to www.theunexplained.tv.
That's the website.
You can follow the link for donations and also follow the link for messages and emails to me.
And you know that because we're independent media, I see all of your emails.
The guest on this edition is somebody that you've been suggesting for a very long time and somebody that I've wanted to speak to for years.
Dr. Nick Begich, and among other things, he's in Alaska, by the way, we'll be talking about HAARP.
It's a subject that we should have got into a long time ago, and I'm glad we're doing it now.
Just one thing to say before we do cross to him in Alaska, that it's a little difficult sometimes to get good digital communication to that place.
I've got the best possible line that I can.
It's not perfect.
It's not CD quality.
It's better than a phone.
But I hope you'll bear with me.
You can certainly hear what he's saying, and Dr. Nick Begich is a man who's worth having on here.
Okay, let's do some shout-outs now.
First up, you will have heard in the last week the story of this alpine plane crash.
And it appears the co-pilot, for reasons of his own, it's looking like he was depressed and had other issues, crashed the plane into a mountainside, taking away 150 lives.
On any level, a tragedy.
There will be many questions to be asked about this, like, shouldn't somebody have spotted this and made sure this could not happen beforehand?
I know hindsight's 2020, but there's a lot of questions that an investigation will surely ask and possibly answer.
I've had some emails about it.
I don't want to talk about it on the unexplained because I don't think it's appropriate to do it at this time, and we don't know enough.
Just one typical email says that we're not being told the whole truth about the plane crash.
Like I say, this emailer was anonymous.
Maybe that's so.
Maybe that's not.
But I don't think we have enough information yet as I record this to say anything much about this.
Apart from the fact that for everybody involved, including the person who it seems caused this, and all of the passengers, and if you read the life stories and family connections of those people who died, I mean, it's just heartbreaking.
So it's a tragedy on every level.
Okay, let's get to other emails now.
Julie in Northwest Arkansas, thank you for your nice comments, Julie.
Robert in Theodore, Alabama, great location.
Thanks for getting in touch.
Kelvin in Shepperton, UK, thank you for the Past Lives article that you sent to me, Kelvin.
Good of you to do that.
Raj, first-time emailer suggesting Chuck Misler as a guest.
Al, a number of people commented on Father Malachi Martin.
And he says, says Al, can I just say that like all monotheists, Mr. Martin was a misled individual with some very disturbing and non-proven ideas.
Point noted, Al, I think there will be a lot of people who might disagree with you there, but there may well be a lot of people who equally agree.
Like a lot of the best guests, he does divide opinion.
He did in life and also does in death.
John, have you done a biblical conspiracy show?
Not recently, John.
Thank you.
We must get round to doing another one.
Peter McCashin in Birmingham, thank you for your email.
Terry Walsh in Liverpool, thank you for yours.
Remo Gadgi says a friend of his saw orbs in a church, and he really enjoys ghost shows.
I think we've got to do another one of those.
I have a couple of ideas on that score.
Dan, we mentioned a few shows ago sleep paralysis, and Dan says this is of interest to me, unknown to many in my life.
I've suffered with it for some 27 years, and it manifests in various ways.
My first encounter was at the age of eight.
Paul in Slough Berkshire says the death of Leonard Nimoy hit me like a punch in the gut.
Paul, very succinct.
I think that's the way that I felt about it, too, and I think most of the people listening to this will have felt that.
It's part of our lives gone again, and Leonard Nimoy irreplaceable.
Stephen in Chicago, kind comments, thank you.
Nathan wonders if I've ever visited Washington State and sends me some nice pictures of Granite Falls.
Thank you, Nathan.
I would like to visit Washington State.
Chris McNally in North Carolina, thanks for the email.
Frederick gets in touch about nuclear explosions on Mars.
David Sturgeon, fab photos of the prairie sun and the effects that are caused on these pictures by moisture and ice in the air.
Very, very amazing stuff.
Jonathan, titled The Graphic Illusionist, suggesting Giorgio Tsukolos as a guest.
Okay, I think I heard him on Art Bell Show a while back.
Jonathan Snow Slater.
I wonder how you got that nickname.
Suggesting Andrew Bassiago.
Thank you for that.
Tim from Bath in the UK and his sons listen to our shows driving up to football matches in the UK.
Nice one, Tim.
Claire suggesting garlic oil for my chest infection.
Thanks, Claire.
Luke suggesting Nick Pope as a guest.
Well, he's been on many times, but he is due for a return, I would say.
Gav says, Howard, your guest Whitley Streeber, mentioned his bank phoned him to inform him they've lost all records of his details.
How did they manage to phone him if they hadn't got his details?
Gav, good point.
Not sure.
Alex Roman in Wollongong, Australia.
Good to hear from you.
Patrick in Melbourne wants Richard Hoagland back on here, another guest it's high time We had back on.
I've been trying to get in touch with Richard lately, and Richard, if you are listening to this, I know you sometimes do.
Be very, very keen to have you back on soon.
We did talk about doing an update, I think, about last November, so it's high time you came back.
Iron Fist, Nia Stonehenge, another great name, wanted a shout-out.
Consider that done.
Goodat says, I'm from Mumbai, India, and a great fan of your podcast, but I feel some of your guests don't warrant the attention that you provide them.
One example, Courtney Brown, who was back, of course, with another remote viewing special as our last show.
Good is not impressed.
Point noted, thank you.
Josh Riley, thank you for your email.
John Murphy in Bootle, where I was born.
Nice to hear from you, John.
Lee, tells me about something that I am aware of.
I think in any recording situation, one of the things that you have to control are the levels, the differences in sound volumes between guests.
And I know radio stations have some very expensive equipment to level those things out.
I'm trying to see if there's a cheap way that I can put more attention into the levels on this show.
I try and average them out by ear and by what I can see on the meter in front of me, but sometimes that's not entirely accurate.
So I take your point, Lee.
Thank you.
Tawana Tannock in Hamilton, Bermuda, suggesting Dr. Ronald Mannett.
First emailer from Bermuda, nice to hear from you.
This comes from Debbie Lamb, and I said I would do this.
Deborah, thank you so much for your response to my email.
She wrote to me and I wrote back.
She says, my fiancé and I are huge fans of The Unexplained.
We listen to it together every time that it's on.
I used to listen to you when you were on London's Capital FM.
Okay, Debbie, turning the page.
Can you hear me turning the page?
That's not very professional, is it?
We're getting married in five weeks.
It'll be four weeks now, I think.
And I wondered if there was any chance that you could say a good luck message to him, my fiancé, on the show.
I know he would be very appreciative and excited to hear his name mentioned on the unexplained.
His name is Turlow, because he's from Ireland.
Fine man.
And we're getting married on the 1st of May in Richmond, southwest London.
Surrey, actually, it is, isn't it, Debbie?
Debbie, I hope you have a wonderful, wonderful day and a wonderful life with Turlow.
And I wish you all the very best.
And that's not just on my behalf, but that's all the listeners to The Unexplained.
I'm very, very happy to do that.
And, you know, if you get a chance to send me on email a photograph from the day when it happens, we'd love to see it.
Right, time to get to the guest on this edition, Dr. Nick Begich in Alaska.
Dr. Begich, thank you very much for coming on The Unexplained.
Well, thank you for having me.
I appreciate being with you today.
And look, we have to explain to people that if there are any discrepancies or difficulties with the sound of this, it is in fact a miracle that we are able to connect with Alaska, which is where you're from, where your family's from, where your background is.
You know, 40 years ago, even AM radio was a miracle in Alaska, wasn't it?
Yeah, actually, you know, radio, communications, generally transportation systems, all of it.
Alaska is still a very remote place.
Most of it's accessible only by air or seasonally by ship.
You know, I mean, a lot of our ports are actually frozen shut in the winter and then breaking loose this time of year in what you call spring, and we're sort of still on the edge of winter.
We're recording at the very end of March, and we're going to put this show out at the very beginning of April.
Talk to me about the weather where you are now.
Well, it's a few degrees below centigrade, and it's still snow on the ground, ice on the ground warming up during the days.
And by the end of April, things will be pretty much what you would call early spring.
And it goes pretty quick here once it starts to bloom out.
But Alaska's a great place in so many respects.
And also, you know, we have to try to get a handle, those of us who live in urban environments.
I'm quite lucky I've got some greenery around me, but I have no idea what it must be like to have to really hunt for a roadway.
Well, I'm actually a mile on private road, a mile down a private road, and far enough off the road system where you don't hear a sound related to other people.
And you can look 10 kilometers around and not see a sign from my viewpoint of another living soul.
So it's a nice isolated location.
It's great.
One guy past me has power and the internet and the ability to communicate like we are today.
But otherwise, it's wilderness for the size of an area, the size of your country, before you hit another, what you would call a small village or town.
For me, it's almost inconceivable, but the image that it paints in my head is a very beautiful one.
A lot of the time I look for peace and really don't find it in the modern UK.
So the idea of being where you are is absolutely great.
And there are a few prices that you have to pay, fewer of them than you used to.
One of them is the audio quality of this connection that we have now, which is okay.
It's audible, but not perfect.
So if you're listening to this right now and you're wondering why it's not exactly HD quality coming from the other end, it's because of that.
And as I've just said, and as we both agreed, haven't we, Nick, that the fact that we can communicate like this without stutters and actually can understand what we're saying to each other is a little miracle in this modern world.
Yeah, I would say so.
And, you know, and again, you know, we can talk virtually around the world today, share information in a way we never could before.
And from my perspective, what a great change in the possibilities that it presents.
At the same time, the challenges, obviously, that technology presents in the 21st century.
And some of these things are not just the progress of technology for commercial reasons, things like the internet and SETNAV and all the rest of it.
Some of these things, and that's what we're going to be talking about when we talk about HAAA.
Some of these things are deliberate decisions that man has made to push the boundaries of nature.
Right, right, exactly right.
And when you think about technologies as maybe symptoms of where we are culturally and socially.
Technology in and of itself is not so bad.
It's just maybe the intention behind it, how we use it, what we do with it.
When you think about technology in terms of its impact on democracies, democratic republics, the effect of how much it really regulates what we do in terms of privacy, in terms of warfare, in terms of everything, communications, information, transportation.
And yet, you know, when you think about the average person's knowledge of technology or elected leaders who have to make decisions about technology, it's pretty limited.
And so I think the issues that I've covered over the last now 20 years is really the translation of science and technology into terms that at least we can deal with, start to consider within a political environment.
Now, I first heard you talking with Art Bell at the back end of the 90s about a thing called HARP.
And to tell you the truth, I didn't quite grasp in the first show that I heard what this was all about.
And I know that the acronym, it stands for High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project.
And at that stage, that was roughly all I knew.
And it took me a couple of shows of listening to you doing those conversations to understand that this really is something that is pushing back the bounds.
Whether it's pushing back the bounds in a way that is hurting us or harming us, well, that's your field of research, isn't it?
Right.
Right.
And, you know, and as one, again, symptom of the underlying problem, if you will, HARP, you know, when you think about it, it has a lot of different attributes that could be pretty interesting from a military technology standpoint, also some really high risks from an environmental standpoint.
And again, what is HAARP?
Let's maybe start there.
And as a simple acronym, High Frequency Active Aurora Research Project, it's a developmental prototype that was built here in Alaska in the 90s and continues to operate intermittently, but has been run by the Air Force, the Navy, and in the latest rounds, it was DARPA.
And what it is, is a device that focuses or concentrates radio frequency energy into a relatively small area and then sends it up into very high levels in the ionosphere, which starts out at about 40 or 50 kilometers out from the Earth's surface and goes out several hundred kilometers from there.
And the magnetic field lines that surround the Earth.
And the device is intended to interact with these two areas, magnetic field lines and the ionosphere, which is an electrically charged area above the Earth's surface.
And it's an electrically charged area that reacts differently depending on the time of day.
How do we know this?
Well, we know this because of the way that AM radio works.
In America, you still use a lot of AM radio, which we tend not to quite so much here in Europe.
But it is the mechanism by which we hear far distant stations by night and we hear local stations by day.
Right.
Right.
And, you know, when you think about the ionosphere, its condition has a lot to do with the quality of communications on the planet.
If you have really severe disturbances, you can even create problems with the power grid or sensitive electronics.
And so what it was originally intended for was to learn how to sort of modulate or alter the condition of the ionosphere in such a way as to enhance or even or otherwise inhibit communications on a regional or global basis.
The idea of interacting with the field lines of the Earth to act as where these naturally occurring lines that go from the South Pole, injecting energy into the North Pole.
And you can see them as kind of the image of how bar magnets were illustrated in high school or middle school.
But the idea is that if you send energy in at the polar regions, you can then kind of wrap it around these magnetic field lines and send it to the other end of the Earth in the opposite direction of the energy's natural flow.
And in doing so, you can create a shielding effect that can stop intercontinental ballistic missiles, as an example, by charging particles in such a way as to distort their avionics or cause their onboard computers to malfunction and the devices to crash.
You could also use it for a number of other military applications that have come out and have come out in the literature over the years.
Which include?
Well, things like over-the-horizon radar, looking over the curvature of the Earth for incoming objects, and then being able to distinguish by being able to use gamma-ray detectors on satellites in conjunction with HAARP, you could distinguish which ones are carrying nuclear payloads,
as an example, which is really important in terms of how people view that sort of nuclear attack scenario by the major powers in terms of a flood of incoming missiles, but only a few carrying the really dangerous warheads.
So discrimination, ability to sort them out, and then creating artificial EMP or electromagnetic pulse surge of energy sufficient to destroy those incoming crafts, whatever they might be, cruise missiles or intercontinental ballistic missiles.
So, you know, other issues that came out were something called earth-penetrating tomography, and this works a little differently.
What they would do in this case is bounce a signal, cause the ionosphere to modulate or vibrate.
And what they do is they kind of pump the radio frequency energy in, like you can visualize it like a hammer hitting this layer, just punching it.
And as it does so, that layer, the ionosphere, begins to act as a broadcast antenna, sending a very long wavelength that penetrates the earth and sea.
And a certain amount of that energy is reflected back.
And then by analyzing that reflection, you can determine underground structures like tunnels, nuclear Facilities or mineral deposits, oil and gas, water.
I mean, a lot of things you can deduce by analyzing that signal.
And you can look down several kilometers deep and get a pretty good resolution, you know.
So, this technology was actually tested in the late and middle 1990s.
Tested and occasionally, as you say, fired up.
What's its status today?
Yeah, the thing about it is it can create a lot of side effects.
I mean, earth-penetrating tomography operates in 1 to 20 hertz or pulses per second, which happen to be also biologically active ranges that the body, the human body, reacts to.
Right.
All of this sounds, I mean, the benefits you talked about and keeping us secure and all the rest of it, I get that.
But the possible downsides of this are starting to sound to me, and I am a layperson, I am not a scientist, pretty alarming.
Talk to me about those.
Well, here are some things that have always concerned me.
And actually, Dr. Easlin, the inventor of this technology, up until he passed away in 2007, we had a lot of pretty interesting conversation about HAARP.
And the thing about HAAA, like a lot of technologies, is like this two-edged sword.
On the one hand, it can do some things that are pretty useful, maybe interesting for sure.
On the other hand, what risk does it present?
And one of the issues that came out of his work was weather modification.
And originally, when he had those concepts, they were based on an idea of a HARP system that was much, much bigger than the one they built in Alaska.
However, as he continued to do his work in this field, he determined that you could modulate or affect weather systems in such a way with 1,600 times less energy than originally conceived, which is exactly what HAARP's capable of today.
But the idea of affecting weather systems, and he felt that you could do this initially by affecting gravitational waves and then affecting also the very generators of weather systems.
I know that we have to make scientific progress in this world.
Otherwise, we wouldn't get anywhere.
We wouldn't have pulled ourselves out of the Stone Age if we hadn't devised ways of making life better.
This, though, does sound alarming because we don't understand entirely the consequences.
It sounds like it's okay to be able to do the same thing with less power, which this guy was clearly quite happy about because if you use less power, presumably the downsides and side effects are fewer.
But nevertheless, it sounds to me like we don't understand entirely what we're playing with.
Exactly right.
And this is where even Ben Eastland, he said he was unwilling to share very much with the military anymore in the last years of his life in terms of weather modification because his view of that had changed.
And what he voiced pretty clearly was that this type of science, because of the risks involved, if it's ever done, if it's ever done, should be done in public, in the light of day, with international cooperation and a very, very slow approach because of the risks involved.
Because you're literally trying to trigger events, create events within these natural systems.
For instance, in the ionosphere, one of the ideas was to destabilize it to the point of kind of seeing how it restabilizes, you know, as a deliberate thing, which can be, you know, maybe good, maybe bad.
But they look at it as a plasma lab in the sky, which again, you know, sort of from my perspective as an inhabitant of a planet, I don't like that idea, particularly when the programs are run by militaries not in the open light of day and the risks are there.
One of the things that one of the scientists that we talked with during our research pointed out was that you could actually maybe create a shunt, you know, like plugging a wire into an electric circuit, you know, where you actually draw energy off of the ionosphere.
And he said, if that ever happened, you'd get this bolt of lightning striking the Earth 40 times a second.
That's like the biggest bolts you ever saw until that energy discharge or the circuit was broken, which, you know, would kind of melt down HARP in short order.
But, you know, you don't know how long that circuit then is maintained, that connection.
And if that kind of energy hits a town or a power plant or a hospital or whatever, then whatever it is on the ground is gone.
Yeah, it'd be kind of like vaporized pretty much.
You know, and this is it.
You know, when you start to think about this kind of technology, what we can do with our technology today, and I guess that's the caution of it, is it's not just HARP.
There's a lot of systems that threaten the planet or at least our individual liberty and personhood in a way that ought to be challenged.
And HAARP or weather modification technologies, earth-penetrating technologies need to be looked at carefully because, again, you know, certain things are associated with earthquake generation, the way energy is exchanged within fault zones.
The idea of triggering these, artificially manipulating these with electromagnetic energy is something that is not the stuff of science fiction, but actually the stuff of current research in the area.
And when you think about big systems like HAARP that are capable of doing this on a global scale, yeah, I think, and I have believed, and others have joined that discussion, these are technologies, if ever used, should be done extraordinarily slowly, if at all.
And I don't think the military is really the right institution to run that effort.
Is this only being run from where you are?
Are there other outposts of this?
I say this for a reason because I heard somebody talk very cogently about Antarctica and the fact that your access, my access, everybody's access to Antarctica is tightly restricted for reasons that haven't entirely been explained.
Sometimes they say it's for environmental reasons, but I wonder if this stuff is going on in other places.
Yeah, absolutely.
In fact, you know, the former Soviet Union had five transmitters, have been involved in this research going back to the 70s, in terms of ionospheric heaters, or which is what they used to call these devices.
But essentially, think about it by analogy or comparison to what a laser does with light.
It concentrates it or focuses it.
This does that with radio frequency energy in a way that you're able to manipulate it quite differently than, say, a normal flashlight versus a laser.
So it's just as revolutionary, but in a different way.
The idea of Antarctica being a location, the Chinese were reported to be doing something in that area again to get close to an Arctic region where things can happen.
Because the closer you are, a couple things are really required for HARP-like systems.
You need energy, a good bit of energy.
Natural gas is a great source.
And on the north slope of Alaska, of course, and in our region, we have a lot of it, along with northern Russia and around the Arctic Circle.
Gas can then be put into magneto-hydrodynamic generators, which convert that into electrical energy that can then be introduced to a grid of antenna for radio frequency generation at a pretty high power level.
And that's essentially the HAAARP concept.
So you can put these wherever you have an ample supply of energy and close proximity to where the magnetic field lines intersect the Earth, because the lower the elevation, the easier it is to pump energy in at a greater volume.
And what happens, and what happened in one experiment, for instance, was when they put energy into the ionosphere, this layer that's much higher up, but again, with a lot of energy, they were able to trigger a release of energy available in the ionosphere that amplified the signal over a thousand times.
So think of that like a primer on a bullet.
You know, the little bit of energy that the trigger mechanism ignites so that the larger charge of gunpowder is exploded and releases the bullet.
Well, that larger gunpowder explosion is the plugging into the Earth itself, drawing that energy off of the Earth itself and the way it's generated out of the places where you can draw it off.
And that's what HARP is about and systems like HAARP are about and why we need to be extraordinarily careful with what we're doing.
Especially if we don't entirely understand them.
I worked with a great radio pioneer, a guy who ran radio stations and knew quite a bit about them.
In Europe, we had a thing called Radio Luxembourg, and it was an international, it was all in English.
The guys on it were British or Americans.
It played pop music, and it did it on AM radio so that all over Europe by night, you could hear pop music wherever you are.
Even in the Soviet Union, where they weren't allowed to hear the Beatles, they got the Beatles through Radio Luxembourg, 1440 kilohertz, 208 meters medium wave.
Everybody of my generation remembers Radio Luxembourg.
And apparently, if the story is correct, a man called Chris Carey, who worked there, told me this story.
They tried a thing called the Luxembourg effect, as it became named.
They fired the signal from the radio station instead of in a straight line where it would by day hug the curvature of the Earth and then the ionosphere would do its trick at night and it would go all over Europe.
They actually fired the signal straight up into the air.
And somehow it became a curtain of sound that was getting into everything and going everywhere.
And the story goes, and I'd like to do some research on this because I only have what Chris Carey told me all of those years ago, that this thing was banned from happening.
The European Broadcasting Union said, you cannot do that.
That's interesting.
One of the things that they did at Tromso, Norway, where one of these transmitters exists, is they actually played Wagner and got the ionosphere to modulate to Wagner.
And so you think about it, what was that about?
But that's a concentrated beam of energy.
I don't know what the effect of a direct radio broadcast, because the way I envision that signal coming off of a normal radio antenna, it kind of broadcasts all directions and loses energy with distance very rapidly.
And this is the thing about radio is, you know, when you take the rules that apply to normal radio waves coming off a radio antenna, think about it like a funnel.
And the narrow end of it is at the radio station where it's real dense signal, where the signal is concentrated.
And the closer you are to that antenna, you get a good signal.
Further out you go, it gets less and less dense.
It's because of that sort of spreading effect that takes place.
When you look at HARP, it's an array or field of antennas.
It actually focuses the energy by firing the antennas in a specific way in a sequence that causes what's called cyclotron resonance, which if you could visualize it, if you could see it, it would look like this kind of corkscrewing motion of energy that gets smaller and smaller the higher you go.
And then think about it being pulsed or modulated.
So you see this burst of energy kind of rolling through that corkscrewed energy and then punching the ionosphere or wrapping itself around the magnetic field lines as it builds that shield around the Earth.
Fascinating, absolutely fascinating stuff.
I would hope if politicians, and here's a silly thing to say, but I would hope if politicians really did have my best interests at heart, before they started playing with this stuff, they would have done decades of experiments in laboratories first.
Well, the thing about it is I think ultimately they feel like on some levels, maybe they have, but on other levels, you never really know until you actualize it in the whole system.
And you have to then assume that you really know the whole system.
And they don't.
And that is the reality of it.
So the only political group that I think on a large scale was actually the European Parliament passed a resolution Opposing HAARP going back to 1999 as part of a security and disarmament resolution.
They passed some sections also dealing with non-lethal weapons and weapons that manipulate human physiology and behavior.
And as a consequence to all of that, you know, at least they took a good look at HAARP and began to voice some of their concerns.
But it still moves on.
That's the problem with these kinds of programs.
How do you know it still moves on, though, Nick?
Well, the facility is, you know, HARP is one facility out of a couple dozen scattered around the planet now.
You have the ISICAT system in Europe, including Toronto, Norway.
You have Arecibo, Puerto Rico, the transmitters in the former Soviet Union.
You have transmitters in Canada that Rosalie, the late Rosalie Burtell, a physicist from Canada, reported on.
You know, it's not just one array.
It's a technology that now exists on the world and is being experimented with in the world by lots of governments who have command and control of high technology.
One of the things that Secretary of Defense William Cohen had said back in 97 that, and he was saying in a DOD news briefing, he's talking about the fact that terrorist organizations could trigger earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and weather changes in such a way with electromagnetic radiation, what we're talking about today.
The idea, Rumsfeld, when he was in power, was talking about abandoning the environmental treaties that forbid us from using environmental systems as weapons of war.
This goes back to the 90s when we were concerned about these very things.
He was asking that that treaty be dumped in the same way we dumped the ABM treaty, which incidentally, I testified a year before that treaty was dumped in the European Parliament.
It's a matter of record.
And we made, you know, we said we were challenged by the committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, because we said the U.S. would unilaterally abandon that treaty and use the argument.
There was no Soviet Union, therefore there was no treaty.
And 10 months later, they did exactly that in the end of 98 under the Clinton administration.
And then shortly thereafter, in 99, in January of that year, the European Parliament passed resolutions on security and disarmament, including the sections we had testified to regarding HARP, non-lethal weapons, and weapons that affect the manipulation of human beings on the basis that these were being advanced without European involvement, and including something as foundational as the ABM Treaty was going to be unilaterally abandoned.
And even the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, who you'd think would be involved in that kind of a decision, weren't even consulted by the U.S. and it was done just 10 months later.
A lot of us will be very concerned, I think, that America is doing this behind a veil of secrecy.
And it seems from what you've been saying, there is more openness about this here in Europe by a long way.
I think so.
And, you know, even commercial interests are developing weather modification technologies now.
You know, and if you can even, you can find references all through the internet that weren't even there.
You know, when we first started reporting on these issues, you know, now 20 years ago.
And as things have advanced, I mean, what we can do today is quite profound.
And the thing about weather modification technologies, as an example, what you do in one place, you cannot model the entire system well enough to know what happens in another place.
So you may solve weather problems, water problems in your country, but create downstream damage, so to speak, somewhere else.
Now, the treaties exempt what you do in the boundaries of your own country experimentally.
Many of the treaties, even chemical and biological treaties have exemptions that allow, for instance, in the UK, you could use gas that you couldn't use in a foreign country against your own people.
It'd be permitted because that's what the treaties allow.
And the same for weather modification.
The difference is if you're using a biological or chemical weapon, you tend to stay fairly regionally close.
Weather doesn't respect political boundaries on any level.
So you're manipulating something, and a treaty is providing the opportunity to still do it within the boundaries of your own sovereign.
So Nick Pickage, do you believe that some of the wacky weather that we've experienced over the last, let's pick five years here, might be to do with this?
I mean, here in the UK, we've had a couple of winters that have been really weird.
They've been incredibly mild, lots of rain.
Last year, we had a lot of flooding, wind and that kind of thing.
This year has been another year where really we haven't had, apart from the north of England that had it for a week or so, we haven't had a lot of snow here.
The winters have not been as they traditionally have been.
Right.
And we're having the same here, although starting off the programs, you're talking about the differences in weather and season.
But we've had really mild in south central Alaska compared to our norm as well.
And what I would say is that several things combine.
Okay, you have natural systems at this point warming.
You have man-made contributions.
And then you have the level that we're talking about, high technology interventions and interference with natural systems.
And from my perspective, again, these are, we're already demonstrating unstable systems.
And now we're going to go destabilize it at a higher level.
Maybe this is the absolute wrong time to be doing this.
And I think it is.
I think it's certain things we should not do, period.
And because we can, because our technology can, does not mean we should.
And this is where a population as a population, we need to become more informed, more greatly informed about technology and their political impacts, because they drive what happens in the 21st century, either to us or because we make more deliberate choices that support a broader vision of what humanity is.
And so when you talk about technologies affect environmental systems or our base physiology as human beings, we ought to be having a lot more discussion about that and understanding that discussion that is presently having by militaries, the U.S., the former Soviets, the Russians now, the Chinese and others who are engaged in this very research.
So you're talking about more coordination, more talking about this, but it's hardly likely, is it, with Mr. Putin taking the rather hawkish stance on many things that he's taking at the moment?
Well, maybe so, but ultimately, if there is no planet, there's not much to fight over.
So, you know, I think on some level, as our technology continues to advance, this is a dialogue that has to eventually take place, and maybe already is.
I mean, the idea that we have treaties, the enforcement of those treaties are obviously always a challenge.
And the thing about these technologies is countries that have them, you're looking for very specific window frequencies, like dialing up a radio station.
You know, in between the station, you get static.
But when you hit resonance, synchronicity, the harmony between the transmitter and the receiver, you get this nice, clear signal.
And the same is true with these kinds of manipulations of the environment.
Those window frequencies, those station channels, if you will, where these things occur, are known to those experimenting in the areas and can be picked out of the background radiation by anyone with this type of technology.
So you can't hide it like a missile in a silo.
And as you hinted, Nick, before, it's one thing for sovereign governments to have it because sovereign governments, you know, there are ultimately some controls and ultimately in democratic countries we're all the control they tell us on these people.
But the great fear, isn't it, as you hinted 15 minutes or so ago in our conversation, is that some private organization or terrorist group or unscrupulous individual, James Bond villain type character, gets hold of technology like this and really starts to mess with things.
Well, and I think those are all valid concerns because the technology is not as complex as maybe everyone wants to believe.
A lot of it's maybe simpler than we think.
And as a consequence, the things that come out, you know, and without getting into that discussion too deeply, but just to say that technology is relatively flat today.
And where it can develop and show up or be innovated upon is pretty universal.
So anyone has access to sort of the global lab, if you will.
If you want to know something, you can find out quite a bit pretty readily.
And so I think information as such allows the possibility of unscrupulous operators to take advantage of the technologies.
And maybe it's already happened.
And as you've said, this stuff has the capability of affecting human behavior in ways that perhaps we don't quite understand.
Maybe somebody somewhere does.
The very thought that somebody could hit a button and affect the way we all behave and think and feel is utterly terrifying.
Well, the possibility exists.
In fact, I can go back to J.F. Gordon McDonald's work when he was a science advisor to President Lyndon Johnson.
He was also a geophysics professor at UCLA.
And he wrote a chapter in a book or a section in a book called Unless Peace Comes, where he talked about how to manipulate the environment through various technologies.
And then he talked about also manipulating human behavior.
And it was quoted later in Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, Between Two Ages.
And it was when Brzezinski was at Columbia University.
He wrote about technology's impact on what was coming politically, socially, economically, culturally.
And, you know, it was like it was written in the 70s.
It might as well have been a history of what actually occurred.
For those who don't remember, he was later National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter a few years after he published this material.
But what he said was that if we ever figured out how to electronically stroke the ionosphere in just the right way, we could manipulate the behavior of people over huge geographic areas, which is exactly what HAARP, as an example, does in earth-penetrating tomography.
And that range of frequency happens to be those that can cause what's called brain entrainment or an FFR, a frequency-following response, where the brain locks onto these external signals within these window frequencies, these stations, as you will, by analogy.
And the brain then begins to mirror them.
And as a result, behavior of a big chunk of the population can be altered over a pretty big area.
Persinger at Laurentian University has reported on this since the mid-90s in a number of published papers, but something as simple, as he says, as modulating a signal into the environment that causes a certain level of agitation, say during the six o'clock news when you indict some group or population for being the cause of all your ills, right?
You can move a lot of emotion in that direction.
You can affect political outcomes.
You can do a lot of things with very simple technology, really.
And you can modulate it according to a lot of published work today.
There's one issue of Technology Horizons put up by the Air Force Electromagnetic Director, an article from 2004 talked about affecting human behavior, human emotional states, even giving you the ability to affect the mind in such a way as to create complete memory sets or hallucinations, if you will, that couldn't be distinguished from the real.
So the possibility of programming whole populations, perhaps, with a single thought or dream.
Well, that's exactly what was being alluded to in those articles.
In fact, The Economist ran a cover story, I think it was back in 2002.
It was a May issue on mind control.
Just the ethics of it were being debated there.
But, you know, the technology now, when you think of it on a large scale globally or on a small scale, something that could be done with more simple devices, more directionally oriented for smaller population or even individual, that technology does exist today.
And we've reported on it now 20 years and rolling back 40 years in history for things that gradually got released, you know, from research from the 50s, the 30s even, and the 60s, 70s.
But what you see in the open literature through the last four decades is pretty phenomenal in what we can now do.
What would you say to people who might say to you, well, we heard Mick Begich talking about all of this with Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM in 1996.
19 years have elapsed and you can still get a nice cup of coffee from Starbucks and America's Got Talent or Britain's Got Talent is still on the TV and God's in his heaven and everything's okay.
Nothing bad's happened.
Well, I guess it's a matter of perspective, how you view it.
I mean, from my own perspective, maybe we have had some things happen.
I mean, look around the world at all of the impacts of our modern technology.
And I would suggest we have had impacts.
How much of what we see today is related to things like HAARP or systems like HARP.
I don't think we'll know until those records someday become public and not classified records, which once again is why science ought to be open to the public.
Even Secretary of Energy O'Leary, who's responsible for that position during the Clinton administration, admitted, for instance, 500,000 Americans have been used in various kinds of experiments over a 40-year period without their consent in the United States, by the United States, researchers in this country.
No one's ever been held accountable for that.
The idea of weather experiments taking place, the governments acknowledge them from time to time.
The fact that we create risk with our science and we do it under conditions where even the Congress can't ask questions.
They can't even take notes in classified hearings.
They cannot bring experts in.
They cannot ask experts for input on what they're hearing from the people within these programs.
And there are very few in political office that has adequate science background to even ask the right questions of these program managers.
They have no, there is really no oversight once you hit a certain level of technology unless you have very smart people with the right background asking the right questions.
What do you think Barack Obama knows about this?
Say again.
What do you think Barack Obama knows about this?
You know, I think it's limited.
I think a lot of the technology kind of goes from administration to administration.
Bureaucrats and including the military kind of view the political arm of the world as something that kind of comes and goes because they're in it for 30 or 40 years.
You know, they're in it for the long term.
So what happens with these programs when you get a president that might not be favorable, you farm it out to our allies and let the research happen there.
And that's what's happened over the years.
So how much does each president really know?
I think that's limited based on their politics, their ability to penetrate their own bureaucracy and find out what's been hidden in government.
What you've told me is really chilling, and I'm glad we've finally had this conversation.
I think on the basis of what we've talked about, it's very hard to understand why this is not a major public issue, why this is not almost an election issue.
We've got an election coming up in May here.
You've got a presidential election due, but this is not on the agenda for most people.
Right.
Well, look at it this way.
Technology as such, each of these things we've talked about today are symptoms of an underlying problem, which is lack of accountability in technology.
The ultimate solution is a whistleblower mechanism that needs to be created.
Just like they had the truth commissions in South Africa.
You know, the idea of being able to come forward and sort of get the dust to settle on democracies and democratic republics by trusting the population again with the truth and providing a mechanism for private sector and public sector people to come forward and tell that truth and have the ability to be forgiven for that truth.
Because at some point, we either destroy ourselves or get to the root behind each of these technologies and many that we haven't even talked about, which is choices that we make as cultures and societies.
And how can you make a decent choice without good information?
And now we're talking about the information that either destroys the planet and our semblance of liberty and freedom and whatever we conceive that to be, as well as our environment.
That's the risk that the 21st century presents.
And that's why we need a solution that's broader than any of these individual symptoms of our technology.
We need an answer that allows the truth of technology to move into the forefront of public discussion.
And what do you think of the more mundane technology that is, as far as we know, completely in the public domain?
I'm talking about 4G, 5G mobile phones, cell phones, and all the other technology that some people claim is starting to entrain people.
Right.
And actually, any modulation can.
Any of these signals that you're in contact with, there was a publication, Perimeters by the U.S. Army War College that we quote in a book, Controlling the Human Mind, that has, I think, 300, 350 source references.
But what they said is any electromagnetic signal, whether it's the internet, the electrical power grid, cell phone systems, any of these can modulate a signal in such a way as to affect human physiology, either as an accident, side effect, Or a deliberate effect to cause all kinds of responses.
Even, you know, radio frequency energy was looked at in the mid-80s under the dosimetry handbook published by the University of Utah as a contract by the Air Force to figure out how to load each vital organ of the body with radio frequency energy in the right waveform, the right pulse rate, the right wavelength to cause it to malfunction, whether it be the heart, liver, kidneys, lungs.
And then advanced in the early part of this last decade to DARPA letting contracts University of California to learn how to modulate brain waves in such a way as to transfer thoughts into a human being deliberately, or conversely, being able to look at the electromagnetic emanations coming off of a human skull and determine what a person is thinking.
And those contracts were actually led.
As computer power advances and our ability to replicate signals and very complex signals advances, these are the things that the 21st century allows, whether it's private sector developments or government developments.
The question becomes, and what Zabignu pointed out in between two ages, is no matter who's in power, liberal or conservative, the idea of using such technologies to influence political outcomes will be extraordinarily tempting, which is again why within democracies and democratic republics, we should be paying attention to the technology of the 21st century.
And the only way to get to the truth will ultimately be a mechanism for whistleblowers to come forward and tell that truth.
Absolutely.
Listen, we've struggled with the audio quality with this.
There is a little bit of a hum and noise in the background, but I can still understand what you're saying.
But if you're listening to this now, please understand that we're talking with Alaska.
We said 30, 40 years ago that was a miracle, and the only way to do that was on a crackly phone line.
We're doing it now by digital connection.
So please bear with us.
We're talking with Dr. Nick Begich.
We've been talking about HARP and new technology and things that are not revealed to the extent that they ought to be revealed to the populace at large and the possible effects of that.
This is worrying stuff.
Nick, as we bring this conversation to an end, have you ever thought about running for public office yourself so you could put this on the agenda?
You know, I think I'm more effective doing what I do.
You know, I had the opportunity to talk about this issue exclusively, you know, technology exclusively.
I think what I do is more effective.
It's not partisan.
It's just based on the idea that we need to make better choices.
And I think technology and the reporting on it maybe is a more valuable role.
I mean, I'm talking to you in the UK and in Europe today.
I talked to people in New Zealand and Australia last week.
I'm in Florida later this week in Central Florida talking by phone there.
It's a great opportunity to continue to do what I've been doing for now 20 years, reporting on technology.
And in 20 years, the proof in terms of what you read now, what you see now in the open literature, proves we were right.
We continue to think that we can make a difference in this.
And maybe this is the best way.
Maybe so.
I think we're going to have to park the conversation, Nick, but I'd like to take it further at a future date.
Maybe we can get a better connection than this one, but I've found what you said riveting, and that's why I haven't interrupted this conversation.
And I've hoped that the people listening to this will bear with us both, because I find it amazing that I can sit here in London and speak with you in Alaska, and you're talking to me about things that I feel personally, if I am allowed any kind of view on all of this, that we really need to be engaging our gears and meshing with.
If people want to know more about you, your thoughts and work and research, how do they do that?
You can check our website.
It's earthpulse.com, E-A-R-T-H-P-U-L-S-E, earthpulse.com.
And check us out.
Support us by picking up our books.
And we have them in digital now on Amazon.
So read them, pass them on to politicians, see if we can make a difference on this technology in this century.
And just finally, we have quite a healthy green political party here called the Green Party, logically enough.
And I know you've got people like that over there, but they're very big here.
They're very big in Germany and other parts of Europe.
Why are they not really running with this issue?
I think in several instances they've tried.
I know Friends of the Earths Berlin were involved in some of this when we first began our work.
We had good support from the Greens when this was going through the European Parliament.
And incidentally, Conservatives in the European Parliament and Social Democrats really worked, all of them worked with us on addressing it.
The thing is, there hasn't been much follow-on.
The champions of the issue are gone.
Tom Spencer, who was Foreign Affairs Chair at the time, is out of that role in government.
And unfortunately, in a scandal that was grossly unfair that we maybe look at differently today.
But nonetheless, the champions of the issue aren't there.
And I think that's what's missing.
So we need some new champions.
Nick, we're going to have to park it there because this connection is deteriorating.
Thank you very much indeed.
I'm glad we were able finally to have this conversation.
And you're making a big trip from Alaska all the way down to Florida.
That's a big flight and a big change in climate and everything else.
So please, please take care.
And we must talk again.
Thanks for having me.
And we'll try to get.
Well, I'm really pleased we're able to get him on at last.
And apologies for the digital connection.
That was the best one we could get.
But I think Dr. Nick Begich was well worth hearing.
And we will have him back on again.
And hopefully next time the connection will be better.
Thank you for suggesting him and for making sure that I got him on.
Until next we meet here on the unexplained.
Thanks to Adam Cornwell, my webmaster at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool for his hard and continuing work.
And above all, thank you to you for your support.
If you can make a donation to the show or send me a guest suggestion or your thoughts about the show and how I can improve it, please go now to the website www.theunexplained.tv.
And until next we meet here on the unexplained, my name is Howard Hughes.
I'm in London.
This has been The Unexplained.
And please stay safe, stay calm, and stay in touch.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection