“The interesting thing about HAARP and starting with this illustration which came from Dr Eastlund’s view graphs when he first was selling this idea to the Pentagon:
Here I would like to add that there is also the idea of concentrating or sending energy up that could then be converted into useful energy for low orbiting space platforms which is a big deal as militaries begin to move forward. The idea of maintaining something in orbit at a low elevation is difficult because you have to continually take fuel to keep it fuelled up. In the 1960s there was a lot of experiments trying to figure out how to pump energy up into these low orbiting objects so that you could keep them aloft for a long period of time. And what they found is the same scientists that were associated with that same 1960s research were at the geophysical institute working with the HAARP system because it actually worked. Aviation Weekly did a story, which was the first test of this technology with a small array in Canada. They were able to keep an object aloft for an extended period of time. From a strategic perspective this is really, really important because to be able to keep something aloft for ten or twenty thousand hours by being able to send energy up and have it converted efficiently to be utilized by a low orbit space platform for military applications becomes pretty compelling and pretty useful. And so, I didn’t want to miss that particular application.
The other was Ben Easton within his patents had some ideas for triggering chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere for replenishing ozone as an example if you buy into that being the cause of climate change, the idea of being able to replenish it seems to me would be an important issue today.
The other is through radio chemistry to be able to alter a certain chemical constituents in the upper atmosphere to knock out methane to neutralize certain pollutants. Again, those issues were never really explored.
The late Rosalie Bertel testified with me in the European Parliament on this particular issue. She went to write a book of her own on HAARP. She was a mathematician and physicist. She was the lead physicist and statistician for the World Health Organization. She was considered a radiological expert mainly for people who were subject and victims to various forms of radiation. Her view of all of this was really the same as mine: that it was a technology that has gone way too far. Military establishment is not really known for running programs that are necessarily safe. In fact, they’re the biggest polluters in the world. Our military organizations, what they leave behind, is really a huge mass.
In the course of things, I became executive director in the institute which I mentioned in the introduction. And Dorothy wanted to put some together on the mind effects. So we put together a close conference and involved a number of people: Garth Nicolson who some of you might remember as being part of the gulf war controversy. He was a professor at the University of Texas. He had trained over a thousand physicians and he had testified six times in front of the congress on gulf war syndrome. He came to our closed conference. We also had Ben Eastlund who I’ve mentioned enough about. We had Elizabeth Rauscher who has around 195 published works. She’s an astrophysicist, geophysicist and biophysicist. She is currently working on a book about earthquake prediction and modelling from field work that she did in this area. We also had Rosalie Bertel. We had two electrophysiologists from Finland who are also involved in regulating medical applications of lasers in Russia. All the people that we have had there were people that I’ve known for years and that were kicked really hard by the establishment and stood up and dusted themselves off and maintained their ethical line and their direction. So we brought them in to talk about mind effects.
Ben Eastlund was quite interesting in what he said. When he went to DARPA and he knew Tony Tether on a first-name basis. He was running DARPA at the time and most of the directors and when he went around and sort of talked to them about mind effects. What he said to me when I asked him to come to conference was ‘Well, on a scale of one to ten, ten being the least interesting, two or three years ago I would have said no. He said but now it’s a 102 because as he went through DARPA, nobody was laughing anymore. They take it very seriously.’”