Speaker 1: Picture this if you will. A massive explosion powerful enough
to completely flatten area the size of let's say Rhode Island, trees,
everything just wiped out. Wow. But here's a catch. No crater,
absolutely no trace of what caused it. And that's exactly
what happened back in nineteen oh eight in Siberia, place
called Tunguska. It's one of those enduring mysteries, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Taguska event. I've heard about that. It's like
one of the great unsolved scientific enigmas.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, And to add another layer of intrigue, let's bring
in Nikola Tesla. A brilliant mind, no doubt, but he
was working on some let's just say, pretty radical ideas.
Speaker 2: Oh I know where you're going with this. Tesla radical
ideas and a mysterious explosion. There has to be a connection.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what we're going to dig into today. We're
diving deep and Tentacle had Tesla's later work, not just
the acy electricity stuff he's famous for, but his more hmm,
how should I put it? Ambitious research, the.
Speaker 2: Stuff that gets people talking, right, the kind of research
that blurs the lines between science and well maybe even
science fiction exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're talking about wireless energy, the potential for technologies
that could influence the atmosphere, even the Earth itself, And
some of the sources you sent they suggest a possible
link between Tesla's work and events like Tunguska.
Speaker 2: It's fascinating stuff, and while some of it might seem well,
a little out there, I think it's important to remember
that Tesla was a true visionary. He was way ahead
of his time.
Speaker 1: He was. So let's start with Tesla's big dream. I mean,
we all know he changed the world with acy electricity,
but his vision was much bigger than just lighting up homes.
He wanted to create a global system for wireless power.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, Wardencliffe Tower. That was his grand experiment. Not
just for radio transmission, mind you, but for beaming electrical
power across the entire planet. Imagine that free energy for everyone,
anywhere in the world.
Speaker 1: It's an incredible concept. And he actually demonstrated wireless power, didn't.
Speaker 2: He He did back in eighteen ninety three at the
Ways Fair in Chicago. He lit up floor rscant tubes
without any wires, completely wirelessly. People were amazed. It was
like magic.
Speaker 1: It must have been an incredible sight, So how did
he think he could pull off something as ambitious as
a global wireless power grid.
Speaker 2: Tesla had this theory that the Earth itself could act
as a conductor, like a giant electrical circuit, and he
believed the ionosphere played a key role.
Speaker 1: The ionosphere remind us what that is again?
Speaker 2: Sure, it's a layer of charged particles high up in
the atmosphere. It's sort of like an electrically active shell
around the Earth. Tesla thought that by pumping energy into
this layer at the right frequency, he could create a
kind of global resonance system, a way to transmit power
wirelessly across vast distances.
Speaker 1: Interesting, so the Earth is a giant conductor and the
honosphere as a kind of amplifier. It's a pretty bold idea.
Speaker 2: It is. And what's even more remarkable is that the
Earth does have a natural resonant frequency around seven point
eighty three hertz. It's called a Schumann resonance and it
was scientifically confirmed in the nineteen five fifties. So Tesla
was definitely onto something about the Earth's electrical properties.
Speaker 1: So if his theory wasn't completely off base, what stopped
him from actually building this global wireless power system.
Speaker 2: Well money for one thing, His main backer, JP Morgan,
eventually pulled the plug on the project. Why it came
down to the fundamental problem of how to meter and
charge for free energy. Morgan famously asked, if anyone can
draw on the power, where do we put the meter?
The idea of electricity that you couldn't control and bill
for just didn't fit with his business model.
Speaker 1: I could see how that would be a problem, and
without Morgan's funding, Tesla's dream project, Wardencliffe Tower was never completed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was a huge setback for Tesla, and you
can't help but wonder what might have been if he
had succeeded.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Now fast forward to the nineteen thirties Tesla's later years,
he claimed to have invented something he called Teleforce. The media,
of course, sensationalized it as the death ray Right.
Speaker 2: He envisioned a powerful directed energy weapon that could destroy
targets from hundreds of miles away. It sounds like something
out of science fiction, but Tesla was convinced he had
figured it out. He even presented it as a potential
deterrent to war, a way to which chief peace through
superior firepower.
Speaker 1: A rather paradoxical idea a weapon so powerful it would
prevent war exactly.
Speaker 2: And while many were skeptical, it's clear that Tesla truly
believed in the potential of his teleforce to change the world.
Speaker 1: And then in nineteen forty three Tesla passed away. What
happened to his research after his death.
Speaker 2: Well, things get a little murky here. The FBI, along
with representatives from the Office of Alien Property Custodian, they
swooped in and seized all of Tesla's papers, notes, everything.
They were worried that his research, especially anything related to
this death ray technology, might fall into the wrong hands.
Speaker 1: So the government was clearly interested in the potential military
applications of Tesla's work, even if they weren't entirely sure
what they had right.
Speaker 2: And this is where doctor John Trump.
Speaker 1: The picture, as in the uncle of well you know, yes.
Speaker 2: That doctor John Trump. He was an accomplished electrical engineer himself.
The government tasked him with reviewing Tesla's papers to see
if there was anything of significant military value.
Speaker 1: And what was his conclusion.
Speaker 2: He concluded that Tesla's research, while interesting, didn't contain any
groundbreaking scientific breakthroughs that would be immediately useful for military purposes.
He basically dismissed it as not being practical for weapon
development at that time.
Speaker 1: But some people dispute that assessment.
Speaker 2: Well. Absolutely, Many researchers and Tesla enthusiasts argue that doctor
Trump's review might have been too hasty or perhaps even
intentionally downplayed the true potential of Tesla's work, maybe to
cover up the fact that the government was indeed very
interested in pursuing it.
Speaker 1: Further, It's a classic conspiracy theory setup, isn't it. The
government swooping in, confiscating sensitive research, then claiming it's nothing special.
Speaker 2: It definitely has all the elements, and it gets even
more intriguing when you consider that just a couple of
years later, the military launched Project Nick.
Speaker 1: Project Nick, what was that about?
Speaker 2: It was a top secret research program based at Wright
Patterson Air Force Base. Its specific goal was to investigate
the feasibility of Tesla's particle beam weapon concept, the death ray.
Speaker 1: So, despite doctor Trump's assessment that Tesla's work wasn't of
military value, the military went ahead and started a secret
project to explore it anyway.
Speaker 2: It seems that way, which raises the question, what were
they really looking for and did they find anything. The
details of Project NICK remained classified to this day, and Project.
Speaker 1: NICK wasn't the only one, right. There was also Project.
Speaker 2: Seesaw YES, launched by DARPA in nineteen fifty eight. Project
Seesaw was another heavily funded program focusing on particle beam technology,
very similar in concept to Tesla's Deathray, and like Project Nick,
it was shrouded in secrecy before being quietly shut down.
The fate of the research conducted under these projects remains
a mystery.
Speaker 1: It's as if the idea of a powerful directed energy
weapon a death rate just vanished into the black hole
of classified research.
Speaker 2: It's a very intriguing thread to follow, it is, and.
Speaker 1: It leads us to something much more recent and equally controversial.
Speaker 2: HARP or HARP the High Frequency act of Arural Research program.
It's located in Alaska, and it's been the subject of
a lot of speculation and conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: Some people see it as a modern day manifestation of
Tesla's ideas a way to manipulate the atmosphere and even
the Earth itself using powerful electromagnetic energy.
Speaker 2: It's not hard to see why people make that connection.
HARP is a very powerful facility. It has an array
of high frequency antennas that can beam energy into the ionosphere,
that same electrically charged layer of the atmosphere that Tesla
was so interested in.
Speaker 1: The official line is that it's purely for scientific research,
but the material you've shared points to some intriguing patents
filed by a physicist named Bernard Eastland back in the
nineteen eighties. What did those patents describe?
Speaker 2: Eastland's patents laid out a method for us powerful radio
waves to heat specific areas of the ionosphere. The idea
was that by altering the electrical properties of those areas,
you could create what he called an electromagnetic lens in
the sky. This lens could then be used to bend
and redirect radio waves, potentially for over the horizon communication
or even for disrupting enemy communications. And that's not all.
Eastland's patents also discussed the possibility of influencing weather patterns
by manipulating atmospheric currents.
Speaker 1: So the possibility of using this technology for things like
weather modification was explicitly mentioned in Eastlands patents.
Speaker 2: It was, and while HARP officials have always denied that
the facility is used for anything other than scientific research.
The connection to Eastland's patents and his publicly acknowledged claims
about the military's interest in his work certainly raise some eyebrows,
and to.
Speaker 1: Add another layer of intrigue, who was funding eastlands research?
Initially it was.
Speaker 2: Actually Arco Technologies, an oil company with vast natural gas
reserves in Alaska. They saw Eastland's invention as a way
to potentially convert their natural gas into the enormous amounts
of electricity needed to power his proposed ionosphere heating technology.
We're talking about potentially using enough natural gas to power
the entire United States for a year. That gives you
an idea of the scale they were considering.
Speaker 1: That's an incredible amount of energy. So we have a
powerful technology that could potentially be used for weather modification
or even as a weapon, and it's being funded by
an oil company with a vested interest in finding ways
to use massive amounts of energy. It definitely starts to
sound like the plot of a thriller movie.
Speaker 2: It does. And then there's the fact that Eastland himself,
before he passed away, stated publicly that HARP was the
perfect first step toward realizing his vision. Strongly hinting at
a military interest that went beyond mere scientific curiosity. He
even mentioned the involvement of powerful.
Speaker 1: People, and when you look at later patents that build
upon Eastland's work, the potential military applications become even more explicit.
Speaker 2: Exactly, for example, the tech chnology could be used to
create effects similar to a nuclear EMP that's an electromagnetic
pulse that can fry electronics, but without the need for
a nuclear detonation. It could also be used to communicate
with submarines deep underwater using extremely low frequency waves or ELF,
which can penetrate the ocean, and it could potentially enhance
over the horizon radar systems, allowing them to see much farther.
Speaker 1: By the mid nineteen nineties, the US Air Force was
openly discussing the idea of owning the weather as a
military strategy. The Even Publisher report titled Weather as a
Force Multiplier Owning the Weather in twenty twenty five, explicitly
stating that weather modification would likely become a key aspect
of both national and international security.
Speaker 2: It's quite a chilling thought, the idea of controlling the
weather as a weapon, but it's not entirely unprecedented. During
the Vietnam War, the US military conducted Operation Popeye, a
cloud seating program aimed at prolonging the monsoon season over
the Ho Chi Minh Trail to disrupt enemy supply lines.
So the concept of weaponizing the weather has been.
Speaker 1: Around for a while, and now we see countries like
Dubai experimenting with rain making using electricity and drones. It
almost feels like science fiction is becoming reality.
Speaker 2: It does make you wonder how far we've actually come
in our ability to influence the weather, and if HARP
is capable of what some people claim, it would represent
a significant leap forward in that capability.
Speaker 1: One of the most alarming claims about HARP is that
it could trigger major weather disasters like hurricanes or even earthquakes,
but critics point out that its power output seems far
too small to have such large scale effects.
Speaker 2: That's a valid point. Harp's output is powerful, but it's
dwarfed by the sheer energy involved in natural phenomena like
hurricanes or earthquakes. It doesn't seem plausible that it could
directly cause such events. However, there's the concept of chaos
theory and the butterfly effect to consider.
Speaker 1: Right the idea that small changes in a complex system
can have large and unpredictable consequences.
Speaker 2: Exactly, and proponents of harp's potential for large gale effects
argue that by precisely targeting certain sensitive areas of the ionosphere,
it might be possible to trigger much larger chain reactions
in the atmosphere or even within the Earth's crust. It's
not about brute force, but about understanding and exploiting the
inherent instabilities within these systems.
Speaker 1: So it's not about directly creating a hurricane, but maybe
nudging atmospheric conditions in a way that could make a
hurricane more likely to form.
Speaker 2: Precisely, it's about finding the right leverage points, the critical frequencies,
and the areas of instability that could amplify a small
input into a much larger effect.
Speaker 1: But even the possibility of intentionally influencing the weather in
such a way raises serious ethical concerns, especially when you
consider the UN's stance on environmental modification for military purposes.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, the UN has been very clear in its condemnation
of any attempts to weaponize the environment. In nineteen seventy seven,
they adopted the environmental modification Convention, which explicitly prohibits the
use of environmental modification techniques for hostile purposes, and beginning
in nineteen ninety nine, the UN has specifically addressed HARP
in multiple resolutions, expressing concerns about its potential for environmental
manipulation and calling for greater transparency and international oversight.
Speaker 1: And how has the US military responded to these UN
resolutions and concerns.
Speaker 2: They've continued to operate HARP, maintaining that it's primarily a
research facility, but it's also been reported that both Russia
and China are developing their own ionospheric heating facilities, which
suggests that there may be a perceived strategic advantage to
this technology, leading to a kind of arms race in
this area.
Speaker 1: Beyond weather manipulation, the sources we have also suggest that
HARP could be used to probe deep within the Earth.
How does that work?
Speaker 2: By pulsing radio waves at specific frequencies, HARP can generate
extremely low frequency waves or ELF. These waves can penetrate
deep into the Earth and even into the oceans.
Speaker 1: What would be the purpose of doing that?
Speaker 2: Well, it could be used to locate things underground, like
hidden military bases, tunnels or even submerged submarines. ELF waves
are particularly good at penetrating water, which makes them ideal
for submarine detection.
Speaker 1: And the sources go even further, suggesting that HARP could
potentially trigger earthquakes by targeting geological fault lines with these
ELF waves.
Speaker 2: That's where the idea of resonant frequency comes in. Every
object has a natural frequency at which it vibrates most easily.
If you expose an object to vibrations that it's resonant frequency,
those vibrations can amplify, sometimes to the point of causing damage.
It's like the classic example of an opera singer shattering
a glass with her voice.
Speaker 1: So the theory is that HARP could find the resonant
frequencies of fault lines and then target them with ELF waves,
potentially triggering an earthquake.
Speaker 2: That's the idea, and while it might sound far fetched,
it's based on sound scientific principles. The question is whether
HARP is powerful enough and precise enough to actually do that.
Speaker 1: The source material makes an interesting comparison. It mentions that
just thirty wants power can be used to send low
frequency waves into the earth for oil and gas exploration.
Then it contrasts that with HARPS billions of wats being
directed at the ionosphere. It's a stark difference in scale it.
Speaker 2: Is, and it raises the question if thirty watts can
have a detectable effect, what could billions of watts potentially do.
Of course, the Earth's crust is much more complex than
a uniform oil field, so it's not a simple one
to one comparison, but it does make you think about
the potential energy.
Speaker 1: Involved and the source material also cites some specific seismic
events like the twenty ten Haiti earthquake, the two thousand
and eight Sishuan earthquake in China, and the twenty eleven
Fukushima earthquake in Sunani in Japan, suggesting that there might
be a correlation between these events and reported ionospheric anomalies
detected around the same time, possibly linked to HARP activity.
Speaker 2: There have been some intriguing observations. For instance, after the
Haiti earthquake, there were reports of unusual electromagnetic disturbances in
the ionosphere, and former Venezuelan President Hugo Shavez even publicly
accused the US of using HARP to trigger the earthquake.
Though those claims were widely dismissed by the scientific community. Similarly,
there are reports of ionospheric anomalies around the times of
these Sichuan and Fukushima earthquakes, leading some researchers to speculate
about a possible connection to HARP.
Speaker 1: But again, correlation doesn't equal causation exactly.
Speaker 2: It's very difficult to prove a direct link between HARP
activity and these complex geological events. But it's interesting that
China seems to be taking the possibilities seriously. They launched
a satellite in twenty eighteen specifically to study the relationship
between ionospheric disturbances and earthquakes, and Chinese scientists have published
papers examining potential correlations between ionospheric heating experiments and seismic
activity in China.
Speaker 1: So the possibility of HARP or similar technology being used
to influence earthquakes, or at least being able to detect
them in advance, is something that's being actively researched.
Speaker 2: It seems that way. It's a topic that warrants for
other investigation.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about perhaps the most unsettling aspect of HARP,
the possibility that it could be used to influence the
human mind.
Speaker 2: It's certainly the most controversial claim, and it's based on
the fact that the human brain operates within a specific
range of electromagnetic frequencies, the ELF range, which, as we discuss,
HARP can generate.
Speaker 1: And the concern is that these ELF waves could potentially
interfere with our brain activity, influencing our thoughts and behaviors.
Speaker 2: That's the fear, and there's a well documented neurological phenomenon
called frequency following response or FFR, where the brain tends
to synchronize its own electrical activity to match an external
RHYTHMXED stimulus, like a pulsating electromagnetic field. Some researchers, like
doctor Nick Begich, who has written extensively about HARP, suggests
that this could lead to the brain locking onto external signals,
potentially altering brain chemistry and cognitive states.
Speaker 1: So the idea is that by beaming ELF waves at
specific frequencies, HARP could potentially manipulate people's thoughts and emotions
on a large scale.
Speaker 2: It's a disturbing thought, and it's not entirely without scientific basis.
Research conducted in the nineteen eighties by doctor Michael Persinger,
some of which was funded by the US Navy showed
that weak electromagnetic fields, when applied to certain areas of
the brain, could induce altered states of consciousness in some individuals,
including experiences described as religious or even hallucinatory. This research,
along with the fact that HARP can generate ELF waves,
prompted the European Parliament to issue a resolution in nineteen
ninety nine expressing concerns about the potential for technologies like
HARP to be used for manipulation and mind control.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that, despite these concerns from international bodies like
the European Parliament, the US military has remained largely silent
on the issue of harp's potential effects on the human mind.
Speaker 2: It's a pattern we see repeated throughout history. Governments often
deny the existence of controversial research programs until they're eventually exposed.
Remember mk Ultra, the CIA's mind control experiments. They denied
those for years before the truth came out. And it's
worth noting that a RUSH military journal published an article
in nineteen ninety eight, which was later republished by the
US Army War College, warning about the potential for electromagnetic
weapons that could target the human mind. They specifically stated
that the mind has no firewall against such attacks.
Speaker 1: So, after considering all the evidence in the various arguments,
where do you stand on HARP? Is it a harmless
research facility or is there something more to it?
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's safe to say that HARP is
a real and very powerful technology with the potential for
both beneficial and potentially harmful applications. It's been primarily funded
and operated by defense agencies, and the patents that form
its foundation clearly describe methods from manipulating the environment, including
weather modification and earth penetrating techniques. And while the most
extreme claims like directly causing earthquakes or controlling minds might
seem far fetched, the underlying science is intriguing and certainly
warrants further investigation. The real problem is the lack of transparency.
Speaker 1: The secrecy surrounding HARP only fuels speculation.
Speaker 2: And distrust exactly, and it makes you wonder what they're
not telling us. If it's truly just a harmless research facility,
why all the secrecy, Why the resistance to international oversight.
Speaker 1: The transfer of harp's ownership to the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks in twenty fifteen was presented as a move towards
greater transparency, but some argue that it was more about
rebranding the facility and distancing it from its controversial past.
Speaker 2: There's evidence to suggest that some sensitive equipment might have
been removed before the transfer, so it's unclear how much
transparency there really is.
Speaker 1: I think it's safe to say that the truth about
HARP probably lies somewhere between the narrative of pure scientific
research and the more alarming claims of it being a
weapon of mass destruction.
Speaker 2: I agree, and I think the most important takeaway is
that we need more transparency and open discussion about technologies
like HARP. We need to understand their full capabilities and
potential consequences before we go too far down this road.
Speaker 1: Well said, So to wrap up this deep dive, I
think we've covered a lot of ground. From Tesla's vision
to wireless power to the controversial realities of HARP. We've
explored some fascinating and potentially disturbing possibilities. The key takeaway
for me, at least, is that we need to be
aware of the potential consequences of our technological advancements and
demand transparency from those who control these powerful tools.
Speaker 2: Absolutely knowledge is power, as they say, and the more
we understand about technologies like HARP, the better equipped will
be to ensure they're used responsibly and for the benefit
of all humankind.
Speaker 1: So to our listeners, I encourage you to continue exploring
these topics, to ask questions and to demand answers. The
future of our planet may depend on it. And if
a technology like HARP, with its potential to influence the
environment and even our minds, could emerge from Tesla's seemingly
utopian dream of free energy, what other unforeseen possibilities might
be lurking within the seemingly benign innovations of today. It's
a question worth pondering as we navigate the ever evolving
landscape of science and technology.
Speaker 2: And who knows, maybe one day we'll uncover the truth
about what really happened at Tunguska. Perhaps Tesla's research holds
the key, or maybe it's something else entirely, But until then,
the mystery remains a reminder of the vast unknown that
still surrounds us.
Speaker 1: It's a fascinating thought, and on that note, we'll leave
you to ponder the mysteries of the universe and the
power of human ingenuity. Thanks for joining us on this
deep dive. Until next time, keep questioning, keep learning, and
keep exploring the world around you.