Wikipedia

Talk:High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program/Archive 4

< Talk:High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Gerritse in topic power
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Citations in lead

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An IP insists on tagging the lead for "citations needed" [1] but has apparently neglected to read the Naiditch and Popular Science articles cited which clearly support statements in the lead. I don't understand the IPs request for "links for quick follow through". Maybe someone else can. I'll not be reverting any further. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


Moby Dick.

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Sharon Weinberger called HAARP "the Moby Dick of conspiracy theories" and said the popularity of conspiracy theories often overshadows the benefits HAARP may provide to the scientific community.

Who's Sharon Weinberger? Scientist? Geophysicist? Any expert in the subject?

Or just a journalist?

If she's just a journalist, why does her opinion deserve any coverage? Dornicke (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you disputing the appropriateness of using that particular quote from the Wired article, or are you saying Sharon Weinberger is not a reliable source of opinion about the popularity of conspiracy theories regarding HAARP? - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying I have no idea why does the opinion of a journalist that is absolutely irrelevant outside US borders has more weight in the article than, for example, criticism made by the European Union. Dornicke (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
You might have a point IF Weinberger was alone in the opinion that HAARP attracts conspiracy theories. But that is not the case. A number of reliable and mainstream sources cited say essentially the same thing, and so are relevant and given due weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
A journalist who is absolutely unknown for most of the planet deserves more coverage than the European Union? This is due weight for you? Ok... Dornicke (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you have some specific proposal? e.g. "change the section to "this wording", per this source". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

HAARP shutdown, Air Force quote

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A recent quote by a deputy assistant secretary for the Air Force has caused the fringe blogosphere to fill with misinformed news of an "admission that HAARP can control the weather" [2]. Sorry to say there is a huge difference between controlling small bits of the ionosphere and controlling the weather, as a recent Alaska Dispatch news story makes clear:

Responding to questions from Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski during a Senate hearing Wednesday, David Walker, deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering, said this is “not an area that we have any need for in the future” and it would not be a good use of Air Force research funds to keep HAARP going. “We’re moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the HAARP was really designed to do," he said. "To inject energy into the ionosphere to be able to actually control it. But that work has been completed.” Comments of that sort have given rise to endless conspiracy theories, portraying HAARP as a super weapon capable of mind control or weather control, with enough juice to trigger hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Scientists say all of that is nonsense, and that the degree of ionosphere control possible through HAARP is akin to controlling the Pacific Ocean by tossing a rock into it.

All this is to say that edits like this one are not appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hadfeild

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

LuckyLouie, is it the type of media that Peter Hadfield used that concerns you and revert my edit? If it were typed down on his blog you would accept it, but when it is in a video format uploaded to Youtube you do not? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, we include material in proportion to the amount of coverage something has gotten in reliable sources. In other words, anyone could put out a Youtube video or post something on their blog, but as a self published source, it's not considered notable enough for Wikipedia to report it, unless some reliable secondary source (like a news outlet, an academic study, etc) does also. Do you have secondary reliable sources, such as a news outlet, that have taken notice of Peter Hadfield's "revelation"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hadfield published the video years after the video. Due to the fact it is not an actuality I don't think any large media outlet considered it interesting for its readers. But that does not have to mean it is al of a sudden not Encyclopedic, is it? Will see if I can add it in a different way with other sources. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
If by adding it in a different way, you mean citing it to reliable secondary sources, that's great. Otherwise you run counter to WP:RS, WP:OR, etc. Wikipedia policies can seem counter-intuitive to newcomers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Counter productive too at times.Ernstblumberg (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Tone 2

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I very much can deal with the term Conspiracy Theorist when it is a correct assertion, as often there is no other word that can plainly identify those who take issue with the facts underlying the reported story... I'm not sure if it constitutes WP:LABEL but the bias I take with this article is what the opposition to the 'Conspiracy Theorists' has been called, the lack of actual references, and the amount on WP:WEASEL present. The paragraph as it stands looks like this:

"HAARP was a target of conspiracy theorists, who claimed that it was capable of... (snip for brevity) ...the 2003 destruction of the space shuttle Columbia. Commentators and scientists say that proponents of these theories are "uninformed", because most theories put forward fall well outside the abilities of the facility and often outside the scope of natural science."

The issue I take with this is that the author has put Conspiracy Theorists on one side of the argument and Commentators and Scientists on the other, implying that the former are neither Commentators nor Scientists and giving zero examples of either party's members to verify. That is actually very far from fact and all the 'commentators' party has for a reference is a scientifically inaccurate source that claims that HAARP is being used to zap the moon with radio waves to find out it's soil properties (illogical because we already have physical samples of the moon, we handled EME communication a long time ago with far weaker equipment and could have used that, and I cannot find a secondary source that specifically states the same thing is being done for the same reason with HAARP) and a Q+A page that basically regurgitates the official HAARP webpage in response to questions with no actual calculus or understanding. For this simple reason, I will be removing the 'scientists' word from the "Commentators and Scientists" and eliminating the statement about 'uninformed' as well as why. It breaches WP:NOR without direct refs. I will simply replace it with 'Commentators disagree'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.182.71 (talk • contribs) 14:42, December 9, 2014‎
Sorry, the cited links lead directly to comments by scientists, including a specific statement that the conspiracy theories are "uninformed". There's no original research involved. WP:FRINGE directs us to clearly indicate which views are mainstream and which views are a tiny minority. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

dated again

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The whole article has verb tense problems considering that it tends to be written as if the various activities were all ongoing, when mostly none of them are. However news in June was that the DoD had halted plans for dismantling so that academics could come in and take over the facility. Mangoe (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Technical Accuracy?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The statement "At an altitude between 70 to 350 km (43 to 217 mi) (depending on operating frequency), the signal is partially absorbed in a small volume several tens of kilometers in diameter and a few meters thick over the IRI." is much less than accurate. A statement does not have to be technical to be accurate, i.e. The integer value of pi is 3, is an accurate statement, though not precise; a more precise, but not completely accurate statement is, "Pi to ten digits is equal to 3.141592653590" is more precise but not completely accurate as pi is an infinite series and it would take a number with an infinite number of digits to be completely accurate, an impossibility.

Back to HAARP and the Ionosphere: For one, the ionosphere is much like the visible portions and formations of the rest of the atmosphere and are rarely "a few meters thick" There are various layers in the ionosphere that are frequency sensitive (mainly because of the charges and densities of the layers), but I dare say (having spent since 1973 bouncing my ham radio signals off the ionosphere, and four years and four months working at the American Weather Station, Ascension Island [1]) this article was written by someone with less that Subject Matter Expertise[2]. Enough said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.42 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_Island
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-matter_expert
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Not notable, not an scientific comparison made by Umran Inan

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The last paragraph is scientifically flawed and not notable just because it was published once off in the Popular mechanics. Let me take a step back. Umran Inan compares the HAARP project to lightning but is mostly a fallacy because he fails to take in account that the HAARP beam can be focused similar to how a magnifying glass focuses sunlight to create a deadly beam that cannot be compared in a manner as saying oh the sun shines all day everyday so the sun is 100% safe. I don't see how what he said in popular mechanics can be notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia.

--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 19:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Umran Inan is a fairly well known scientist and expert in the field of very low frequency radio science, so I doubt his opinion is a "one off". However, if you find sources for similarly accredited scientists who disagree with his views, please cite them here so we can discuss. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

After 27 years of HAARP research surely there must be some scientific discoveries or at least reports

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Why does this article not contain any of the research that has been found by this project. Is it classified or was 27 years of work in vain that lead to nothing to report?

This article should be updated with information of the outcome of the research what findings or discoveries were made by this project surely there should be tons of info about it. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 19:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There is, and it's published in a number of scientific journals. Some descriptions can be found here at Stanford's page on the project. You can also research other journal articles in the bibliography list at the bottom of that page. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


As a radio amateur and electronics engineer, actually no, there's not a lot of fundamental discoveries from HAARP, or nothing new about radiowave or ionosphere we didn't know since the shortwave radio was invented, sending 'pings' into it like on a network's infrastructure.. it might have improved the design of some OTH radars, or long range submarine communication, because the ionosphere being a natural radio reflector, it changes all the time and requires operators to fine tune their instruments and equipment all the time, but that's about it. Sorry, no illuminati conspiracy from the government but feel free to write some cyberpunk fiction about how this technology could be used to intercept communications, and spy truckers or ham radio folks's communications! Cheers! Anon 10:00, 6 October 2017 (GMT)
True, there are no "wow" discoveries that would make the cover of TIME, however, scientists are very happy to add to the body of knowledge regarding ion plasma behavior (e.g.Observations and theory of ion gyro-harmonic structures in the stimulated radiation spectrum during second electron gyro-harmonic heating). - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Then why does this article not contain any of the work that has been done. --Mickey ☠ Dangerez 18:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like there are some bullets added now, but they are hardly awe-inspiring, given that $250 Million in tax-funded costs went into their research. 172.10.237.153 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Snopes Michio Kaku said Hurricanes Harvey and Irma were caused by the United States Government modifying the weather.? No, Kaku never said that HAARP was responsible for hurricanes. YouTube videos espousing the conspiracy theory splice together misinformation about HAARP with an interview Kaku did with CBS News in 2013. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Italic text== Haarp is not a hoax ==

Forum talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello mind controlled editors haarp is most certainly real weather control otherwise it woudnt be in daily star now stop listening to lobbyists and start listening to fact haarp is weather control ! Memetrident (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think they are losing you on the "control" part because in reality they don't have control over the weather so the right terms would be "weather influence" because it does have the capability of influencing the weather.--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 19:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
What sources say that HAARP can influence the weather? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
No sources doesn't mean something doesn't exist or doesn't have a certain ability. That is the great Wikipedia fallacy...--Mickey ☠ Dangerez 18:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
In theory, HAARP cannot fully control but can exert an influence on the weather, but without an extra mechanism, only directly in its local area. The science of how this influence occurs is actually related to how it is used to study the atmosphere in the first place. The pings it sends to study the ionosphere can, again in theory, increase the height of the atmosphere, creating a small bulge of sorts into space (very small). This can in theory alter the air pressure in that area, and even slightly affect the path of storms through the air pressure change. It is not enough to really be relevant though, nor can it affect weather in other locations. This brings us to one of the conspiracy theories that combines HAARP conspiracy theories with chem trails conspiracy theories. One of the conspiracy theories involving chemtrails is that they aren't actually a poison but a way of re-directing HAARP's energy to other locations, acting as a sort of reflector, allowing it to exert its effects in different parts of the globe. This conspiracy theory has little basis on fact though, because if chem-trails were real and used for the purpose of guiding HAARP's energy, they would have to be much higher, a height where they wouldn't even be able to remain a coherent trail due to the low air pressure. We have no aircraft that fly at the necessary altitude for this to even work. The same applies to earthquakes, with HAARP's energy supposedly being focused via chemtrails on fault locations. If you were able to direct HAARP's energy at a specific point in a fault, you may get some interesting results (though I doubt it). More proof that HAARP has never been somehow aimed at other points on the earth via reflection is the fact that it has never been detected by radio operators in far locations. The Russian Woodpecker, which instead of being used for studying the atmosphere was an actual defense system used by the Soviet military as an over the horizon radar and actually was deliberately bounced off the upper atmosphere to go around the Earth's curvature, was easily detected by amateur radio operators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.14.178.193 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily in its *local* area. Rather, "only in a single area" is more correct. The fact that there is a complex of antennae means that they can be focused in on a wide range of areas, whose weather they can influence. Again, the scope of the influence is questionable, but the area is quite wide. 199.111.243.254 (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

My main work on wikipedia is on medical and clinical articles and most of my time is spent working on the Wikimedia Journalisms of Medicine. That said I'm no expert on HAARP or similar matters, however I have a concern that the link to a Russian site in the "External Links" section when clicked causes two of my browsers to throw up privacy and expired site certificate warnings. Could one of the editors watching or with expertise on this article possibly find a solution to this problem? Cheers, ~~ Dr.khatmando (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Which link are you referring to? None of the links in the External Links section of the page are Russian. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I removed the link, the page was inaccessible, see the diffs.- LuckyLouie (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Update: by using the Internet Archive and Google translate, I was able to see the contents of the external link. It is an article from Pravda dated October 2002, that contains wild conspiracy theories about HAARP and gems such as “today, the American HAARP emitter is primarily a problem for terrestrial civilization. The United States, not joking, threatens all of humanity”. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Ugh, Pravda. Yeah, good call removing that one then. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories section

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not sure if bullet point 3 really fits in this list. Seems like a legitimate investigation.51.52.43.171 (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't an investigation. According to the sources, it was an expression of concern that HARP could have something to do with environmental damage, i.e. rumors of weather control, which is a conspiracy theory in itself. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

EL to Bernard Eastlund website

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Eastlund's site claiming credit for HAARP is included as an External Link. According to HAARP program manager John L. Heckscher, "HAARP certainly does not have anything to do with Eastlund's thing, that is just crazy. What we have here is a premier scientific research facility with military applications."[1] So removal of the external link per WP:ELNO #2 is warranted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mark Farmer. Popular Science. September 1995 ed. Bonnier Corporation; September 1995. ISSN 01617370. pp. 79–.

"False conspiracy theories"

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Re this edit. Conspiracy theories needn't be defined as false since, by definition, they are already deprecated as such. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

When I was young I used to think that - but I now live in a country where there are more real conspiracies.
An example source implying that conspiracy theories can be true https://bigthink.com/thinking/10-rules-conspiracy-theory-true-false/
Unfortunately simply labelling something as a conspiracy theory seems not to change peoples opinion about whether it is true or not https://www.psypost.org/2022/05/psychology-study-explores-how-labeling-an-idea-a-conspiracy-theory-impacts-its-credibility-63154 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I don’t know what views this English article gets from here in Turkey, but the equivalent article was 6th most read on Turkish Wikipedia today. Hopefully after reading it people understand correctly but I just wanted to make it absolutely clear that HAARP cannot cause earthquakes Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Wow I just found Conspiracy theories in Turkey and it describes the “ Mastermind narrative”, which is presumably what is happening now. Amazing what depth of info we have Chidgk1 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Regardless, we don't need to place the world "false" here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I think that adding “false” would not do any harm and might do some good. In the same way that the BBC puts a big red FALSE over fake pictures when it is writing about misinformation. Some readers may not get as far as the last paragraph of the section which is where it says why the theories are wrong. Having it clear in the section heading would mean they could not miss it. What do other editors think? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
By the way an equivalent change I made on Turkish Wikipedia was reverted with the comment that “It's up to the reader to believe or not believe the conspiracy theory …” Chidgk1 (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia consensus is that conspiracy theories are inherently false. Adding "false" just makes the sentence clunky, and implies that some conspiracy theories are not false, which is a bad idea. What the Turkish project does is not our concern. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Where is it stated in the Conspiracy theory article that they are inherently false please? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Read all the Talk page archives for that article, where actual consensus is that conspiracy theories are considered inherently false. for Wikipedia's purposes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
What you say is a conspiracy theory. Do you see how easy it was to disprove you? Thinker78 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
A conspiracy theory that is not false is just a ... conspiracy. This label implies there maybe conspiracy theories that are not false. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
As many others seem to have asked the same question if you are certain please could you put the answer in
Talk:Conspiracy theory/FAQ Chidgk1 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
  • See etymological fallacy. Don't confuse the concept of a conspiracy (which is a situation where people work together to do something nefarious, untowards, unethical, illegal, just bad, etc.) and a conspiracy theory, which has become an idiomatic phrase that always means the thing so described as a conspiracy theory is "bullshit". Yes, real conspiracies exist. But if it were real, we'd call it a conspiracy. The etymological fallacy comes in is when people try to understand the phrase conspiracy theory literally rather than idiomatically. If you mean "This was a real event where people really did work together to be bad" then that is a conspiracy. If you mean "This is some silly bullshit that never happened, but some people think against any evidence did." that's what a conspiracy theory is. In short, if it wasn't false, call it a conspiracy. If it was false, use the term "conspiracy theory" because that's what is expected of the language. Don't overanalyze the etymology of the phrase, as though you could pick apart the words "conspiracy" and "theory" separately and somehow understand the idiom. That's not how idioms work. Furthermore, if you want to really split hairs here, conspiracy theories are by definition not even wrong, because they pretty much are always unfalsifiable. If something could not ever been shown to be false, it's bullshit a priori. --Jayron32 16:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
    I would say conspiracy theory is that, an anecdotal "theory". In other words, speculation about a possible conspiracy. The lab leak theory was considered a conspiracy theory by journalists and vehemently attacked. Until some government agencies started saying it could have been the origin of covid.
    The way I see it is that something that ideological opponents speculate about is a conspiracy theory if it is something the other side don't agree with fiercely. That is until mainstream research organizations start saying it is not a conspiracy theory or it is somehow proven. And even then people cling to the conspiracy theory label until they become the tiny minority considered the conspiracy theorists. It's really a circus. Thinker78 (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

power

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The text says:The facility officially began full operations in its final status of 3.6 MW transmitter power in the summer of 2007, yielding a maximum effective radiated power (ERP) of 5.1 gigawatts or 97.1 dBW. Is this correct? I do not understand how they produce 5(!) GW. Gerritse (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the 5.1 GW ERP number is citeable without original research using the online calculator. 3.6 GW ERP is citeable to a number of sources such as this one. The term "ERP" stands for effective radiated power, which is a power multiplier function of the antenna array. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I know almost nothing of antenna-technology, but I'm sure that the output of the antenna cannot be higher than the input power. (Which is quite a lot for a few diesel generators, though :) https://www.uaf.edu/news/archives/news-archives-2010-2021/haarp-power.php Gerritse (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
It’s pretty simple. A transmitting antenna can have gain that, when measured at the receiver, is the equivalent of X more watts than what is being generated by the transmitter. Read the ERP article. Antenna gain isn’t an extraordinary concept. - LuckyLouie (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program/Archive_4&oldid=1215844141"