OCOC ORIGINAL

Geoengineering Our Skies While Telling Us Lies Part Three

Greg Taylor With Mary Otto-Chang

A Skeptical Probe into Engineered Chaos and the Questions That Don’t Add Up

BY GREG TAYLOR with Mary Otto-Chang HBA MES PhD (Candidate)

The HAARP Enigma: Research Tool or Weather Director?

Please see this link for PART 1 of this series.

article_chemtrails

Please see this link for PART 2 of this series.

article_geoengineering2

In Parts One and Two of this Mini Series, the history of geoengineering was covered and now in Part Three, we examine the elusive HAARP.

A Skeptical Probe into Engineered Chaos and the Questions That Don’t Add Up

Skepticism here isn’t optional. Governments lie (see: Operation Popeye’s six-year blackout). Agencies stonewall (NOAA’s 2024 “debunks” omit RF synergies). “RF” stands for radio frequency, which is a type of electromagnetic energy or radiation used for wireless communication, heating, and sensing.

Media parrots (“conspiracy,” per Associated Free Press, August 2025). Scientists deflect (“no peer-reviewed RF- weather links,” yet models hint otherwise). If HAARP is “just research,” why the secrecy? Why the redactions? Why the global race to build its analogs?

What HAARP Can Do—and What’s Publicly Known

Recent campaigns (e.g., June 2025) created artificial auroras visible 1,000 km away. HAARP has demonstrated the ability to generate temporary plasma clouds, stimulate Extremely Low Frequency ELF/ Very Low Frequency VLF waves for submarine communication, and mitigate ionospheric scintillation. These are documented in peer-reviewed journals and HAARP’s own technical reports.

The official line? “HAARP cannot affect weather. High Frequency waves don’t penetrate the troposphere.” NOAA’s October 2024 fact-check insists HAARP “can’t create or steer hurricanes.” AFP’s August 2025 piece calls it a “research station, not a weapon.” Wikipedia echoes: “Power limits make weather control implausible, megawatts vs. solar gigawatts.”

But even within the official literature, cracks appear. UAF’s 2025 summer campaign focused on “space weather forecasting” during Solar Cycle 25’s peak. One experiment documented a 98% electron depletion over China during geomagnetic storms.

Early Navy documents from the 1990s remain redacted. The 2014 “closure” was quietly reversed.

And then we have the old Disclaimer trick. They truly do take us for fools. Think of how much effort and money an almost 200-page technical scientific report would demand. The number of years of university study that the noted team below would have had, would have been in the arena of 70 to 100 years of collective rigorous scientific university studies along with perhaps the same number of years of career experience – or more. Seriously, we are expected to think that this is a “visioning exercise”. No, this was how they made it appear less visible and harmless.

Radio Frequency Manipulation, Zonal Steering, and Aerosol Enhancement

Enter the shadows. Allegations portray HAARP not as a heater, but a director, a tool for steering jet streams, enhancing aerosols, and triggering droughts, floods, even earthquakes.

He cites patents like Bernard Eastlund’s 1985 ionospheric heater for weather modification (U.S. Patent 4,686,605); Chang’s 1991 RF cloud seeding (U.S. Patent 5,038,664); and Herzog 1976 ELF for seismic induction (U.S. Patent 3,950,133). This patent describes a method for generating seismic impulses in the earth by setting up an electrical field between two electrodes inserted into the ground. The current is periodically interrupted to generate the impulses. The patent does not specifically mention “Herzog” as an inventor in the search results, but it does list Bernard Herzog’s 1962 patent (3,062,315) as a cited reference. The primary examiner for the patent was Richard A. Farley. We can all imagine how much things have progressed since the early 1960’s when this technology was already established, at least at a foundational level.

While verifiable US Patent and Trademark Office records scream capability, NOAA methodically and repeatedly “debunks” without addressing them. Satellite imagery shows “scalar” RF pulses; lab studies link RF to precipitation (e.g., 2024 “Advances in Atmospheric Sciences” on RF-Prophet Total Electron Count TEC prediction).

Wigington argues that HAARP’s ELF/VLF emissions ionize aerosols, supercharging geoengineering. He links this to the 20–30% global dimming observed since the 1960s, which he claims is not from CO₂ but from aerosol spraying amplified by RF.

Critics scoff. NOAA and AFP say the physics don’t support it. Facebook’s Matthew Cappucci notes that HAARP’s 3.6 MW is dwarfed by lightning’s petawatts.

But skeptics counter: it’s not about raw power, it’s about resonance, frequency, and timing. The 2025 American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference, scheduled for December 15–19 in New Orleans, LA, and online, will likely feature papers on extremely low frequency (ELF) propagation, though the specific papers presented at the event have not been fully published as the conference is still a few weeks away. Research related to this topic has, however, appeared in AGU journals throughout 2025. Such research includes the ELF propagation and Schumann resonances potentially influencing cloud microphysics.

Why no studies on RF-aerosol synergies post-Popeye? While Wigington’s scalar arrays lack declassified proof, the physics of ELF-cloud links (per 2025 AGU) begs independent tests.

Geopolitically, HAARP reeks of arms race. DARPA’s 2025 AtmoSense program, with $10 million in funding and tests in New Mexico, builds “global sensors” by perturbing the ionosphere. Officially, it’s for communications enhancement. But DARPA’s own materials describe AtmoSense as a tool for detecting “national security-relevant events”, including underground detonations and atmospheric anomalies. This isn’t just science. It’s battlefield telemetry. And it aligns perfectly with the 1996 USAF’s 2025 vision of “weather ownership” for “force multiplication.”

Abroad, China mirrors the playbook, and raises the stakes by turning space itself into a potential battleground for Earth’s weather. The Meridian Project (also known as the Meridian Space Weather Monitoring Project or CMP), launched in 2008 as part of China’s 11th Five-Year Plan, has evolved into one of the world’s most ambitious ground- based networks for monitoring the ionosphere and Sun-Earth interactions.

By October 2025, with Phase II complete, it spans 15 observatories from Mohe in Heilongjiang (53°N) to Zhongshan Station in Antarctica (74°S), forming a longitudinal chain along the 120°E meridian for 24/7 surveillance.

Officially, Meridian is a scientific triumph for disaster mitigation during Solar Cycle 25’s peak, its May 2024 analysis of a superstorm revealed a staggering 98% electron depletion over China, published in National Science Review (2025), and its June 2025 breakthroughs in coherent scatter tech have slashed aviation blackout forecast errors by 30%. But the dual-use red flags are glaring:

Could this network not only forecast but manipulate? Disrupt monsoons or amplify seeding ops (China’s 5,000+ annual cloud missions already tweak 52% of its land)?

If China is brazenly building this infrastructure, openly celebrating Mangantu’s activation in March 2025 via state media like China Daily, surely the U.S. is doing the exact same, but under a thicker veil of classification.

HAARP’s upgrades, DARPA’s AtmoSense perturbations, and NOAA’s ionospheric modeling (tied to $20M Solar Radiation Modification grants) scream parallels: A “Three Networks” equivalent for solar-magnetosphere-ionosphere dominance, perhaps hidden in Alaska’s phased arrays or New Mexico’s test beds. Why else the redactions on 1990s Navy docs or the quiet reversal of HAARP’s 2014 “closure”?

The U.S. lags in transparency, not capability, its silence on Meridian-like ops exposes a global race where weather becomes asymmetric warfare: Induce crop failures without missiles, stall ocean currents via ELF resonances, or supercharge aerosols for dimming. Governments admit to a fraction, China’s hail-suppression drones, United Arab Emirates’ rainmaking, India’s monsoon tweaks, but the underbelly? Dozens more, from Russia’s analogs to Australia’s paused trials, all unacknowledged.

This isn’t speculation; it’s the logical endpoint of the UN’s Environmental Modification Convention’s hollow ban. The world’s skies are a patchwork of secret grids, and the public? Left to chase shadows while anomalies mount. The implications are staggering.

Weather becomes an asymmetric weapon. Droughts, floods, and crop failures can be induced without a single missile fired. The Carnegie Endowment’s 2025 report calls it a “planetary security threat.” Wigington calls it “soft coercion.”