April 4th, 2012, 10:49 AM
I read this article in which HAARP is described basically as the weapon of the mass destruction, and its ability to manipulate weather for military use. Could this really be possible, is US really working on this kind of projects, and why are people messing with the things they don't know much about, could this start a disaster like no other??? Also there is something about chemtrails, could this be possible
HAARP ARTICLE................
I have not looked too closely into the HAARP issue, but what I have seen reeks of traditional conspiracy theory and led me to believe that any further investigation would be a waste of time. Of course, if it is genuinely a program of Mass Destruction, then it would make sense for the US government to institute a program of agent provocateurs who would claim in typical hysterical ways that there was a conspiracy. (That way lies madness.)
It isn't and it can't. The amount of energy involved in weather systems is enormous so HAARP's energy output (a few MW) is like a raindrop in the Pacific.Originally Posted by risto
More paranoid nonsense.Also there is something about chemtrails,
Do these people have any real evidence or just links to other websites and yootoob videos?
Please move to Trash ASAP.
Honestly, I did my research on haarp, and I dont think that this is another conspiracy theory, come on people, can anyone tell me something beside that, does nobody know anything about haarp??? Can someone write something smart regarding this. Don't write that it is a conspiracy theory if you are uninformed
It is set up to analyze the ionosphere and investigate the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance. What more do you want to know?
I want to know does it have a potential to be used for something else, like any of the stuff mentioned in the article. I know that military wouldn't have part in that for 10yrs in such a project if it was used only for atmospheric research, its kind of naive to think that
That is basically Wikipedia definition of haarp
And why is that a problem?That is basically Wikipedia definition of haarp
There's no physical basis for thinking that E&M waves of low power could cause catastrophic climatic effects. Megawatt-level transmitters already exist in the form of UHF TV transmitters. Study physics, not conspiracy-nutjob youtubes. And anything that mentions "chemtrails" as anything other than more conspiratorial nonsense should be immediately disregarded.
No. What evidence did they provide for their fantasies?
Not if it can be used for long distance communication and surveillance. That is very valuable.I know that military wouldn't have part in that for 10yrs in such a project if it was used only for atmospheric research, its kind of naive to think that
It is not a problem, but you should guess that wikipedia definition is a first thing I would read, and I am not talking about E&M waves, that thing uses ELF waves, amount of power it sends out is between 3 and 4 million wats, and it directs it at one spot of Ionosphere, why would they do that shit for atmospheric research, tell meAnd why is that a problem?That is basically Wikipedia definition of haarp
There's no physical basis for thinking that E&M waves of low power could cause catastrophic climatic effects. Megawatt-level transmitters already exist in the form of UHF TV transmitters. Study physics, not conspiracy-nutjob youtubes. And anything that mentions "chemtrails" as anything other than more conspiratorial nonsense should be immediately disregarded.
Don't defend the simplistic shit you read on the wikipedia, think with your own brain
Yes it is very valuable when you consider that we had all that shit without HAARP projectNo. What evidence did they provide for their fantasies?
Not if it can be used for long distance communication and surveillance. That is very valuable.I know that military wouldn't have part in that for 10yrs in such a project if it was used only for atmospheric research, its kind of naive to think that
I don't know what an "E&M wave" is, so it is a good job you are not talking about them.
ELF radio is important because it can tell us about atmospheric processes. The military are interested because they can use it to comminicate with submarines. and no doubt spy on/jam other peoples attempts to do the same.
4 MW is not a lot of power compared to radio transmitters.
They are studying the ionosphere. partly pure research (atmospheric and weather related) and no doubt seeing if they can use it to bounce or amplify communications signals.
So what?
If you are looking for people to go "wow yeah man freaky they iz all about contrlin teh wether n urthquakes n stunamis n shit" then you should probably try somewhere other than a science forum.
I'm not looking for that kind of reaction, all I look for are an honest, intelligent opinions, not the shit you can read on wikipedia, like you read about ELF waves. If you knew anything about it you would know that they are not only used for communication with submarines...I don't know what an "E&M wave" is, so it is a good job you are not talking about them.
ELF radio is important because it can tell us about atmospheric processes. The military are interested because they can use it to comminicate with submarines. and no doubt spy on/jam other peoples attempts to do the same.
4 MW is not a lot of power compared to radio transmitters.
They are studying the ionosphere. partly pure research (atmospheric and weather related) and no doubt seeing if they can use it to bounce or amplify communications signals.
So what?
If you are looking for people to go "wow yeah man freaky they iz all about contrlin teh wether n urthquakes n stunamis n shit" then you should probably try somewhere other than a science forum.
If you know so much more than us and wikipedia, why are you asking questions.
It is not a weapon of mass destruction.
It is not able to control the weather.
Again, what evidence have these deluded idiots provided for these fantasies?
"Chemtrails" don't exist outside the minds of immature idiots.
Dude, I know its hard for you to say some shit you did not read in the book, but try to come up with your own opinions, it develops individuality and character
and fuck chemtrails, Im talking about haarp
This is a science forum. You may have heard of "science", it is a method for developing knowledge based on evidence. It has been pretty successful so far. Unlike people making stuff up. That generally doesn't work so well.
"Opinions", mine or anyone else's, are irrelevant.
eeeh, i got to admit I am more interested in peoples opinions than in your little science lecture you read of wikipedia that everybody learns in preschool, if peoples opinions don't have no value to you, maybe you are at the wrong spot...that kind of stubborn attitude is suffocating innovation...
Last edited by risto; April 4th, 2012 at 06:54 PM.
You want another opinion risto? You should plug your brain in once in a while. Have you read and understood what HAARP really is, or do you get all your education from youtube videos instead of actual facts?
I guess you don't realize how ignorant you are. That would explain why you possess so much confidence about a subject in which you are so obviously clueless. Could you be a sock puppet of forests? your styles certainly have much in common. Or maybe it's just the natural output of a Poisson process for which we've well exceeded the mean interarrival time of dunces.
But let's continue in the vain hope that your appalling and arrogant ignorance can be overcome. First, ELF waves are E&M waves, but I guess you didn't even have that basic knowledge. Now to radiate waves of a given frequency requires antennas whose dimensions are at least about a wavelength in extent (you might be able to go down to lambda/10, but at a significant reduction in efficiency). That's why AM transmitter antennas are much taller than those of FM transmitters. To radiate ELF waves would require antennas of the order of 1000km, at mininum, and ten times that at the lower-frequency end of the ELF band. HAARP's antenna farm is a couple of orders of magnitude too small to be useful even at the highest frequency that is in the ELF region.
That information, based on physics (things like Maxwell's equations), tells us that there's no way that HAARP radiates significant power in the ELF band, even if the men in black wanted it to. Part of HAARP's research does involve inducing VLF waves by using nonlinear effects in the ionosphere, but the power levels are a tiny fraction of the total power transmitted to the ionosphere. That power level, in turn, is tiny compared to the power from natural sources, such as lightning strikes.
So where is most of HAARP's power to be found (spectrum-wise)? Ham radio operators all over the planet have known for decades that HAARP transmissions are roughly in the 30-100m wavelength band. This frequency band is known as the HF band, and is widely used for long-distance communications because of its favorable propagation characteristics. HAARP transmissions can be an irritating source of interference to ham radio operators wishing to pursue their hobby of communicating around the globe.
Last edited by tk421; April 4th, 2012 at 08:15 PM.
mankind is trying to control nature and it simply will not work. either it will be a BIG waste of taxpayers money, or it could be a weopen of mass destruction. i think an investigation should ensue and HAARP should be shut down before permanent damage is made.
No, woos think mankind is trying to control nature.
You have left out a whole basketful of other possibilities. One which comes to mind is that studying the ionosphere is important for communications and surveillance, just like HAARP claims. The woo crowd who only watches youtube vids doesn't realize that researchers from many universities routinely come and go (and this includes non-US citizens). Or maybe they think that this very openness is proof that a darker purpose is hidden underneath. I'm here to tell you: Those people are wrong. The actual truth is that we all live in the Matrix. Nothing is real. There is no spoon. Elvis lives!!
Well, if you want an opinion... the people who make up the sort of scare stories and conspiracy theories you seem to want to believe are either profoundly ignorant or trying to make money out of the sort of gullible idiots who might believe it.
Opinionated enough for you?
So Risto, do you think that HAARP may be being used for ulterior purposes?
If so, what are these purposes?
What is your evidence that these purposes are being pursued?
How do you address the points made by tk421 and others that the power output of HAARP is miniscule compared with natural atmospheric phenomena?
And, on a side topic, in the context of science why do you feel that opinions are important?
Of course I'm ignorant to people when they write down stuff from Wikipedia that any fool can read, I don't know a lot about E&M waves and ELF waves, and I do not listen to them conspiracy theorists, or youtube videos, but I do support one man who said 100 years ago that you can manipulate weather with these kind of antennas, and that is Nikola Tesla, he was not a conspiracy theorist but an inventor and engineer, he had a lot more knowledge than any of us. So if scientist like that says that weather manipulation is possible why doesn't anybody here consider such a possibility
Tesla may have made that assertion, however 100 years of research and testing has shown that it is not a correct assertion. That is why it is not a viable hypothesis that HAARP is being used for weather manipulation.
As I am answering your question I hope you will take the time to answer mine in post#25.
It is demonstrably not the case that Tesla " had a lot more knowledge than any of us", if by us you include the tens of thousands of engineers, physicists and meteorologists who have practiced since his time. I ask you again what evidence do you have that HAARP could produce atmospheric changes of significance? This does not need to be experimental evidence - theoretical justification is quite accetpable. In short, rather than accepting the opinion of one scientist, I should prefer to consider the evidence of one experiment.
Im saying that Tesla had a lot more knowledge than anybody on this forum, I do not have an access to any experiment evidence, I do not have my theory of how people manipulate weather, but I am saying that there might be a possibility, coming from a man that created that project
Where did you hear that Tesla thought weather manipulation was possible. Even the crackpot sites just say it is "based on" Tesla's work, as far as I can tell.
It's from one of the books about him, in which they quoted Tesla's interview, or a public speech, i cant remember
That doesn't change the fact that the laws of physics have shown the statement by Tesla, if not apocryphal, to be incorrect.
Tesla certainly was brilliant. He gave the world AC power. He experimented with high-power megavolt-level RF generators before the 20th century, and lived to tell the tale. But that doesn't mean that he was omniscient. He was a lousy brain surgeon, and not much of a pianist.[Im saying that Tesla had a lot more knowledge than anybody on this forum
You place too much faith in opinion and hearsay. What method do you use to select which opinion to accept? Whatever "sounds good?" Do you think that's wise? Are all things that sound good or feel right actually correct? What if you encounter a person who has an opposing opinion (that obviously sounded good and felt right to her)?
Science has a very simple method, and it doesn't rely on the cult of authority. It's based on the powerful notion that you have to put up or shut up. Show us the evidence that supports your "sounds good, feels right" instinct. If there's evidence that you're wrong, tough noogies. You're wrong. Go back, do more homework, and revise your assertion.
In this case, you can't just assert that Tesla had a weather control method. Show us the basis for your assertion. You can't just vaguely refer to "some other people (or site, or youtube)."
By the way, I've researched a good many of these claims about Tesla in detail. If you can find a primary source for Tesla's weather control technology, present it. Hearsay doesn't count. Tesla's self-promoting comments in Century Magazine articles don't count, either. Show me a paper that he wrote, a patent that he held, notebook entries, calculations, etc.
You should probably verify your facts before spreading misinformation all over the internet,
What are you referring to, which misinformation
I get my opinions from the facts i gather,Im not saying that I am right, but how can you talk about something so surely that you don't know lot about, and I obviously encountered some people with different opinions, PROVE ME WRONG, give me some facts you're talking so much about it, give me a theory which proves that that such a project can only be used for atmospheric researchTesla certainly was brilliant. He gave the world AC power. He experimented with high-power megavolt-level RF generators before the 20th century, and lived to tell the tale. But that doesn't mean that he was omniscient. He was a lousy brain surgeon, and not much of a pianist.[Im saying that Tesla had a lot more knowledge than anybody on this forum
You place too much faith in opinion and hearsay. What method do you use to select which opinion to accept? Whatever "sounds good?" Do you think that's wise? Are all things that sound good or feel right actually correct? What if you encounter a person who has an opposing opinion (that obviously sounded good and felt right to her)?
Science has a very simple method, and it doesn't rely on the cult of authority. It's based on the powerful notion that you have to put up or shut up. Show us the evidence that supports your "sounds good, feels right" instinct. If there's evidence that you're wrong, tough noogies. You're wrong. Go back, do more homework, and revise your assertion.
In this case, you can't just assert that Tesla had a weather control method. Show us the basis for your assertion. You can't just vaguely refer to "some other people (or site, or youtube)."
By the way, I've researched a good many of these claims about Tesla in detail. If you can find a primary source for Tesla's weather control technology, present it. Hearsay doesn't count. Tesla's self-promoting comments in Century Magazine articles don't count, either. Show me a paper that he wrote, a patent that he held, notebook entries, calculations, etc.
Statement that he can control the weather came out of his mouth
That is not how it works. That would suggest that every statement anyone makes has to PROVEN WRONG.
I think the world is carried on the back of an invisible tortoise. PROVE ME WRONG. See how silly that approach is?
I think HAARP is designed to communicate with the world-carrying tortoise. I read it on duh Interwebz. PROVE ME WRONG.
No. It is up to you to provide some evidence for your outrageous claims. A consideration of the energy output compared with the energy in the atmopsheric system might be a start.
Ah, so lost like tears in rain. How do you know about it then?Statement that he can control the weather came out of his mouth
Well you are all about facts, so it shouldn't be hard for you to prove that there is no possibility that haarp can be used for anything else, and for the silly statements you made if I need to prove you that, you need to study buddy.That is not how it works. That would suggest that every statement anyone makes has to PROVEN WRONG.
I think the world is carried on the back of an invisible tortoise. PROVE ME WRONG. See how silly that approach is?
I think HAARP is designed to communicate with the world-carrying tortoise. I read it on duh Interwebz. PROVE ME WRONG.
No. It is up to you to provide some evidence for your outrageous claims. A consideration of the energy output compared with the energy in the atmopsheric system might be a start.
Ah, so lost like tears in rain. How do you know about it then?Statement that he can control the weather came out of his mouth
I am not trying to say that it is possible or not, I dont know, I need someone with some expertise in that field to give me a smart opinion, thats why I started this thread. I'll write it again, I do not need you to argue with me using the facts from wikipedia, i know all about that crap
You have had the reasons it cannot possibly affect the weather explained multiple times.
If you could output about a million times the power that HAARP does and focus it into a relatively small area, you might have some local effect on weather conditions. But HAARP doesn't output that much power. It doesn't focus it into a small area. The ionosphere is (largely) irrelevant to weather conditions.
On the other hand, the evidence that it is being used to control the weather is .... <nothing>.
What more do you want?
eeh
Dude Im not trying to prove that they manipulate weather, but they focus ELF waves on area 12 miles wide, not the whole Ionosphere like u think, and do you really think that Ionosphere is irrelevant to weather conditions??? what are your facts behind it?You have had the reasons it cannot possibly affect the weather explained multiple times.
If you could output about a million times the power that HAARP does and focus it into a relatively small area, you might have some local effect on weather conditions. But HAARP doesn't output that much power. It doesn't focus it into a small area. The ionosphere is (largely) irrelevant to weather conditions.
On the other hand, the evidence that it is being used to control the weather is .... <nothing>.
What more do you want?
But you're the ignorant one, so it's your job to get smarter, right? Your education failed to include the bit about "evidence is needed to support assertions" and "proving a negative is generally impossible." As Strange points out, I could say "HAARP is used to power up Santa's workshop. Prove me wrong." If you can't prove me wrong, does that mean I'm right? Of course not. That would be idiotic.
So we go by the evidence, and we sure as hell don't go by someone's inability to prove a negative. And the overwhelming weight of evidence points to HAARP being exactly what wikipedia says. I've told you the physics, I've told you about the independent verifications provided by countless ham radio operators around the world over the decades of HAARP's operation. Now, could there be some additional hidden dimensions to HAARP's mission? Sure; the thing is funded by the military. But we know what the radiated RF power is (you can measure it from a distance with sufficient fidelity to bound it to better than within a factor of 10 without too much trouble), and we know how feeble that is compared to lightning strikes and other sources of RF power. To the lay person, 3.6megawatts may sound like a lot, but that's not that much greater than what UHF TV transmitters all over the planet routinely transmit 24/7. And even that amount is ridiculously small compared to the power of nature. A single lightning bolt's power is of the order of a TW (that's a terawatt -- a million megawatts), and there are dozens of lightning strikes each second. Stop behaving like an infant. Look at the numbers and use your brain.
That's not how you are behaving. You are acting in a manner indistinguishable from that of a True Believer(tm). When challenged with data, physics and information, you retreat into an attacking mode, rather than considering the information presented to you. Your best response is a feeble, "Yeah? Well, anything's possible. How can you 'scientists' say it's not????"I am not trying to say that it is possible or not, I dont know,
You've been given expert opinion, and that expert opinion is that the wikipedia entry is largely correct. You call it 'crap' without offering any evidence whatsoever that it is crap, or what parts are crap, or why. It's as if you are upset that we are spoiling your conspiracy-minded fantasies. Well, reality sometimes does slap you pretty hard. My advice is to get over it. It's going to happen a lot.I need someone with some expertise in that field to give me a smart opinion, thats why I started this thread. I'll write it again, I do not need you to argue with me using the facts from wikipedia, i know all about that crap
Dude, where are your facts? You are just making wild and unsubstantiated noise.
See thats what I am saying, I really dont give a shit about conspiracy theories, but what I hate is that you are trying to answer my question from wikipedia, that shit dont make you an expert in that field, to rephrase, I'll take any answer from anybody that knows what they are talking aboutBut you're the ignorant one, so it's your job to get smarter, right? Your education failed to include the bit about "evidence is needed to support assertions" and "proving a negative is generally impossible." As Strange points out, I could say "HAARP is used to power up Santa's workshop. Prove me wrong." If you can't prove me wrong, does that mean I'm right? Of course not. That would be idiotic.
So we go by the evidence, and we sure as hell don't go by someone's inability to prove a negative. And the overwhelming weight of evidence points to HAARP being exactly what wikipedia says. I've told you the physics, I've told you about the independent verifications provided by countless ham radio operators around the world over the decades of HAARP's operation. Now, could there be some additional hidden dimensions to HAARP's mission? Sure; the thing is funded by the military. But we know what the radiated RF power is (you can measure it from a distance with sufficient fidelity to bound it to better than within a factor of 10 without too much trouble), and we know how feeble that is compared to lightning strikes and other sources of RF power. To the lay person, 3.6megawatts may sound like a lot, but that's not that much greater than what UHF TV transmitters all over the planet routinely transmit 24/7. And even that amount is ridiculously small compared to the power of nature. A single lightning bolt's power is of the order of a TW (that's a terawatt -- a million megawatts), and there are dozens of lightning strikes each second. Stop behaving like an infant. Look at the numbers and use your brain.
That's not how you are behaving. You are acting in a manner indistinguishable from that of a True Believer(tm). When challenged with data, physics and information, you retreat into an attacking mode, rather than considering the information presented to you. Your best response is a feeble, "Yeah? Well, anything's possible. How can you 'scientists' say it's not????"I am not trying to say that it is possible or not, I dont know,
You've been given expert opinion, and that expert opinion is that the wikipedia entry is largely correct. You call it 'crap' without offering any evidence whatsoever that it is crap, or what parts are crap, or why. It's as if you are upset that we are spoiling your conspiracy-minded fantasies. Well, reality sometimes does slap you pretty hard. My advice is to get over it. It's going to happen a lot.I need someone with some expertise in that field to give me a smart opinion, thats why I started this thread. I'll write it again, I do not need you to argue with me using the facts from wikipedia, i know all about that crap
And dont get me wrong, I value the the stuff you wrote
Who's "u"? I don't recall anyone saying that HAARP focuses ELF waves on "the whole Ionosphere." First, that would not be feasible -- that's too large a surface area to cover from a single transmitter in Alaska. Second, it would be pointless, as spreading 3.6 MW over that surface area would correspond to a negligibly small power density. [The earth's surface area is 5E14 sq.m, so if we take that as a lower-than-lower bound of the ionosphere's surface area, the power density would work out to less than 10 nanowatts per sq. meter. You get orders of magnitude more from virtually every other electromagnetic source on earth.]
See? If you do math, you can discover a lot.
Last edited by tk421; April 6th, 2012 at 08:21 AM.
No, I never said that wikipedia is my source of information. I said that wikipedia had correct information. There's a difference. I gave you calculations and explanations that stand on their own. You are just too ignorant to process them. You say that "you don't trust wikipedia," but you seem to be willing to trust far less reliable sources. One wonders why that is. Ever think about that?
No one is saying "believe me because I'm an expert." Anyone can claim to be an expert. How would you be able to sort it out? That's why my argument involves physics, math and data about the physical world. These are all things that anyone can look up for themselves and independently verify. That's the core of the scientific method. You should learn about it. Right now you're acting like a foul-mouthed child who's been told that there's no Santa Claus. Why you're so emotional about people answering the questions you claimed you wanted us to answer is something you need to consider. If you're seeking knowledge, great. That's what this forum is for. If, instead, you are seeking confirmation of your psychologically-driven biases, then sorry, you're likely to be disappointed a lot.that shit dont make you an expert in that field, to rephrase, I'll take any answer from anybody that knows what they are talking about
And dont get me wrong, I value the the stuff you wrote
Ok, thank you mr. mathematician, you are the only one that wrote some shit that I didn't know from before...and that is all that I was looking for...Who's "u"? I don't recall anyone saying that HAARP focuses ELF waves on "the whole Ionosphere." First, that would not be feasible -- that's too large a surface area to cover from a single transmitter in Alaska. Second, it would be pointless, as spreading 3.6 MW over that surface area would correspond to a negligibly small power density. [The earth's surface area is 5E-14 sq.m, so if we take that as a lower-than-lower bound of the ionosphere's surface area, the power density would work out to less than 10 nanowatts per sq. meter. You get orders of magnitude more from virtually every other electromagnetic source on earth.]
See? If you do math, you can discover a lot.
I just heard that there is no Santa Claus few days ago, and my emotions are little stirred up, hope you don't mindNo, I never said that wikipedia is my source of information. I said that wikipedia had correct information. There's a difference. I gave you calculations and explanations that stand on their own. You are just too ignorant to process them. You say that "you don't trust wikipedia," but you seem to be willing to trust far less reliable sources. One wonders why that is. Ever think about that?
No one is saying "believe me because I'm an expert." Anyone can claim to be an expert. How would you be able to sort it out? That's why my argument involves physics, math and data about the physical world. These are all things that anyone can look up for themselves and independently verify. That's the core of the scientific method. You should learn about it. Right now you're acting like a foul-mouthed child who's been told that there's no Santa Claus. Why you're so emotional about people answering the questions you claimed you wanted us to answer is something you need to consider. If you're seeking knowledge, great. That's what this forum is for. If, instead, you are seeking confirmation of your psychologically-driven biases, then sorry, you're likely to be disappointed a lot.that shit dont make you an expert in that field, to rephrase, I'll take any answer from anybody that knows what they are talking about
And dont get me wrong, I value the the stuff you wrote
I am referring to your faulty recollection of what you think somebody said that Tesla said, which you previously stated as a fact.What are you referring to, which misinformation
It is a fact that Tesla said that he could manipulate weather, believe it or notI am referring to your faulty recollection of what you think somebody said that Tesla said, which you previously stated as a fact.What are you referring to, which misinformation
Well, PROVE IT !
He may have said that, but if he did he was wrong.
Just read something about him, Im sure you'll learn something about the guy
He said and did a lot of other shit you would find impossible
Actually, we wouldn't find it impossible if there were evidence. I don't take just anyone's word for anything, especially if it seems to violate well-established physical principles. I've studied Tesla's electrical patents, and there's stuff in there that's just plain wrong. He was brilliant, but he was imperfect (he was human, after all), and as he got older, he got progressively more odd.Just read something about him, Im sure you'll learn something about the guy
He said and did a lot of other shit you would find impossible
Telsa had the idea almost forty years ago and was silenced and most work was also so called lost.The impact of say hurricane Katrina which caused levys to break and take out the whole metro area.I did some investigation into the cities records for current medicad percentages and the tax income and so forth.The city had almost 60% medicad so I would understand the goverment pay out there and the reason for a hurricane to hit the city..lol
Last edited by bryan; April 6th, 2012 at 12:03 AM.
We should probably start a separate thread on The Cult of Tesla. Members of the Cult seem to believe just about any foolish thing that was ever claimed in his name. Addressing those errors would simply take too long, and certainly would derail this thread far, far OT. Brief response to you, Bryan, is: Total BS about Tesla having a weather control technology, and even more BS about his having been silenced. He just became progressively more ignored as he grew more erratic. He certainly wasn't quiet -- he was quite a publicity hound, in fact.
Read it where?Just read something about him, Im sure you'll learn something about the guy
What is a trustworthy source?
What is it with you and your foul language? Grow up!Just read something about him, Im sure you'll learn something about the guy
He said and did a lot of other shit you would find impossible
Remarkable. Do you suppose the silence was a delayed response to the fact that he had already been dead for thirty years?
| « Need some more help with dealing with apparent "woo" | Take On Darwin » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
6Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
