Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !

Originally posted by tauristercus
that the missile excuse is a crock of poo !

then please explain the missile contrail...

thanks

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b6caeb3e201.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by ALLis0NE

 

The reason you don't understand me is becuase your statements are the opposite of the statements of other members, and I'm trying to portray that one of you must be wrong, but jeah, it's a bit confusing.

My bad.

That is where you are highly mistaken. Although I haven't directly seen the statements of others, from what you have said I agree with them. My statements are NOT the opposite.....

I agree that the gases dissipated. So you are either being difficult on purpose or just "not-all-there" and can't comprehend simple English.

Please study more english language then come back and debate.

---

With that said: Look here:
www.vg.no...

Antiques: - The pictures are taken on the steamship pier to the east, approximately at 07.50. I can imagine that it went on for two, three minutes. It was not to believe. I was quite shaken when I saw it, "says Jan Petter Jørgensen. The picture was taken with a tripod and long shutter speed. Photo: Jan Petter Jørgensen

Oh looky I was right all along. So my visual skills of seeing long shutter speeds are accurate, and they match words from the photographer himself.....

[edit on 14-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by tauristercus

No.
That calculator is asking for radians. Not degrees.
radians = degrees * pi/180

1º = .01745 radian
tan(1º)=.01745
Coincidence? Not really.

tan(.0175)*500=8.75

It looks like most of the rest of Scandinavia was pretty socked in that morning.



[edit on 12/14/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by tauristercus


156 th S&F

congratulations for your thread

Just posted this in another thread.. thought some of you might like to see it as well.


blogs.discovermagazine.com... ampaign=Feed%3A+BadAstronomyBlog+%28Bad+Astronomy%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[edit on 14-12-2009 by HankMcCoy]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


You don't have to get PO.

They claimed the trails were gone in a matter of seconds, allowing for the black hole effect.

You said the trail grew to many times their original size, that's why the spiral was so big in that one pic, you said.

If they grew that big, surely the trails must've lasted longer than that.

Do you see what I mean?

I maybe wrong there, but that's what I meant anyway. I already said my bad, no neeed to get angry.

excellent thread, congrats to tauristercus and everyone else for the great read. I never knew about HAARP/EISCAT, or how close they were located to this event.
I know this info is probably been posted before, but it's worth mentioning again that Haarp/eiscat has been responsible for this same kind of phenomina

Link: blogs.physicstoday.org...

reply to post by tauristercus


OK now that maps and calculators are ready and accurate.

Can somebody explain how EISCAT/HAARP can do such pattern ?

are spiral animation finishing in a black hole effect so easy to do with a VHF transmitter and an air ionizer ?
or is it holographic something ?
is it 2D/3D video ?

we already see the engine malfunction simulation.
I'm waiting for a VHF/ionizer... 3D simulation

your link blogs.physicstoday.org. speak of haarp bulleye.
but i don't see any picture of the bulleye. only aurora.

reply to post by mixmix


Your right mixmix, that bugged me to, but I think it might be because no one in Alaska actually took a photo of the event, and they used "skock photo's " . I would love to here from the people who really seen the event. Never the less, It is a little strange that on October 13, a reporter wrote about a bullseye phenomnia that was caused by Haarp in Alaska, and on Dec. 09, a bullseye phenomina was reported aproximately 15k from a different Haarp installation.

reply to post by tauristercus


Yes, and your point about

"So why have Norway, Sweden and Finland remained completely silent on the entire matter instead of raising a political #-storm over Russia test firing flawed missiles through their air space ?"

is extrememely relevant. I too wondered why the missile wasn't detonated immediately, once off course towards Norway in the direction of the Nobel ceremony with Pres. Obama! Why no official stink ("something rotten in Tromso")? I guess it happens too frequently there , and the missile apparently did not head towards norway enough.

Did the Bulava missile go into an evasive maneuver mode by error? [Russian officials billed Bulava as a new-generation weapon, capable of dodging any potential missile defenses thanks to its quick start and an ability to perform unusual maneuvers in flight.] I think it started evasive maneuvers after the 2nd stage, and evaded the earth altogether. Not to calming a feeling knowing these Bulava's malfunction so often...

One thing's very likely, we won't learn the details anytime soon, and speculation will continue (like this, it's fun!)

There is something ominous though, about this event.
Russia has been upgrading its submarine (and land) ICBMS in a comprehensive way
not seen since the Breznev era. Putin & Mendeyev announced this several years ago.

All it would take would be one russian missile heading the wrong direction....even without a live warhead, do you think we could accurately tell it from one that had?









[edit on 12/14/2009 by drphilxr]

[edit on 12/14/2009 by drphilxr]

reply to post by elston32


your link is very interesting.
if you make an internet search for haarp bullseye, you found 25 times the same notes and picture. strange. and a link to
Wrigth Patterson Air Force Base

a bulleye antenna link (not a bulleye haarp picture)
haarp bulleye antenna from fas.org

[edit on 14-12-2009 by mixmix]

reply to post by mixmix

The term "bullseye" would seem to be a bit of an exaggeration.

Recently, bright airglow emissions were observed on multiple nights during the 2008 winter campaign. Two nights of particular interest were February 26 and 27 with small-scale structure observed by the telescope on both nights. An overview of this system's capabilities and key observations thus far will be presented.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

The structure was detected with a liquid nitrogen cooled CCD. The luminosity was 200 Rayleighs. I wouldn't call it very bright. I'm not sure it would be visible to the naked eye.

The night sky has a luminous intensity of about 250 R, while auroras can reach values of 1000 kR

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is what the "bullseye" looked like to the instrument.
www.nrl.navy.mil...
www.nrl.navy.mil...

reply to post by mixmix


great link mixmix, it's bonechilling to think a search for haarp's bullseye can lead you to wright's air force base. This place is as infamous as area 51 for their breakthrough military advancements.
The great thing about ats, and other sites like this is that the info that we discuss here puts on guard. If there is ever another "bullseye phenomina" close to a Haarp installation, we will be the first, and probably the only one's outside the military and Haarp to know the truth.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Point of No Return

 

A zoom lens does not "change proportions" of things in the same plane and it does affect distant objects more than closer objects.



blog.washingtonpost.com...





[edit on 12/14/2009 by Phage]

haha. are you really suggesting that a zoom lens caused the moon to appear that big in relation to the trees?

A 'zoom' lens does NOT affect distant objects more than near objects. Where did you get that idea?

I think the fact you misinterpreted is: with a long lens, or a telephoto lens zoomed in, the depth of field decreases. The longer the lens, the smaller the depth of field. This means that objects in front of and behind the subject will be thrown out of focus. With a short lens, or telephoto lens zoomed out, the objects in front of and behind the subject will remain in focus.

So, what point are you trying to prove with these two moon photos? Perhaps I misunderstood.

I think I know why you might think this though. It is a common trick in movies to do a rack zoom while pushing the camera in. Best example I can think of is Lord of the Rings. The part where Frodo is leaving the shire and is in the woods with the other hobbits. He stands in the middle of the road and hears the black rider coming. The camera does a cool trick here that causes that background (trees) to blow up around him, while he remains the same size.

Here is how they did it: The camera is on a dolly and is pulled away from Frodo at the same speed as they zoom in. By doing this, the size of Frodo does not change but the background seems to. The opposite can be done by zooming out while pushing the camera in.




And Im glad you used these particular photos Phage, because I've been meaning to question you about something else you've been saying, but didn't want to nit-pick.

Several news sources have reported that the spiral was 2-3 times the size of the moon. In several of your posts you said something along the lines of: The moon is about 1 degree, so that means the spiral must be about 2-3 degrees (sorry if I misquoted the numbers, but they are not necessary to make my point).

My question is, where did you come up with 1 degree as the size of the moon. Surely you know that the apparent size of the moon depends on location, time of year, atmospheric conditions(?), and stuff like that. Im no moon expert, but I do know that I have seen the moon appear to be very small at some times, and very large at others).

When you said the moon is 1 degree, how did you find that number? I mean, did you go outside with a protractor and hold it up to the moon(heh), or did you find some site that tells you the apparent size of the moon for the given time in Norway? If so, links?

I would suggest doing that, because ever since reading your posts regarding moon size, I have taken everything you say with a grain of salt.

reply to post by elston32

If there is ever another "bullseye phenomina" close to a Haarp installation, we will be the first, and probably the only one's outside the military and Haarp to know the truth.

yes with the million of ATS reader too.

It takes 4 days for a conspiracy site to have a link on the famous WP AFB.

Nothing new from their site ?

a search for haarp's bullseye can lead you to wright's air force base

No it's your link from blogs.physicstoday.org
which note the statment of "US Air Force Research Laboratory physicist T P." with a link to WP AFB.

to who it belongs


[edit on 15-12-2009 by mixmix]

reply to post by His Doodness

The angular size of the Moon depends only on its distance from Earth. Because the Moon's orbit is not perfectly circular there is some variation but that variation is very slight. The Moon covers about 1/2º. And yes a telephoto lens makes it look larger than that.
apod.nasa.gov...

There is also another effect known as the Moon Illusion whereby the Moon appears to be very large when it is close to the horizon, but it is and illusion and it applies to all objects in the sky, not just the Moon.
www.lhup.edu...





[edit on 12/14/2009 by Phage]

Ok, that clears that up. I must point out, I never disputed your numbers for the size of the moon, I just questioned where you got that info. You just showed me, and I'm happy with the explanation. I could swear Ive seen a larger moon when it isn't near the horizon, but I can't recall any specific example, so I'll let it be.

However, you are still wrong about the telephoto lens. Unless, of course, you are trying to be funny by saying that zooming in on the moon will make it larger in the frame.

Funny how your response did not bring up the camera or lenses. It's ok if this is an area you don't know much about, no one expects you to know everything (except maybe yourself). Unfortunately for you, this is an area I DO know a lot about, and I can't let you mislead my fellow ATSers by making erroneous claims.

Please explain why you think this, and Ill do my best to explain why you're incorrect. (Im being sincere here, not derogatory)

I would love to keep this debate up, but I am leaving work now. I WILL check up on this again later though (maybe tonight, if not definitely at work tomorrow).

(just wanted to thrown in one more parenthetical)

reply to post by Phage


The term "bullseye" might be an exageration in light of the photos that you posted, but it's still strange that the people closest to the event in feb. of 2008 in Alaska not only called it a bullseye,

"In February last year, HAARP unexpectedly managed to induce a strange bullseye pattern in the night sky. "This is the really exciting part—we've made a little artificial piece of ionosphere," said US Air Force Research Laboratory physicist Todd Pedersen to Nature's Naomi Lubick."

Link: blogs.physicstoday.org...

but they seemed proud of being able to manipulate the atmosphere in this way. They also said in the article that it was unexpected. This leads me to think that they would continue on the same path of research until they perfect the phenomina. The phenomina over Norway look like a perfect bullseye.

reply to post by His Doodness

I'm not an expert in photography but have dabbled in it. See if this makes any sense, the foreshortening effect caused by telephoto lenses.

When using a long lens the space between objects appears to shrink, the objects get jammed together, the more distant object appearing too close to the nearer one. Doesn't this occur because the angular size of the more distant object is increased more than the angular size of the closer object? Because the more distant object is "enlarged" more (relative to the nearer object) it appears to be closer to the nearer object than it actually is. The longer the lens, the more pronounced the effect.

In a similar way, some of the photos make the spiral appear closer to the foreground (larger) than it was, while in other photos, made with a wider angle lens it appears much smaller.

If the spiral were 2-3 times the size of the full moon that would make it 1.5º across, the width of the tip of your thumb held an an arms length. Obviously, in some of the images it appears much, much larger than that. In the others, it seems about right.

reply to post by Phage

Here is what the "bullseye" looked like to the instrument. www.nrl.navy.mil... www.nrl.navy.mil...

thank for the link to this NRL.NAVY review of 2004
I say 2004 cause it's in the up title
/ NRL / Research / NRL Review / '04 / Atmospheric Science and Technology / The High Frequency Active Auroral Research...
and it reference a 2003 Letter
T. Pedersen, M. McCarrick, E. Gerken, C. Selcher, D. Sentman, A. Gurevich, and H.C. Carlson, "Magnetic Zenith Enhancement of Artificial Airglow Production at HAARP," Geophys. Res. Lett. 30(4), 1169, doi: 10.1029/2002GLO16096, 2003.

it states that they can do green bubble like aurora
but they will upgrade power from 1 Mw to 3Mw in 2006

the physicsToday links states 3.6 Mw for HAARP in october 2009

interesting link from freerepublic
Artificial ionosphere creates bullseye in the sky Auroral experiments make glowing plasma



[edit on 15-12-2009 by mixmix]