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

reply to post by ChrisM101

1. Ok, the schedule lies. Why even bring it up then? You only like the part that supports your side and disregard that which does not. A perfect conspiracy theorist.

2. HAARP does not have ELF or VLF transmitters. The HF frequency heater can be used to induce ELF radiation of very low strength in the ionosphere. This is one of the areas of research.

3. North Korea would be more interested in hitting any place they could; Seattle, Portland, San Francisco. What's the difference? But even if they tried for San Francisco, the path would lie 600 miles from Gakona, closer than the distance from EISCAT to the spiral.

(....SIGH) So you state that the US never ventured into the VLF range on any transmissions? Im pretty sure we can only rely on VLF to transmit to subs, whether HAARP HISAT or TACAMO, but im done with this..

Kim Jong Il wasnt a popcorn fart when Reagan issued the research.

Think what you will.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by ChrisM101]

reply to post by ChrisM101


I would almost be willing to consider the possibility of two events having occurred simultaneously but then my logic and reasoning kick in...

If HAARP was being used as a missile defense system, as you're suggesting, against the Russian Bulava that day, then who tipped off HAARP as to the launch time?

Certainly it wasn't the Russians. And while they followed proper protocol of warning seafaring persons ahead of time to avoid the White Sea, they didn't specify an exact time of launch.

So this would have to mean that someone tipped off HAARP(or EISCAT I guess) as to the exact time when the rocket was to be launched that day so they would know when to aim their death ray at it...

Who would you suggest was the tipster?

A rogue Russian spy?
or maybe a stealthy EISCAT spy?

And are you to take the Russians as being so stupid as to not know when they're own test missile was shot down? Could you imagine the repercussions if they found out that some little EISCAT station in neighboring Norway was responsible for the "failure"

Why is it so hard to think logically about this stuff?

[edit on 12-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

This thread is a prime example of why I think most of the things said on this site are false.

It was obviously a missile from the start. The only thing that ever got my attention about the thing for being anything other than a missile were the pictures with the long shutter speeds. When I first saw that picture, I didn't think that picture looked like a missile. But when you find out that it's on a long shutter speed - as the person who took the pictures admitted to, then suddenly it makes sense why it looks that way.

Are people interested in finding the out the truth about things, or are the only interested in things they can manipulate towards being about their own thought to be truths?

How can you expect to identify the real thing if you can't even pick out the fakes or things which have perfectly logical explanations.

This stuff is just plain out sad and embarrassing. It's threads like these that are fuel for the "nut job conspiracy" labels. Still, here it is on page 33 and still going. Still people in many other threads quote the norway spiral as being a factual wormhole or whatever.

Unbelievable.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Because it's not as much fun to pretend something bigger is going on. Especially if one has come to that conclusion before even bothering to read anything on the subject from experts.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


You know they do tell their neighboring governments and even more specifically the US so as to not initiate Global Thermo Nuclear War.
But the heater can and does operate for several hours at a time.

But more specifically we always have SSN's shadowing all of their current naval assets 24/7 though not at war. We were even in close proximity when the K-141 KURSK sank.

If someone saw a ufo that made this does anyone know what it looked like?

idk guys, I still believe that this is a missile.... duuhhhhhh thing looks nothing like one

www.foxnews.com...
found this on faux news

reply to post by Phage


You really need to look at this article. It addresses all of your concerns and questions. The evidence is there, and it is presented veraciously, with charts, images, scientific data - all of it is here. I found it very helpful, myself. Hope you do too:

www.enterprisemission.com...

Coming up on the tenth anniversary of this spectacular event.

Are there ANY surviving 'it-can't-be-a-missile' arguments, or has everyone [willingly or not] accepted the Russian missile explanation?

a reply to: JimOberg

I never accepted it.