TEQUILAsunrise - AKA Norway Spiral - Proof it was a scientific experiment.

Originally posted by Chevalerous

Originally posted by seethelight
and haarp can only make a kind of cloud shape, not a moving spiral...

That is not correct I think! as posted in a Governmental/Navy animation in this thread, HAARP does in fact make a moving spiral!

Pretty sure that's not visible...what's visible (on some wavelength) is a luminous cloud.

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by watcher73

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by seethelight

 

Thanks for that.
I wonder if the spiral in the sky gave the finnish guy some pause about conducting the experiment at all.

HAHAHAHA

Can you imagine the panic in the EISCAT labs when they fired up the VHF and a spiral appeared?

Watcher and Jay… I’m assuming that you’re replying to the link provided by seethelight. You do realize that, all this is, is some guy saying in a blog that he talked to the EISCAT scientist in charge of the experiment don’t you? I’m hoping that you’re taking it for what it is… and know what it is not.

Email him yourself if you want... he responds promptly in my experience

[edit on 14-12-2009 by seethelight]

I just joined the site after seeing video of the Norway Spirals. After reading every post in this thread and the 100 page thread it seems to me that all the signs point to it somehow being involved with EISCAT. The OP did an amazing job researching and the amount of people trying to discredit him just goes to show how far people go to cover up the truth.

Somehow though their are two schedules, one saying they were using the heater and one saying they weren't. Sounds like a cover up, either way it doesnt discredit the EISCAT theory what so ever.

If it was a rocket that was shot from the ground then the smoke trail would be bigger at take off and slowly become smaller

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, this is because of how the waves are formed and pumped upwards.

Even in the example you gave, they still needed various instruments to discern ANYTHING from the experiments. And in the end they can only say they are reasonably certain the event was non-thermal, or artificially induced.

But see, that's my point. That experiment was done in 2001... 8 years ago... and EISCAT is admittedly doing the same research now. Now, if they've been researching it for more than 8 years, wouldn't you think that they'd have made advances?? Maybe we witnessed a breakthrough? Maybe we witnessed a failure that is more ominous? I don't know... just seems logical that if a certain facility is admittedly doing research on something and that something happens so close to their facility that the two are connected... See what I mean?

reply to post by seethelight


Yeah I saw the other emailers... just saying that one should take what's written on a blog for what it's worth.. Not dissing you, by the way...

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


I do understand what you are saying. As I said earlier, I think it is a very intriguing coincidence. But I believe it is just that.

I mean, have they upgraded their equipment sufficiently to create such a disparity in the experiments? According to Phage ( ) their heater has only 30% of the power as the heaterS at HAARP.
Why aren't we seeing these effects over Alaska? Surely the HAARP facility pumps more juice up than the EISCAT facility. Although reading through that article was somewhat illuminating. They were reporting that electrons were heated to a few thousand degrees kelvin!

Anyhow, aside from all of that, I don't see the same similarity you do in the description of the 2001 experiment. I see a spiral (not rings) that does not collapse on itself, but "spirals outward" to infinity... becoming invisible.



[edit on 14-12-2009 by JayinAR]

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, this is because of how the waves are formed and pumped upwards.

Even in the example you gave, they still needed various instruments to discern ANYTHING from the experiments. And in the end they can only say they are reasonably certain the event was non-thermal, or artificially induced.

But see, that's my point. That experiment was done in 2001... 8 years ago... and EISCAT is admittedly doing the same research now. Now, if they've been researching it for more than 8 years, wouldn't you think that they'd have made advances?? Maybe we witnessed a breakthrough? Maybe we witnessed a failure that is more ominous? I don't know... just seems logical that if a certain facility is admittedly doing research on something and that something happens so close to their facility that the two are connected... See what I mean?

You assume that an "advance" would be to make it visible.

Why?

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by seethelight

 

Yeah I saw the other emailers... just saying that one should take what's written on a blog for what it's worth.. Not dissing you, by the way...

I agree, which is why I emailed the guy.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Why aren't we seeing these effects over Alaska? Surely the HAARP facility pumps more juice up than the EISCAT facility.

I'm on the fence about the whole thing...however I'm pretty sure HAARP is in a much more remote area. I wouldn't expect too many sightings from everyday people coming from there, tho I could be wrong.

reply to post by Wookiep


If EISCAT can produce these "rings" at an altitude of 427 kilometers, we could expect the same from HAARP, I'm assuming.

That is way up there.

If this was the culprit and it were visible to the naked eye, you could see that for quite a ways. People in Anchorage would be seeing things.

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, this is because of how the waves are formed and pumped upwards.

Even in the example you gave, they still needed various instruments to discern ANYTHING from the experiments. And in the end they can only say they are reasonably certain the event was non-thermal, or artificially induced.

But see, that's my point. That experiment was done in 2001... 8 years ago... and EISCAT is admittedly doing the same research now. Now, if they've been researching it for more than 8 years, wouldn't you think that they'd have made advances?? Maybe we witnessed a breakthrough? Maybe we witnessed a failure that is more ominous? I don't know... just seems logical that if a certain facility is admittedly doing research on something and that something happens so close to their facility that the two are connected... See what I mean?

You assume that an "advance" would be to make it visible.

Why?

No, I assume that an "advance" could make it visible planned or as a side effect just like it could make a whole host of other effects that they may not have foreseen... that's why it's called an experiment.

Originally posted by Wookiep

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Why aren't we seeing these effects over Alaska? Surely the HAARP facility pumps more juice up than the EISCAT facility.

I'm on the fence about the whole thing...however I'm pretty sure HAARP is in a much more remote area. I wouldn't expect too many sightings from everyday people coming from there, tho I could be wrong.

Why not visit?

Can I visit HAARP?

The HAARP Research Station does not employ sufficient on-site staff to allow routine tours of the facility. Entry to the facility is normally restricted to those having a need to conduct business at the facility.

We recognize that there is great interest in the scientific work of the facility and, as a result, we hold an annual open house at which any and all are invited to visit the site. Several scientists are usually present at these open houses so that visitors can talk directly with those who use the facility for research. Open houses have been held most years since 1995 and have proven to be a popular event.

How can I find out about the Open Houses?

Open Houses are generally held at the end of the summer season and the dates and times are announced in advance on the HAARP Home Page.

Or check their CAMS:

www.haarp.alaska.edu...
www.haarp.alaska.edu...

[edit on 14-12-2009 by seethelight]

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


I reasearched a bit about this "artificial aurora" thing and came across some interesting articles about it.

The EISCAT low-gain HF facility has been used repeatedly to produce artificially stimulated optical emissions in the F-layer ionosphere over northern Scandinavia. On 12 November 2001, the high-gain HF facility was used for the first time. The pump beam zenith angle was moved in 3° steps along the north-south meridian from 3°N to 15°S, with one pump cycle per position. Only when pumping in the 9°S position were annular optical structures produced quite unexpectedly. The annuli were approximately centred on the pump beam but outside the −3 dB locus. The optical signature appears to form a cylinder, which was magnetic field-aligned, rising above the pump wave reflection altitude. The annulus always collapsed into the well-known optical blobs after ∼60 s, whilst descending many km in altitude. All other pump beam directions produced optical blobs only. The EISCAT UHF radar, which was scanning from 3° to 15°S zenith angle, shows that enhanced ion-line backscatter persisted throughout the pump on period and followed the morphology of the optical signature. These observations provide the first experimental evidence that Langmuir turbulence can accelerate electrons sufficiently to produce the optical emissions at high latitudes. Why the optical annulus forms, and for only one zenith angle, remains unexplained.

I found this abstract to be quite telling.

Also, this one:
adsabs.harvard.edu


I still think that the spiral was a little too bright to come out of a big radio emitter, but who knows?


[edit on 14/12/2009 by MorfeuZ]

[edit on 14/12/2009 by MorfeuZ]

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Wookiep

 

If EISCAT can produce these "rings" at an altitude of 427 kilometers, we could expect the same from HAARP, I'm assuming.

That is way up there.

If this was the culprit and it were visible to the naked eye, you could see that for quite a ways. People in Anchorage would be seeing things.

It really depends on just how high up it is, which I suppose is part of this discussion.. Keep in mind, HAARP is 200 miles east of Anchorage...

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by Wookiep

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

Why aren't we seeing these effects over Alaska? Surely the HAARP facility pumps more juice up than the EISCAT facility.

I'm on the fence about the whole thing...however I'm pretty sure HAARP is in a much more remote area. I wouldn't expect too many sightings from everyday people coming from there, tho I could be wrong.

considering that HAARP is pretty much open to the public (they hold frequent public open days) why don't you visit and find out?

Or check their CAMS:

www.haarp.alaska.edu...
www.haarp.alaska.edu...

Thanks for the CAMS seethe! I won't be visiting any time soon tho, as it is just a tad too far away from me lol. Last I heard, they only do tours once a year anyway.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Wookiep]

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

I think, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, this is because of how the waves are formed and pumped upwards.

Even in the example you gave, they still needed various instruments to discern ANYTHING from the experiments. And in the end they can only say they are reasonably certain the event was non-thermal, or artificially induced.

But see, that's my point. That experiment was done in 2001... 8 years ago... and EISCAT is admittedly doing the same research now. Now, if they've been researching it for more than 8 years, wouldn't you think that they'd have made advances?? Maybe we witnessed a breakthrough? Maybe we witnessed a failure that is more ominous? I don't know... just seems logical that if a certain facility is admittedly doing research on something and that something happens so close to their facility that the two are connected... See what I mean?

You assume that an "advance" would be to make it visible.

Why?

No, I assume that an "advance" could make it visible planned or as a side effect just like it could make a whole host of other effects that they may not have foreseen... that's why it's called an experiment.

So you think "they" might've accidentally found a way to make invisible things visible... and that "they," for some reason, chose to hide this breakthrough from the world, in order to scare the crap out of Norway?

And this is more plausible then failed rocket how again?

I don't know if it was mentioned yet because I cannot go through the whole thread. I find this very interesting though. Out of curiosity, did anyone mention that Obama accepted his nobel prize on the 10th in Norway?

On Dec. 10, President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway. In his speech the president said, “I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.”

www.abpnews.com...

I think this could have been some kind of psychotronics. An effect that became visible. Preparing the masses.

this is what I found and thought it was interesting:

www.instructables.com...

Viz
ATOM SMASHER
Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:11am


This event coincides with the spiral in Norway. Check it out.
----------

Big bang: atom smasher records first high-energy collisions

December 10, 2009 - 3:29PM

The world's largest atom smasher has recorded its first high-energy collisions of protons, a spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

Physicists hope those collisions will help them understand suspected phenomena such as dark matter, antimatter and ultimately the creation of the universe billions of years ago, which many theorise occurred as a massive explosion known as the Big Bang.

The collisions occurred on Tuesday evening as the Large Haldron Collider underwent test runs in preparation for operations next year, said Christine Sutton of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, or CERN.

Two beams of circulating particles travelling in opposite directions at 1.18 trillion electron volts produced the collisions, she said.

The Atlas "experiment", one of four major detectors in cathedral-sized rooms in the collider's underground tunnel at Geneva, had part of its equipment turned on and could register collisions.

"They recorded a handful of collisions, and one of them looks quite nice, so it's on their website," she said.

FULL STORY:
www.smh.com.au...

I find it interesting that the Norway, Russia and now China "spiral lights" coincides closely with the world's largest atom smasher going online December 10th.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

I do understand what you are saying. As I said earlier, I think it is a very intriguing coincidence. But I believe it is just that.

I mean, have they upgraded their equipment sufficiently to create such a disparity in the experiments? According to Phage (

) their heater has only 30% of the power as the heaterS at HAARP.
Why aren't we seeing these effects over Alaska? Surely the HAARP facility pumps more juice up than the EISCAT facility. Although reading through that article was somewhat illuminating. They were reporting that electrons were heated to a few thousand degrees kelvin!

Anyhow, aside from all of that, I don't see the same similarity you do in the description of the 2001 experiment. I see a spiral (not rings) that does not collapse on itself, but "spirals outward" to infinity... becoming invisible.



[edit on 14-12-2009 by JayinAR]

Maybe one other part of the equation is needed to show this spiral phenomena in the sky when blasted with waves?

Maybe it needs Birkeland Currents at the same time for the phenomena to occur?

reply to post by Wookiep


Since I live where we see them, I've read a great deal about them. I've never seen a blue Aurora nor have I ever seen a picture of one. Now it is possible that someone processed and image incorrectly or altered one on purpose.

That link is to a good site with good information.

Mostly we see green auroras. Red are the rare ones. No blue ones, ever.

Edited to correct -

You do get a bluish effect where the pale green mixes with the red but never the intense blue of the spirals. The blue in the first case is transition between the two colors. In reality it looks pale green to white when you view them.

[edit on 12/14/2009 by Blaine91555]