Two researchers attribute Norway light to HAARP, anti-ET space-based weapon of mass destruction

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well, what you have shown me so far is what's known as circumstantial evidence. Actual proof, would just be actual proof. I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that. Like I said, if you want to argue that your circumstantial evidence IS real proof, I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree with you on that point.

What kind of proof do you freaking expect? Holy F dude....

Do you expect someone to go back in time, get in a space ship and fly to the upper atmosphere and take a close up picture of the damn missile? Do you expect someone to go back in time and take a chemical sample of gases being expelled? Get a fing clue man...

all the evidence you need is all around you, all of that can be used as proof. All the proof there is, you are denying... so what the hell are you expecting. Tell me, exactly, WHAT PROOF ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?

You won't trust the government, you won't trust honest opinions, you won't trust extremely valid explanations of images and videos... what you are doing is STALLING. I am familiar with your posts, you are notorious for denying and stalling... you ask for things people can not provide nor can anyone provide just to give your fake reality some more time to exist.

Tell me, what proof are you looking for?! What would satisfy your questions? So far it seems like NOTHING would get your illogical imagination away form the stupid "secret weapon" b.s.

However I bet if someone random guy came forward with some hoax paper claiming it is a secret weapon you would eat it up like it was evidence.

Really, what do you expect? It seems like you expect way more than is needed to come to a conclusion. That just means you are being illogical and ignoring logical evidence that points to a conclusion.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, ok. Then prove a missile made the trail, and especially that it was spiraling around creating what we saw. I see the smoke trail/plume, yes, I have no misunderstanding about that. However, the plume itself does not prove everything else you are saying. That is why it is circumstantial evidence. I assume you ARE familiar with the term "circumstantial evidence"? I am being "by the book" here when I talk about real proof, while you are extrapolating data that does not exist based on what you consider to be similar events.

You are just being dumb now.. I really don't even want to bother helping you find the truth. I would rather your mind boil with all the illogical thoughts that are sizzling your mind into confusion.

Oh yeah, it was a secret weapon.. so secret that they decided to test it in front of thousands of people. The weapon makes a big white spiral that does absolutely nothing but make for a good "firework" show, then fades away 3 minutes later. Oh yeah... they cleared the entire White Sea so a submarine can launch a huge fire work that does nothing but burn gases in the upper atmosphere.. that is totally what happen.

Ignore every single missile launch that creates a similar white trail, and believe it is something else.. go for it, you are just a lost and confused soul.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you post that proof again? Is it the same video you posted earlier? You probably realize how easy it is the pick differences out. For a reason.

No thanks, you go ahead and do your own research. I'm done talking to you now. You are brick wall. You have blinders over your face.

Your curiosity is going to kill you in the future, so I figure I shouldn't help you so that you can just become dust in the wind.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You have circumstantial evidence. And a damn lot of arrogance.

At least I have evidence. All you have is b.s. A bunch of b.s. and denial.

Originally posted by bsbray11
"Super good" huh?

You don't like the way I talk? Then go eat more of your b.s. you have been feasting on.

Originally posted by bsbray11
So no one plugs in parameters for initial velocities, an initial direction, anything like that? Someone just showed a computer the video and the computer mapped it out all by itself?

The physics are pre programmed into the software to replicate reality. All that is needed is to input parameters about the rocket itself. The spiral and the way it spins and how it looks is all calculations based on physics of reality. None of the actual effect was create to match, it matched all on its own based on physics.

The fact I have to explain this too you is proof you just don't know jack **** about any simulations.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The more you go on and on, the less sense you are making to me.

the more you go on and on, the more you prove you have nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. All you do is deny and make reasons to deny. Any fool can do that, and you are proving it.

I'm done with you.... you are a waste of life. Have fun being clueless.

Oh yeah, I have more evidence that it is a missile than you do that it isn't. You lose...



[edit on 16-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

I don't like the examiner sources, most of it is a crock. I think the big cover up behind HAARP is the surveillance capabilities.

reply to post by atcwatcher


HAARP is a large array of radio antennas. So I wouldn't doubt they have access to every single radio signal from every cell phone, every wireless computer communication, everything that is wireless basically. That is a pretty good surveillance if you ask me.

reply to post by ALLis0NE


But even more than that... It is using the antennas to manipulate the ionosphere to pick up these signals not just the antennas to pick up on what you mentioned. we have satellites for that! check it out on wiki, the surveillance capabilities is not a hidden issue but just how much information they can get out of this is what I am concerned about. Isn't EISCAT responsible for this antenna field or are they connected? But what I don't understand is why would this be a multinational coverup for something as simple as a HAARP experiment which posts its Alaskan experiments on its website?

AN-

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I said this in the other thread, not sure which will be closed, but HAARP is not a "space based weapon", it is terrestrial and is aimed into the upper atmosphere. They make it sound like HAARP is some giant laser death ray in space.

my first thoughts as well, although to use HAARP as an effective weapon and to deploy it against countries miles away a spacebased platfrom would be ideal.Since the superpowers signed treaties in 1977 not to use weather modifications and space based weapons its mostly for domestic "purposes".For instance HAARP in Alaska might be used against Russia due to its geographic loaction, but its useless against countries in the middle east..
Anyway, the vortex is inspiring for a lot of stories, my 2 cents.. a missile part gone loose, spirals just like a balloon goes flat, it spirals when the air ejects from the balloon..
If it aint no ordinary missile what about the M-drive missile

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Foppezao]

Originally posted by atcwatcher
But even more than that... It is using the antennas to manipulate the ionosphere to pick up these signals not just the antennas to pick up on what you mentioned.

The ionosphere influences radio propagation to distant places on the Earth. The only thing they can do is send and or receive signals using the ionosphere. Tesla proves that long ago.

Originally posted by atcwatcher
we have satellites for that!

But satellites are very expensive to build and put in the sky, and keep in the sky. Learning how to do it from the ground is probably the goal.

Originally posted by atcwatcher
check it out on wiki, the surveillance capabilities is not a hidden issue but just how much information they can get out of this is what I am concerned about.

There is not much secrecy around HAARP and related technologies, it is more open than you think. Even then, any scientist can figure out what they are doing just by looking at their equipment (a bunch of antenna and transmitters).

Originally posted by atcwatcher
Isn't EISCAT responsible for this antenna field or are they connected? But what I don't understand is why would this be a multinational coverup for something as simple as a HAARP experiment which posts its Alaskan experiments on its website?
AN-

What coverup are you talking about?

There really isn't much they could do, nor is there much secrecy.

However, it makes a great source of speculation and conspiracy theories. HAARP and EISCAT are nothing special at all. They only appear special to people who don't understand their limitations.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Originally posted by Wookiep
Your attitude stinks.

Your post stinks. Now YOU are giving ME attitude. You should expect it back. You see how it works now?

I do understand how it works. It's understandable that we are all human and every once and a while lashing out at someone may be justified, however I've seen you do this all_the_time recently, why? It's a frustrating read for some, like me who want to read a thread that many people find simply 'interesting'. Don't get me wrong either, I *do* like reading your posts that have good research and solid content, just not all the rest..

I'm surprized with as much experience as you have, that you would feed into it so often. It seems wiser to take an approach like a true professional that you are. Take this thread for instance:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

While Phage may have used the word "Ludicrous" once before sharing his point to tauristercus, the main body of his post was cut and dry to what he was delivering. Now you'll notice that after phages' post, tauristercus kinda threw a fit. (probably justified since he *did* work hard on the thread, BUT) Did you see how Phage responded to the fit?? No, because he didn't respond to it at all. That's professional.

I'm saying you should change your tone if you'd like more people interested, or actually want to *listen* to your points.









[edit on 16-12-2009 by Wookiep]

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Wookiep]

Hoagland and Wilcock? Odds are it's whatever dumb and dumber are trying to prove it ISN'T. Why can't these "researchers" just slip back into obscurity...and take their theories with them. Deny charlatans.

What kills me about this particular thread isn't that ANOTHER person is claiming that the Norway Spiral was anything but a rocket, but that it is David F-ing Wilcock of all people!

Does ATS not remember all the hooplah this charlatan created just a few short weeks ago? Where was that Alien Craft supposed to land? Florida? During a Football Game?!





Jesus Christ on a Crutch!

reply to post by ALLis0NE


I mean the coverup by stating its a Russian rocket instead of a test of the antenna field. That just fuels the conspiracy aspect of all this instead of just stating the simple truth.

AN-

reply to post by atcwatcher


Maybe that is where the confusion is at.... The "Norway Spiral" didn't happen in Norway, it was only visible from Norway.

EISCAT is located in Norway, yes, a funny coincidence, but the spiral didn't happen in Norway.

People only saw the spiral from Norway. The Spiral happened and originated from the White Sea which is the Northwest coast of Russia.

If you have seen this picture:


And the caption:

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

The picture is stated to be taken while pointing East. The White Sea is EAST of Norway. If you look at the pictures, the spiral is very far away in the EAST. There is a white plume of gases just behind the mountain which should give you an idea of the distance it originated from.

The spiral was not over Norway, it was very far East near the White Sea (Russia).

So I don't see where the rumor came from that Russia is lying and trying to cover something from EISCAT. I don't think EISCAT is capable of making the spiral, and it is very far from the spiral.








[edit on 17-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by allyoop


These two researchers aren't actually scientific researchers, they're both into things like the face on Mars, and 'divine cosmos'. Neither has a clue, and are spouting off about things they simply don't understand, without a shred of evidence. I don't understand how people like that can be taken seriously on a board like this - surely we value critical thought.

Apparently not. "Just say what's on your mind and scream if anyone points out how flawed it is" is the mantra, not "Deny Ignorance".

The fact that the linked article says that EISCAT has a HAARP antenna just shows how flawed the research is in this field - EISCAT and HAARP are two different projects, not names for equipment.

Some people just want to believe in crazy stuff, regardless of any evidence for it. It's pathetic.

reply to post by LightWonder


Just because something is official doesn't make it automatically a lie.
Just because someone actually believes the official version doesn't make them a 'disinfo agent'.
Just because they believe, in this case, that it WAS a rocket - doesn't make them ineligible to post.
Ditto for if they happen to disagree with you.
And none of the above means you can go around making silly accusations.

Please look up paranoia on the net and get some medication.

reply to post by ALLis0NE

Calm down i did say i could see your pov ! I'm only trying to gather as much evidence as i can to make my mind up !

Er so remind me again, why did the russians deny it at first ? I mean if they announced it the day before why deny it afterwards ? We all know their bulava rockets should be renamed bullsh1t ! There not very good are they ?

reply to post by ProRipp


The Russians didn't deny it at first, that is a rumor.

Please, show us where they denied it? What is your source?

reply to post by ALLis0NE


No thats Menwith Hill in the Yorkshire Dales England ha ha ha

PS I have shown in other threads when questioned on exactly same thing by Phage rgarding russians denial !


Mystery as spiral blue light display hovers above Norway | Mail Online
10 Dec 2009 ... But last night Russia denied it had been conducting missile tests in ... A Moscow news outlet quoted the Russian Navy as denying any rocket launches from the ... A previous failure in July forced the resignation of Yury ...




[edit on 073131p://12America/Chicago17 by ProRipp]

[edit on 073131p://12America/Chicago17 by ProRipp]

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by atcwatcher

 

Maybe that is where the confusion is at.... The "Norway Spiral" didn't happen in Norway, it was only visible from Norway.

EISCAT is located in Norway, yes, a funny coincidence, but the spiral didn't happen in Norway.

People only saw the spiral from Norway. The Spiral happened and originated from the White Sea which is the Northwest coast of Russia.

If you have seen this picture:


And the caption:

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

The picture is stated to be taken while pointing East. The White Sea is EAST of Norway. If you look at the pictures, the spiral is very far away in the EAST. There is a white plume of gases just behind the mountain which should give you an idea of the distance it originated from.

The spiral was not over Norway, it was very far East near the White Sea (Russia).

So I don't see where the rumor came from that Russia is lying and trying to cover something from EISCAT. I don't think EISCAT is capable of making the spiral, and it is very far from the spiral.








[edit on 17-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Although i 'd go for the missile explanation. Russia has its own HAARP at Nizhny Novgorod, the Sura site[needless to say pointed at the north pole ionosphere]..
The thing that troubles me is not the spiral but the blue tail, i dont see the connection between those two? the spiral AND the tail...

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Foppezao]

reply to post by Foppezao


This video shows how the spiral and the tail can easily be explained by a rocket failure.

reply to post by ProRipp


Um.. that is not a source, that is a reporter adding their own spin to a news story.

Show me the actual Russian who denied it. I want a direct quote of what they said, and who said it. I don't want a quote of a reporter from some half baked news source.