Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

It works! Copy and paste your way into the rabbit hole, Alice!

reply to post by tauristercus


www.youtube.com...

I've never bought into the failed missle tests.

Suspect it's either HAARP or spacetime / dimensional / stargate technology and it's Project Bluebeam.

Been predicted by "the crazies"...........and now it is here.

Get a eerie feeling just looking at these spirals.

Very interesting video.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

18 layer thick spiral. - the heat signature was never like that of a "failed missle'.

Their getting ready and this is just the beginning.



[edit on 2-2-2010 by ofhumandescent]

[edit on 2-2-2010 by ofhumandescent]

reply to post by tauristercus


Thanks Tauristercus!
(I knew it would be a typo!!)
Just glad that it didn't throw the old spanner in the works!
kindest regards,
G

as i said before ! in a thread while back not sure what section

it may have been a missile (a missile close to the minotaur missile ) possible use as a starter to make the momentum of the spiral falls off then the haarp like base not to far away as the inner blue spiral coming from the middle dissipates to that same location ! as it is like driving the spiral tis what it look like to me a test for sure! could it be a experiment ! say like a Tesla Shield ! for incoming attacks ! a neutralizer >? for incoming missiles ! maybe its a long stretch of guessing

a few years back something also happened the same way www.metacafe.com... you will have a better look ! up close
you will notice that the spiral is stationary! and and i mean and ! the center changes directions ! close to 3 to 4 times then disappears to the black like hole

note this a news reporting from china but having a close up view ! and very similar to the Norway spiral and this china spiral was reported 20- years ago what else could it be >? www.cyberspaceorbit.com... read and enjoy ! read on! the read the txt link !

"Tesla Shield."

Two scalar hemispherical surfaces are created, using multiple frequency
transmitters and truncated Fourier series expansions. Interference of the two scalar hemispheres creates a great, glowing hemispherical shell of ordinary electromagnetic energy. In the shell, the energy density is sufficient to lift Dirac matter from the Dirac sea of vacuum. The shell is thus filled with a glowing plasma.

( ^read the text link to read more dont want to spoil it for you it is to long to post here ^ ) is this getting your attention! note shell =(missile) or just Google Tesla shield

Enjoy People

Here's more eerily similar descriptions of artificial optical emissions produced by ionosphere heating experiments at HAARP and EISCAT. I really urge all interested to read these documents I have linked, as their authenticity is rather difficult to disprove, and their content is rather explosive (no pun intended).

www.eiscat.rl.ac.uk...

Again, I must stress the point that it is not in my interest to disprove any existing theory. I simply want to point out that the official explanations given in the maistream media, and by russian and norwegian officials, contain vast ommissions of VERY relevant information. Also, being a norwegian, I was rather discomforted by the fact that NO diplomatic aftermath has made it's way into the media following russia's statement that a failed missile launch was the cause of this spectacle. By comparison, when russian fishers were discovered to be fishing in norwegian waters some years ago, norwegian media coverage was huge, and the norwegian government immediately sent out the heavily armed coast guard to apprehend any russian boats in norwegian waters, in order to confiscate their bounty. In my opinion, russian missiles pose a greater threat to norwegian homeland security than russian fishers, but maybe that's just me..

Christ we're back to the HAARP / EISCAT nonsense again. Tauristercus went through all that effort in collating and investigating actual facts, then the "free thinkers" start spouting their baseless assertions as if they have a modicum of evidential support.

We simply can not have a decent, rational discussion on ATS as long as a fringe element of irrational-thinkers have some "claim" on the subject.

This is truly disgusting behaviour.

More on the subject. This is the abstract of an article called 'Auroral lights created by high-power radiowaves in the ionospheric E region' by L M Kagan, 2008.


L M Kagan
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. Artificial auroral lights are optical emissions induced by high-power radiowaves in a manner similar to the creation of natural auroral lights due to precipitation of superthermal electrons. Here the Earth's atmosphere itself plays the role of a plasma laboratory. A high-power radio-transmitter creates superthermal electrons in situ due to radiowave interactions with the ionospheric plasma. Low-altitude (85–125 km) artificial aurora is a relatively rare phenomenon observed for the first time about 10 years ago. Analysis of available observations shows that its intensity and structure, as well as the very possibility of its generation at these altitudes, depend largely on the presence and features of so-called sporadic ionization, best known for its effect on navigation and communication. Thus, all other parameters unchanged, a 20 times increase in the height-extent of sporadic ionization clouds could under certain circumstances result in a 27-fold increase in the intensity of the low-altitude artificial aurora. Understanding the morphology and typical features of sporadic ionization clouds for a given location would allow proper planning of experimental campaigns and noticeably extend our knowledge of the atmosphere and its use for human needs. Equally important is that low-altitude artificial auroras give information about the horizontal structure and dynamics of E-region sporadic ionization, the airglow-source region, the energy of superthermal electrons and perhaps the local atmospheric temperature and water vapor content at 80–90 km.

Print publication: Issue 7 (July 2008)
Received 22 January 2008, in final form 19 April 2008
Published 29 May 2008

link to page (must pay for entire article...)
www.iop.org...

reply to post by brageboogie


The missile was not over Norway.

EISCAT's optical effects are not visible to the naked eye. They are only detectable with very sensitive equipment.

EISCAT has nothing to do with the spiral phenomenon.

reply to post by brageboogie


Again, don't confuse "optical" with "visible to the naked eye, spreading for miles across the night sky". They do not mean the same thing.

reply to post by davesidious


Please be rational. Read the documents. Check their origin. Check the names and credentials of the authors. Please tell me in detail what your objections are. If you do not want to read the documents and do the work, then PLEASE! Where's your argument? I'm not saying a russian missile was not involved. I'm just saying: Look at these documents. They seem authentic to me. Can you disprove their authenticity? They describe very interesting auroral phenomena similar to what happened in norway on the 9dec2009. How is posting relevant documents from leading experts in ionosphere research disgusting? Why do you use such blatant emotionalistic rhetoric when the site guide for posting replies discourages you to do just that? Is the word 'disgusting' a valid logic argument? Is this evil, twisted information? Posted to disinform the gullible? Well, yes! Absolutely! Be my guest. It's not my responsibility how you choose to interpret available relevant information. Please note that NONE of these links (apart from the one found on david wilcocks site) were found on 'alternative perspective' sites. They were found on google, using search words found in the scientific documents as I came across them. I personally resent the lack of rationality often displayed by conspiracy theorists, and have therefore steered clear of ANY sites propagating that perspective when doing this research. I even hesitated to post my findings here, if you catch my drift...

Do the work. Then bring it on.

reply to post by davesidious


BTW, I agree that NONE of these findings PROVE ANYthing. In either this or that direction. It seems like it is information relevant to the subject, though, and I think it's good to have as many pieces of information as possible available, so maybe some gifted person can fit some of it together to create a coherent whole.
how is that disgusting? Maybe it is you who FEEL it is disgusting? But in reality, it is whatever to different observers? I go for that interpretation ; )

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by brageboogie

 

The missile was not over Norway.

EISCAT's optical effects are not visible to the naked eye. They are only detectable with very sensitive equipment.

EISCAT has nothing to do with the spiral phenomenon.

The more you write, the less I respect you.
How many times to I have to tell you that you are just wrong.
There is no way a missle caused the Norway Spiral, and I think you know that.

You speak as if you saw the entire event unfold from the ship you say launched the missle. Thing is...you where not there...so you are now showing your lack of reasoning (and total lack of physics knowledge) by speculating that this was a missle created event.

I grow very weary of your lack of proof followed by your lack of people skills with the rude comment you seem to like to stab out with almost every post.

Everyone knows Dave thinks it is a missle......and dDave is a dip****.

Can you just stuff a sock in it already.

reply to post by brageboogie


That information has nothing to do with what we saw. Trigonometry has positioned the spiral in space, far away from EISCAT or HAARP, and the effects you describe are in no way anything like that which we saw.

It's disgusting because we already have fantastic evidence pointing squarely at it being a Russian missile, then people chime in with some misunderstood link that has nothing to do with this, muddying the waters. There is not a single shred of evidence that EISCAT or HAARP had anything to do with the phenomenon, and yet people, such as yourself, say "ooh well let's just consider it", when there is absolutely no reason to consider it, as there is absolutely no evidence.

If you can show how EISCAT can produce a massive spiral hundreds of miles away from itself, that has a spiral that looks like it's made from rocket exhaust, that descends out of the sky and looks even more like rocket exhaust when against the illuminated sky, then we can talk. Until then, no.

Originally posted by tauristercus
Just out of curiousity, this is what happens to the spiral when you reverse the colours and push the colour saturation to the maximum ... now don't anyone jump on my case as the following comment is MY impression ONLY ... it looks like a 3D spiral tunnel receding into the distance, with a red artifact entering the spiral opening and staying close to the right hand side of the tunnel walls.

Again ... let me repeat ... "I'm not suggesting anything" by having reversed the colours ... just fascinated by the apparent 3D effect.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aa90982ef0d8.jpg[/atsimg]

I would think that the tunnel effect receding into the distance is exactly what was being created as the missile with its plume was traversing and spinning through the atmosphere. If you consider the fact the missile is not stationary and is at the center of that "hole" moving away from you then yes, it would and should in effect create a spiral tunnel of which we're looking through it from the back end.

Sort of like looking through this one from the bottom:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/38e9efa60623.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SLaPPiE


"There is no way a missle caused the Norway Spiral" - then provide your evidence as to how all the rocket scientists across the world don't agree with you.

I didn't see the event unfold, but I have an understanding of what constitutes evidence, and what constitutes conjecture. All the evidence points to it being a Russian missile, and none against it.

I've shown the reasoning behind it being a Russian missile. I can do it again if you want.

I've posted loads of links to various interviews with various experts around the world who all agree it was a Russian missile. And yet you expect me to throw all that away, and take the words of some "free thinkers"? That is far from rational.

And it's nice how you say I have a lack of people skills and am rude, then call me a dip****. Very nice. Not at all hypocritical.

So please - go for it. Show me how all the evidence is wrong, tell us all WHY Russia is lying for Norway, how EISCAT is capable of producing something that look just like a new Russian ICBM, including a smoke trail that leads all the way down to the White Sea.

Unless you can do that, perhaps it is not I who should be stuffing socks

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Exactly. It seems, and it's reasonable, that many people who look at the photos don't know what they're looking at. They don't know that, if they think of it as two 3D spirals, the images do actually make perfect sense. First the blue spiral extending up from the White Sea, and then the white spiral emanating from the missile as it flies through space practically away from the viewer.

reply to post by davesidious


tauristercus

Allright then. For the sake of all the honest work put in by tauristercus to make his point, I think you had better just chill out. You're doing him NO favour ranting and raving in this emotional manner. His data and research is valuable, if not steelclad. You're argumentative skills, if seen in cahoots with his research, will only help destroy HIS reputation by manner of association. From where you gained your omnipresence is an enigma to me. The kind of rhetoric you exhibit belong among religious fanatics and those living off of mental disability retirement checks, in my humble opinion Just for the record.

reply to post by brageboogie


To tauristercus:
It was not my intention to lopen my post with your name, 'tauristercus'. I copied it into the post to have the name correct and ready to use, and forgot to erase it. I have no beef with you or your impressive presentation. Sorry.

reply to post by brageboogie


It's not omnipresence, it's critical thinking. It's actually looking at evidence, and not skimming it for words you kinda understand, and thinking it's pertinent to the discussion.

Tauristercus's work stands on its own - there is nothing I can do to damage it, well, the bits that agree with the evidence, anyway. If you think his work is that flimsy, then maybe the issue lies with you, and not my "style" for being thoroughly annoyed when a decent attempt to understand this phenomenon gets flooded with idiotic references to HAARP and EISCAT.

reply to post by davesidious


Life! Never what you expect it to be! I came here to publish some interesting documents, not to engage myself in an unproductive battle of words. But alas! I can't help myself! This is simply too entertaining to be left alone, even though I should. I guess that's the way it goes with lower impulses?
So, here goes again. This time, a little parallel from REAL LIFE!
I have a friend who has a tendency to get very drunk and obnoxious. Very obnoxious indeed. Up until that point, we all treat him respectfully. However, when he starts ranting and raving, picking on innocents in order to feel better about himself, we are sometimes forced to inform him that he is acting like an A**H**E. It is not our hypocracy that prompts this reaction, but our sense of responsibility; to him and his potential victims. Hope this has been an enlightening story, Davesidious.