Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

reply to post by brageboogie


Those documents are interesting, but they have nothing to do with what we saw. Other documents show that the EISCAT ionospheric heater wasn't even operational when the phenomenon happened.

You should be able to understand my frustration when what essentially amounts to spam is flooding into any discussion on the Norway spiral. We have been over EISCAT with a fine-toothed comb, and there is absolutely no way on Earth (or in space) that it can cause anything even remotely similar to what we saw, especially when it's not turned on.

I appreciate you bringing it to the discussion, though it would have been more useful when we'd not yet discussed it. A month after we have discussed it, it's a bit late, and serves to only muddy the waters.

reply to post by davesidious


All I see in this case (not on this site; the overall coverage of it) is muddy. So what's the reason to get so amped up about more mud? Anyway, I believe we should both consider the possibility that we are intellectually incompatible; our nervous systems and cognitive resources interpret signals and information differently. We will probably never agree on anything. And I don't think our intellectual resources are to blame. We'll just have to accept that all we can offer each other is resistance. Let's leave it at that. OK?

reply to post by brageboogie


I don't see it as mud. If there is evidence that points, rather strongly, to the phenomenon being the Russian missile (such as the analysis of the photos placing the spiral in exactly the same position as the ICBM's likely flight path, the blue spiral being perfectly congruent with aluminium-oxide rocket exhaust, and the white spiral being perfectly congruent with a lateral vent of liquid fuel, maneuvering bus exhaust, or countermeasures), then that seems to weigh more than information about EISCAT being able to produce optical phenomenon that require highly-sensitive, highly-calibrated equipment to detect, that are invisible to the naked eye.

The fact that EISCAT wasn't even running its ionospheric heater that day also discounts any involvement on that front.

I think we can definitely agree, if we can at least come to an understanding of what constitutes acceptable evidence Let's not give up so soon, ok?

reply to post by davesidious


Maybe. It's still all twilight to me. And I still think your initial reactions to my post was uncalled for. See how much thread space we wasted...
Hardy: NOW, look at what you made me do! (that's self-irony, btw)

reply to post by tauristercus


Good work man.

Lot's of lovely information.

Question;

IF the missile was the cause of the spiral, and the spiral was desired (caused deliberately as part of the test), why would this be so?

For offensive or even defensive purposes, a missile leaving a huge spiral in the sky as an intended effect, would have several shortcomings.

For a start, the launch site would immediately be identifiable to a potential enemy.

The missile's trajectory and hence target, can easily be extrapolated from the angle of the spiral disk.

Strange.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Furthermore, your "buddies" doesn't cut it.
I have a few engineering buddies as well. And we've spoken about this.
One of the reasons I have never questioned the missile theory.

I've already explained that I have yet to find my buddy's link. If I cannot find it, I will be calling him to re-send it to me. The information that I provided has been provided on a series of Sky Spiral threads that already exists here on ATS.

Originally posted by timewalker
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Well please let us in on the secret. All we have to go on is the "official" BS story and a few pics and videos. Why do you think this is still going on this long. We want to get to the reason. Missile, EISCAT, Wormhole, GOD, we want to know.........

Well, my initial point was this...There's no way to ever find out at this point. We lost the tracks of this thing awhile ago while it was fresh, and I believe that disinformation did its intended job. So ultimately, I wish I could provide insight. My gut feeling is that it was not a missile, information from my friends also would indicate against it, but, there's no way I have what it takes to say exactly what the spiral was caused by.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Finally! A bit of humility is always appreciated! Cheers to this guy!

Originally posted by zooplancton
just stumbled onto this thread.
OP, this is one of the best researched threads i also have seen on ATS.
my best friend is a math geek. i'm going to pass this thread off to him to chew on. amazing.

bookmarking now.

Don't get too excited. Many people are finding his mathematics to be quite incorrect. He definitely put forth effort, and for that he deserves credit, but as it moves forward there seems to be a ton of holes in his case.

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

 

The largest north/south separation of the sighting locations occurs between Puoltsa, Sweden and Skjervoy, Norway; a distance of about 230 km. If the distance to the spiral was 912 km that would be an angular separation of 15º.

The spiral has been estimated by an eyewitness (ATS member Gromle) to have been 2-3 times the size of a full Moon. Let's go whole hog and call it 4 times. That is about 2º, a little smaller than a quarter would be held at an arm's length. Get a quarter. Hold it at an arm's length with one side facing you. Now rotate it 15º. Still looks pretty circular doesn't it? And this is working with maximum values. If the spiral was further away the angle would be less. If the axis of rotation were between the two locations instead of on one of them the angle would still less.

Because of the distance, the offset becomes less apparent.

[edit on 2/1/2010 by Phage]

This whole post doesn't make sense.

The observation sites were parallel to the alleged missile's probable trajectory, the angular separation doesn't matter, from the side, a spiraling rocket going from A to B would look like a corkscrew looks from the side, not like a head on spiral.

Originally posted by brageboogie
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.

My friend, I had to have the same discussion with the very person that you are talking with (Davisidious) in a previous thread that addressed HAARP. Davsidious is intelligent but not very rational and does not read information that you will provide. He's more into arguing for the sake of it without doing any research or providing any proof for his stance. Even worse, he will present zero evidence to support his claims. You will get absolutely nowhere with him due to the way that he argues...Or should I say, Davesidious gets absolutely nowhere because of his inability to accept, read, or present a viable case for his opinions.

Although I have had vehement disagreements with this member, PHAGE is more or less the person that you need to address while bringing up any reputable research. He will at least look at it and attempt to approach things rationally. He may not agree with your position, but, at least he will actually read the information that you provide and defend his position with intellect and grace.

As far as the missile being caused by Haarp or Eiscat...its really hard to say. This technology is capable of so much, and has so many applications that it honestly would not surprise me that these electromagnetic devices/weapons would have been responsible for this event. There are so many speculations on the sky spiral that it almost makes it impossible to estimate its origin. The same thing happened in China during the 80's and there was controversy as to what had created it as well. Again, the missile theory was thrown out there, but, according to the initial story, the Chinese claimed that they weren't testing anything on a military level that day. It wasn't until a few days later, very much like the Russian scenario, that they "admitted" to doing tests. So, who do you believe, especially when our governments deny information one day and then admit to it on a different one? There are too many lies to sift through to gain an accurate analysis.


[edit on 2-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Why, thank you! That was ever so informative and kind of you! Concerning Davesidious, I had sort of come to similar conclusions through my communication with him.
However, on a productive note, your generosity inspired me to write some lines about my experience with 'my own kind', i.e. conspiracy theorists, and our (seen through my eyes) relationship with theory and knowledge. Sadly, it might be a bit too elusive for those who need it the most, but that can't be helped. (BTW this is slightly off-thread (hrrm), but highly relevant in any conspiracy-driven forum, imho.)

It seems to me that most conspiracy-theorists are too much in love with their own theories to lend an ear to other theories. Or data. Or perspectives. This goes for me too, I'm afraid. But I know from personal experience that sometimes, when I'm presented with interesting data that 'doesn't fit', I'm willing to question the challenged components of my own current THEORY. And sometimes that evolves or annihilates my original theory. Cause in the end, that's what this is all about, isn't it? Not religion?! Theories!

I wasn't there when Kennedy was shot or when that fabulous spiral lit up the norwegian sky or when almost anything else in recorded history EVER happened! My field of experience compared to the available (and unavailable!) data (concerning EVERYTHING) is ZIP, NADA and NIL!
By nature, we are not omnipresent. To put it mildly. We create far more data than we ever consciously process, by many orders of magnitude. Of course, I do not KNOW this, but it seems plausible to me based on my personal experience and deduction. You may say it's my THEORY of knowledge.

Theories belong to the realm of possibilities. By definition, when we don't KNOW something, ANY theory about it is POSSIBLE. Some may seem more plausible than others, but in the end that is determined by what you already know, or think you know, or, hopefully, know you think. Because if you KNOW that you THINK, instead of thinking that you know, then every thing is indeed possible (though more or less likely). Because you KNOW that in the end it is you who THINK it. By that I mean, categorically, that I do not KNOW that the earth is spherical, but in accordance with my other axiomatic knowledge (i.e. not testable, taken at face value as building blocks in my making sense of the world) it seems highly plausible, to the extent that I subconsciously implement it as knowledge.

But alas! We cannot really know anything else than our immediate experience of the world! All else is theory, which, when left unquestioned, hardens into some truth-like substance, much like three day old s**t. Hence, conspiracy theory.

(The origin of conspiracy, on the other hand, I believe to be people conspiring.)

This goes out to me too, of course, as is truly due following such a self-righteous monologue, and will hopefully serve as a reminder for me to have a more flexible mind and not be so arrogant as I have just been in this rant ..in the future.

Until then: Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. (Hassan I Sabbah)

[edit on 2-2-2010 by brageboogie]

[edit on 2-2-2010 by brageboogie]

Fantastic Post!

Will take some time to decipher but brilliantly constructed

Look familiar? I thought it was interesting. The book is loosely about the V-2 rocket in WWII and even though I don't really think it was a rocket, its still... well, interesting.

David Wilcock, or anything to do with this guy, should not be considered as viable evidence against the missile theory as it pertains to this case.

He clearly has an agenda and preconceived notions about how the world works which in one way shape or form always has a conspiracy of some sort tied to it.

Can we stop using what he says and puts on his website as gospel here, unless you don't care about not being taken seriously.

Thank you, have a nice day.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

Hello All,

I have been following this, and I also do research into new propulsion, has anybody ever heard of the repulsine, I think a new version of it is what they are testing. If you really want to see a possible culprit go to this site

www.ultralightamerica.com...

and read all the stuff on the EDAV or Electro-Dynamic Air Vehicle
Personally I think a repulsine type implosion motor was being tested for use in missiles, it got botched and the spiral is the result. I have e-mailed Mr. Zorzi, and he said-

"Hello ******,

I heard of this last week already. My first guess is to think that this is
an electromagnetic propulsion system that emits electrons and ions
instead of a rocket chemical reaction.

The blue hue effect is always an emission of ions that have lost their
electrons. Ion propulsion engines have been experimented on since
1955 in which a group of our own scientist were involved with the
Air Force in such matters.

In my EDAV PART 6 which I released a couple of months ago I
explain a propulsion system in which helium 3 and Deuterium
(Heavy water) when mixed together create an explosion that
is 1000 times more powerful than the best known rocket fuel
we now use. It is a very unstable mixture. But helium 3 is
difficult to make. But the moons surface is loaded with this
ingredient with an extremely high content. I explained that our
Air Force has already been mining the moon for a long time for
this precious commodity. This is why I believe that NASA has
had its funding yanked because the military did not want NASA
making another trip to the moon and finding out another of our
militaries dirtiest cover up secrets. It could be just possible what
we see here is just a rocket engine of this kind."

so think what you want, my money is on this.

Peace,
Pyrodin123321





[edit on 2-2-2010 by pyrodin123321]

Don't get too excited. Many people are finding his mathematics to be quite incorrect.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


EM can you point out where the math is incorrect?

The "many people" you speak of don't seem to be on this thread and I am sure the OP would love the chance to correct his math.

Thanks in advance