Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

reply to post by tauristercus

Using EISCAT provides only a single datum point or location upon which to base your ENTIRE hypothesis and does NOT explain at all how the spiral event actually moved across a substantial portion of the observers viewpoint. How did EISCAT achieve this feat ? Anyone willing to take a stab at providing substantiating evidence of such a capability ?

I don't see the problem with that.

EISCAT can direct it's energy anywhere, can't they?

Besides, how do you know what EISCAT is exactly capable of.

You have shown that the spiral wasn't the result of a Bulava 3rd stage failure.

Great, so what caused it then, you think it was new technology from a missile, others think it was ground based.

Why are you so quick to attack the EISCAT theory, it's just as good(or bad) as your theory.

They are equally speculative.

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

 

Using EISCAT provides only a single datum point or location upon which to base your ENTIRE hypothesis and does NOT explain at all how the spiral event actually moved across a substantial portion of the observers viewpoint. How did EISCAT achieve this feat ? Anyone willing to take a stab at providing substantiating evidence of such a capability ?

I don't see the problem with that.

EISCAT can direct it's energy anywhere, can't they?

Besides, how do you know what EISCAT is exactly capable of.

You have shown that the spiral wasn't the result of a Bulava 3rd stage failure.

Great, so what caused it then, you think it was new technology from a missile, others think it was ground based.

Why are you so quick to attack the EISCAT theory, it's just as good(or bad) as your theory.

They are equally speculative.

I have no problem with alternative possible answers but with the EISCAT scenario, you're all postulating all sorts of explanations without much by way of supporting evidence.
As a simple example, I've shown conclusively that the location, direction and altitude of the spiral event took place in its entirety over Russian controlled territory, both sea and air. I've tied this information into the Russians own pre-test launch announcement of maritime warning. The time and place fits in perfectly with the Russian Bulava launch INCLUDING the observation of the exhaust plume thats OBVIOUSLY a component of the Russian launch. Just these facts alone lend high credence that the event was of Russian origin.

And to give the EISCAT'ers a fair go, here's a very simple list of obvious questions that I would appreciate one of you actually stepping up to and answering:

1. The EISCAT'ers haven't explained why the spiral event took place ENTIRELY over and in, Russian controlled territory.
2. They haven't explained as to why the spiral event followed such a perfect trajectory that pointed DIRECTLY at the Russian test range in the Kamchatka Peninsula.
3. They haven't explained the significance of the easily observed exhaust plume.
4. They haven't supplied ANY evidence (unless I missed it) that the EISCAT technology can even operate outside the Earths atmosphere ... bear in mind that virtually the entire spiral event took place at an altitude significantly ABOVE Earths atmosphere ... basically in space. My understanding is that EISCAT is a technology that operates on the ionosphere, which is NOT in space.

Look, I'm not asking for much ... just for someone in the EISCAT camp to step up to the plate and start providing some solid answers to what are basically simple questions.


Oh, almost forgot about this question of yours ...

EISCAT can direct it's energy anywhere, can't they?

You mean to say that you're admitting you DON'T KNOW the answer to such capability ... one that's fundamental to the entire EISCAT scenario ? That's a big problem you have there, wouldn't you say ?

reply to post by tauristercus

As a simple example, I've shown conclusively that the location, direction and altitude of the spiral event took place in its entirety over Russian controlled territory, both sea and air. I've tied this information into the Russians own pre-test launch announcement of maritime warning. The time and place fits in perfectly with the Russian Bulava launch INCLUDING the observation of the exhaust plume thats OBVIOUSLY a component of the Russian launch. Just these facts alone lend high credence that the event was of Russian origin.

Jeah, well my theory is that the Russians launched the Bulava and that ground based technology was used to intercept the missile, therefore the spiral event followed the missile's course.

You mean to say that you're admitting you DON'T KNOW the answer to such capability ... one that's fundamental to the entire EISCAT scenario ? That's a big problem you have there, wouldn't you say ?

Yes, I don't know.

You don't know the capability of new Russian missile technology, wich you think caused the spiral.

Equally big problem.

Like I said, there is not enough info for anyone to say one theory is more logical than the other.

They are all based on speculation.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by tauristercus


The problem I have with your post, is that you decry the EISCAT theory because there is mostly only conjecture and coincidence backing it.

But you claim to have proven specifically that the event happened over Russia which is complete bullocks.

Your thread did not prove anything at all man. It was all simply conjecture and opinion.

I read most of your threads, and my assessment is that your theories are no better than anyone else's.

No side has proven anything. Posting pics and your opinion of them does not qualify as proving it. That is simply wishful thinking on your part.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by tauristercus

 

But you claim to have proven specifically that the event happened over Russia which is complete bullocks.

Actually yes, I have proven indisputably that the spiral event took place completely within and over, Russian sovereign territory ... but of course you are more than at liberty to disprove my estimate of the trajectory location over the White Sea with your own analysis using available EISCAT data.

In fact, I'd be more than happy for you to try ...

Bullocks ... I hardly think so.

Two questions.

1. If this kind of spiral effect has been seen and documented since 1996, where are the images and videos of them?

2. If this theory has any legs AND this kind of experiment has been carried out since 1996, why wasn't the heater on the day of the recent, highly documented spiral event filmed and photographed in Norway (as Phage mentions way back on page one)?

Oh and before someone says "They just altered the data to hide the truth", let me ask why would they alter data for an experiment that has been supposedly so well documented since 1996?

Oh and a link to a thread I started (everyone was doing a Norway spiral thread and I felt left out ok) where I address the whole premise of the OP's source material as well as the Tequillasunrise experiment, which was based around the use of the HEATER.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting stuff, and I'm pretty baffled (well, not really) that the media just let this one go.

Oh, a big friggin spiral, blue, and with a beam.
Well, move along now.

I'm sorry to not contribute to the thread, I just had to remark that it's pretty sad that so many posters are such ego maniacs.

It doesn't hurt that much to admit one of these things:

A. I was wrong

B. I don't know

Not being able to change views during research, or from the start having made up it's mind of what conclusions should be drawn is depressing to read.

Deny ignorance?

Well, quite a few seem to embrace it, being stubbard and close minded.

Here's hoping for people to broaden their perspectives...

Why do people at ATS refuse to believe what the media says, even when it is the most logical, straight forward and proven theory. Its a given the media lie, but not about everything. There is so much evidence pointing to a rocket its unbelievable but still people refuse to accept it because the big bad media reported it. Some people here choose to filter out all information which doesnt agree with their conspiracies. If this was Eiscat, then where did the exhaust trail come from, why are russia in on the conspiracy with no apparent reason, why does the spiral look exactly like other rockets failing (albeit on a larger scale).......I could carry on all day. This event was a rocket, period.

reply to post by Pryde87


I think that most agree that a missile was fired, but not that the spiral was caused by a Bulava 3rd stage failure.

edit to add:

why are russia in on the conspiracy with no apparent reason,

They either don't want to admit they have new technology, or they don't want to admit that another party used some technology as a reaction to them.

There are multiple scenarios to think of.

why does the spiral look exactly like other rockets failing (albeit on a larger scale)

This is simply not true. There are no other examples of this perfect spiral in the sky, especially not connected to missiles, and also not on a smaller scale.

If you can show examples of exact same events, I'd love to see them.

I could carry on all day.

You could, but since you seem misinformed, you shouldn't.

This event was a rocket, period.

There is no way that anyone can say with certainty what caused the spiral.

Even the Russians themselves didn't say anything about the spiral.



[edit on 20-2-2010 by Point of No Return]

Originally posted by Wolfenz
what happened in February 16th 1996 could be a perfected version December 9th 2009

i will try to find more ! especially the event of febuary 16 of 1996 - EISCAT

looking for images ! the one that ive found is a top down view from space of heating the ionosphere


another look
www.andrewgough.co.uk...
www.irf.se...
www.andrewgough.com...

From the second link:

www.irf.se...

HF pump-enhanced airglow
By transmitting a powerful high-frequency (HF) (``short-wave'') radio signal into the ionosphere it is possible to modify the ionosphere given that the ionospheric conditions are favourable (i.e. high enough electron concentration, and little or no auroral activity). Such experiments may excite plasma processes on a wide range of temporal and spatial scales [Leyser et al., 2000]. It is possible to produce enhanced optical emissions, which are far to weak to be detected by the unaided human eye, but that can be detected with sensitive imagers and photometers. These optical emissions can be used as a diagnostic tool to study electron energisation during driven plasma turbulence. For example, it is possible to study what the roles of heating and electron acceleration are for dissipating the turbulence [Leyser et al., 2000]. The naturally occurring airglow emissions at 6300 Å and 5577 Å (from the two lowest excited states of oxygen, $ O(^1D)$ and $ O(^1S)$) can be enhanced by transmitting a high-powered short-wave radio signal into the ionospheric F-region plasma. The low noise and high quantum-efficiency of the ALIS imager (Chapter 3) makes ALIS an ideal instrument for studying optical effects from active ionospheric experiments.

So does this mean that whatever EISCAT does...it’s not visible to the naked eye?

reply to post by Pauligirl


Yes, I believe it does Pauligirl. And a star for you for actually reading it and asking the critical questions.

This has been brought up before and presented here and in the other threads numerous times but many members continue to ignore it,

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Optical does not mean visible to the naked eye (that would be "visual"), it means having to do with light.

A development of local spiral-like forms in the auroral arc near Tromso occurred when the heater was turned on.

A spiral like (not a spiral) distortion of the aurora (already in progress) near Tromso was recorded by the all sky imager. The all sky imager is a light intensifying device (night vision). This was not an isolated spiral hundreds of kilometers away from Tromso. There is no indication that it was visible to the naked eye. There is no reason to believe that EISCAT could have or did produce the spiral on December 9.




[edit on 2/19/2010 by Phage]

At least you are not still holding firm to it being a failed Russian rocket. That's progress.
Here is the mathematical question of the day.
What is the total distance of the path of a supposed missile. Not just from west to east.
Imaging that you use tauristercus math for the spiral shift.
NOW this is the critical part. Take a string thumb tack it behind the mountain. Now trace the entire visible supposed failed rocket exhaust trail trajectory as a corkscrew across the heavens.
Now stretch that string out straight and tell me some physical object could do this distance in the time tauristercus calculated it at. No freekin way. No freekin rocket.
The math says so.

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

 

Jeah, well my theory is that the Russians launched the Bulava and that ground based technology was used to intercept the missile, therefore the spiral event followed the missile's course.

Why do you believe the 2nd part of your theory? I'd like to try and understand your point of view and how you arrived at that conclusion...

Are you an expert in the field of missile defense technologies that don't involve other missiles?

Patent for HAARP:

US Patent and Trademardk Office. US Patent No. 4,686,605 Bernard Eastlund August 11, 1987 Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere Abstract: This invention has a phenomenal variety of possible ramifications and potential future developments. As alluded to earlier, missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion could result, particularly when relativistic particles are employed. Also, large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection of same.

This system of 48 antennas, however, while fully operational, was not according to Eastlund, powerful enough (in 1997) "to bring the ideas in his patents to fruition": . "But they're getting up there", he said. "This is a very powerful device. Especially if they go to the expanded stage."

EISCAT is similar to HAARP, isn't it?

EISCAT might also be capable of these effects.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by tauristercus

You mean to say that you're admitting you DON'T KNOW the answer to such capability ... one that's fundamental to the entire EISCAT scenario ? That's a big problem you have there, wouldn't you say ?

Looking at the pics of EISCAT radar discs, it seems that they can be moved and aimed, wich seems quite logical.

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by Wolfenz
what happened in February 16th 1996 could be a perfected version December 9th 2009

i will try to find more ! especially the event of febuary 16 of 1996 - EISCAT

looking for images ! the one that ive found is a top down view from space of heating the ionosphere


another look
www.andrewgough.co.uk...
www.irf.se...
www.andrewgough.com...

From the second link:

www.irf.se...

HF pump-enhanced airglow
By transmitting a powerful high-frequency (HF) (``short-wave'') radio signal into the ionosphere it is possible to modify the ionosphere given that the ionospheric conditions are favourable (i.e. high enough electron concentration, and little or no auroral activity). Such experiments may excite plasma processes on a wide range of temporal and spatial scales [Leyser et al., 2000]. It is possible to produce enhanced optical emissions, which are far to weak to be detected by the unaided human eye, but that can be detected with sensitive imagers and photometers. These optical emissions can be used as a diagnostic tool to study electron energisation during driven plasma turbulence. For example, it is possible to study what the roles of heating and electron acceleration are for dissipating the turbulence [Leyser et al., 2000]. The naturally occurring airglow emissions at 6300 Å and 5577 Å (from the two lowest excited states of oxygen, $ O(^1D)$ and $ O(^1S)$) can be enhanced by transmitting a high-powered short-wave radio signal into the ionospheric F-region plasma. The low noise and high quantum-efficiency of the ALIS imager (Chapter 3) makes ALIS an ideal instrument for studying optical effects from active ionospheric experiments.

So does this mean that whatever EISCAT does...it’s not visible to the naked eye?

Your link is cool and informative and absolutly shows how spirals are created by HF.
Although it is sorta ancient history. Most dates for the data are not even in this century.
Sorry if I screwed up the quote.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Donny 4 million]

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Patent for HAARP:

US Patent and Trademardk Office. US Patent No. 4,686,605 Bernard Eastlund August 11, 1987 Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere Abstract: This invention has a phenomenal variety of possible ramifications and potential future developments. As alluded to earlier, missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion could result, particularly when relativistic particles are employed. Also, large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection of same.

This system of 48 antennas, however, while fully operational, was not according to Eastlund, powerful enough (in 1997) "to bring the ideas in his patents to fruition": . "But they're getting up there", he said. "This is a very powerful device. Especially if they go to the expanded stage."

EISCAT is similar to HAARP, isn't it?

EISCAT might also be capable of these effects.

THANK YOU I've been looking for someone to talk about HAARP

Can anyone find me a picture of a failed rocket that looks like this? explain the layers and expanding symmetry



if it is a missile why are there two separate exhaust fumes?

In this regard, a report published by the Russian parliament (Duma) in 2002, suggests that the US Military had plans to test its weather modification techniques at its Alaska facility, as well as at two other sites: "The committees reported that the USA is planning to test three facilities of this kind. One of them is located on the military testing ground in Alaska and its full-scale tests are to begin in early 2003. The second one is in Greenland and the third one in Norway. "When these facilities are launched into space from Norway, Alaska and Greenland, a closed contour will be created with a truly fantastic integral potential for influencing the near-Earth medium," the State Duma said.

(Interfax News Agency, original Russian, BBC Monitoring, 8 August 2002, emphasis added)

www.globalresearch.ca...

From this source it seems that governments and militairy are actually involved in EISCAT, assuming the Norway reference is to EISCAT.









[edit on 20-2-2010 by Point of No Return]

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by tauristercus

 

But you claim to have proven specifically that the event happened over Russia which is complete bullocks.

Actually yes, I have proven indisputably that the spiral event took place completely within and over, Russian sovereign territory ... but of course you are more than at liberty to disprove my estimate of the trajectory location over the White Sea with your own analysis using available EISCAT data.

In fact, I'd be more than happy for you to try ...

Bullocks ... I hardly think so.

You may have missed the part where Russia has had it's way with Norway
since time began. Why should it be different now.
Do you honestly believe EISCAT could be built by the Norwegian people alone? Why? What does Norway have to prove in the ionosphere?

Why not calculate the exact missile path you propose and give it a dimension and speed. Explain and show where the 3rd stage failed.
Get that pencil and work it OUT!

reply to post by Point of No Return

This is important information that gets constantly overlooked by the nay sayers.
There are actually HAARP networks that can now act in unison.
I wish some one would calculate their collective POWER.