Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

reply to post by tauristercus


I am saying that it could be a failed test... At first considering all the documents I have read that other countries such as Iran and Germany feel towards Unidentified aircraft they made a statement that they would shoot it down. In the beginning I had thought that it was Russia who shot down a Unidentified Intellgent Aircraft. These people over there in China an Russia seem to take this on more serious level than our own country leads us to believe in. Now this is comming from their Governments level. not their civillians. Although they have numerous reports of sightings from them too. It boils down to this we have either appropiated a treaty of some sort with thse outer world intelligence, and are involved in a Highly classified project or projects, involving nucular war intelligence support from outside outer world sources (UFO's and ET's.

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Well then, you also missed the entire thread that had been started using the very same paper 2 months ago...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and i did it the hard way lol found the same source as he has

As I have since stated a number of times, that original thread of mine (a couple of months ago) has been readily admitted by myself to be seriously flawed in its conclusions. I was guilty of jumping on the 'new' Norway Spiral event too quickly and conducting an analysis based on a very bare minimum of available data. In essence I did what the author of 'On the Norway Spirals and their Physically Impossible “Ripple” Propagation' (eagerly subscribed to by EvolvedMinistry a few posts above) had done and made far too many assumptions based on far too little 'real data'. I then compounded my error by insisting on 'force fitting' EISCAT as the OBVIOUS explanation.

Since then, much more data has become available and based upon this data, it became apparent that my previous stance on EISCAT was seriously flawed.
Having realized this, I endeavored to do a much more detailed and valid analysis of what transpired that morning ... resulting in my series of 3 threads. Unless something completely unexpected or unusual is revealed to alter or invalidate my conclusions, I will continue to stand by my analysis.

After all, isn't that what the scientific methodology demands ? If new data is made available, you have the choice of either modifying your deductions and conclusions ... or you completely throw out your previous assumptions and conclusions and start from scratch if the new data warrants it.

Because the new data warranted it, I chose to throw the EISCAT solution away completely as being entirely untenable and without substantiation.

[edit on 20/2/10 by tauristercus]

This was a much better reply with the recommended dose of civility that you are known for. I had read this last night before I went to bed, but, I notice the edit and you changed the reply to address someone else.

Doesn't matter. Now, I understand that you have proven to yourself that Eiscat is somehow not responsible and you said because new data warranted it. However, personally, I do not hold the same belief. More than one shot must be made at the Eiscat theory before you have shut it down and it has to have a consistent failure rate before the theory is worthless. So far, you have done 3 tests to prove or disprove 3 theories. Multiple tests need to be done on all three of them before you discount, or count any of them as accurate. Hence the scientific method.

I have looked at all the information, and to me, I have found the links that seem to make the utmost amount of sense. If you do not agree, then, this is where we differ. However, your work was not in vain and because of your findings, we are able to rule out the Buluva Missile theory. With this, we pick up where we left off before.

Thank you for the shift in attitude, because ultimately, we're all working for the same goal here.

Originally posted by antideceit
Excellent evidence , S&F

Been reading a lot of different scientific descriptions of the processes used for ionospheric heating, and finding them all over the internet, and they all pretty much corroborate the same things referred to in the documentation you post here. This, in my opinion is as convincing as it will ever get. The science behind the various technologies being used is probably still in it's infancy as opposed to what I believe is possible for them. The scary part is the actual people in control of the more secret and much more powerful versions of these devices and what they have already done with it, and what they want to do with it. You can probably safely bet that they will use them for selfish, covert aims and most likely already have.

Thank you very much antidecieit. And, I have come up with the same conclusion as you. I'm not into always swallowing the "official story" because, this country has been fooled too many times by politicians with an agenda, and have used the taxpayers to meet their ends. It seems that your eyes are wide open. Thanks for your contribution.

Originally posted by mslag67


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?

This is a fair question.
It has been ask repetitively throughout the spiral threads.
I ain' t seen one yet! And doubt I will.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Why haven't you provided any of your own work to substantiate what the HArvard study was. Why haven't you explained to the ATS community how EISCAT could actually create a rotating spiral with a blue corkscrew and a missile plume over the vicinity of the White Sea??

Where are your maths and your scientific explanations to corroborate your assertions?? Any photographic evidence you could offer us?? Anything other than a link that you spammed 20 times in this thread

So Because that harvard study mentions buzz words like "spiral forms" and "ionosphere" and "EISCAT" and "Tromso", suddenly this was the cause of the event on Dec 9th??

You haven't even tried explaining what that paper means or did I miss it

You've got to be kidding. Are you really trying to deflect onto me what I've repetitively asked you to do over a period of three threads??? For real??? You might have the lowest character of anyone that I've seen on ATS. Even Tauristercus gave it a shot. You've consistently evaded my line of questioning after YOU claimed that each link that I've provided...

namely this one:
www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm

Was flawed in theory and in mathematic terms. So, after pursuing you for 3 threads, asking for an explanation of why you don't agree with it and to prove it incorrect, you're now trying to ask me to explain it??? LAZY. And since you asked, I put forth an explanation on the last thread that you and I and Phage danced.

The math in itself is actually...SELF EXPLANATORY. Here it is in layman's terms for ya. Because of the altitude, wind speed and pressure, the missile exhaust would have had to have been going 300 meters a second faster than the highest wind speed ever recorded in order to have not dissipated at the altitudes and pressures listed in the link.

Its right there. Mathematically, I don't have to prove anything because I agree with the findings. And if you researched the link and did the added work, you might come to the same conclusion. But, as I have said before, because you don't have the math skills to understand what is proposed in the link, you don't have the language to translate that of which the link is communicating.

Don't ask me to do your homework for you Photon. This is now the third thread of failure for you.

Originally posted by Damian-007
I have seen so many theories now on this "Spiral", I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever know for sure what caused it.

What I think is most important in the whole discussion of the so called "Spiral" is what it's actually for?

What would a Spiral like that actually be for? What can it do? what is it part of? If it was a Missile, then what was the missile for? If it's Eiscat, what is it for?If it was Haarp, what's it for?

Creating the Spiral is one thing but what is it in aid of? That's what I want know. Is it an Experiment that will harm the Earth or Humanity?

Is It A Warning of somehing Bigger to come or was it just an accident from an Experiment?

Good questions. And I guess, this is what we're all actually trying to find out.

Originally posted by antideceit

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 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.

In all fairness , there is also no reason to believe it wasn't EISCAT.
Optics in physics is about studying the physical properties of light, and a real interesting thing about light is that it is visible to the human eye. Another interesting thing about ionosphere heating is that it transmits energy through a medium, and often when putting energy through something with resistance is it can produce heat and light, and under the right conditions, maybe even spirals.

cheers

Well played. Glad to have you aboard on this thread.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Ive asked you twice already to explain the so called frequency that your analysis has come up with--

Quit being so squirrely

And I've asked you at least 30 times, in 3 different threads, before your inquiry against me, to explain why you think that the link that I posted was inaccurate. Please explain mathematically.

And, squirrely is not a word. But, it is a part of my personality to extend love to those who see themselves as my enemy.

However, an enemy you are not.

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Well then, you also missed the entire thread that had been started using the very same paper 2 months ago...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and i did it the hard way lol found the same source as he has

Quite alright Wolfenz. It was an innocent and honest mistake. Besides, it was obvious that this issue needed to be discussed.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


EM

Dont question my character EM when Ive repeatedly asked you for your response in regards to the frequency the author of that analysis has determined... 3 times already in this thread- page 9 is the first time Ive asked you about it

You keep challenging me and when Ive responded you keep telling me to show you whats wrong and that Im dodging you... Did you get my U2U?-- you haven't responded, conveniently ignored it

I had to send you that U2U because youre purposely ignoring questions regarding his values?

What more do you want me to do?

Is your being so obtuse deliberate?

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

I knew it, I had this same thought after reading what they claimed it was. The reason I started thinking it ha to do with what you are saying is that the Russians wanted to do something on this order as a solution to global warming and there is this other Russian experiment to explore the idea that a missle could explode a astroid headed to earth. I thought it had to do with one of these. It would make sense tho to launch a missle to see if in fact it could hit a target, I know it was not done for no reason at all and it was not just a failure it had a reason. Maybe it was a missle interceptor test that they were testing. I think your claim has a lot more sense.

Thanks for your post. And yes, the fact that the Russians even denied it at first sends up red flags everywhere. It could be a combination of things in the end, like you have stated.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Again you won't address it

His upper and lower limits are both derived from his initial value of 1hz-

1hz is incorrect

Its' no more than .5 Hz and in one case it looks to be .25 Hz--

Do you even realize what effect these different valus will have on his upper and lower limits??

It will reduce them by half or more EM-- IOW the results he's attained for his upper and lower limits are grossly overstated, which means the rotation was not as fast as he's lead you to believe

Stop trying to pick fights here- I'm answering you

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Why haven't you provided any of your own work to substantiate what the HArvard study was. Why haven't you explained to the ATS community how EISCAT could actually create a rotating spiral with a blue corkscrew and a missile plume over the vicinity of the White Sea??

Where are your maths and your scientific explanations to corroborate your assertions?? Any photographic evidence you could offer us?? Anything other than a link that you spammed 20 times in this thread

So Because that harvard study mentions buzz words like "spiral forms" and "ionosphere" and "EISCAT" and "Tromso", suddenly this was the cause of the event on Dec 9th??

You haven't even tried explaining what that paper means or did I miss it

Have you seen Holes In Heaven HAARP ? www.youtube.com...
this documentary has said by the operator's and designer's themselves
of what haarp can do and able to do and what it might able to do

HAARP can claim that it can control their energy, like a hand waving in any direction

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

arxiv.org...

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...

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Wolfenz]

Thanks again wolfenz. Your tireless efforts have proven to be very useful.

Originally posted by wonkamaniac
There is absolutely no way an errant missle could create such a perfect spiral phenomenon... Totally insane to think otherwise. It was EISCAT, beyond any doubt.

I am in complete agreement. I have never once, in all my years, seen a missile behave in such a manner. Therefore, there only seems to be one explanation that fits, especially according to the research made by NASA and the Harvard Scientists in 1996.

Originally posted by psychederic
reply to post by Romans 10:9

 

The problem is : it was a >physical phenomenom< : not just an Aurora (natural light displays in the sky), even created by a technology.

To get this phenomenom you need cinetic energy (or a lot of pulsed energy ).

So in my opinion it was a physical object : but don't get me wrong : I recognize I don't know everything.

Thank you for your post and effort. EM radiation would be my only bet on this one as well.

Originally posted by wonkamaniac
reply to post by davesidious

 

Really??? You honestly believe that a failed missle could have made such a perfectly symmetrical spiral? Please... At first I really thought it was a UFO anamoly... My thoughts have changed after seeing things clearly. I find it odd that the western media shows BS blurry images, whereas the Russian media shows the phenomenon very plainly and clearly. Once you see things in a clear manner, it is obvious from positioning that this is something "shot" up from the ground.

I could not have said it better. It seems quite obvious to some, and remains elusive to others.

Originally posted by KKinsane2009
for the last time

they are trying to make 3 DIMENSIONAL HOLOGRAPHICS

if you know anything about waves and wave packets etc you know they need two spirals to do such a thing, just like 3d tv. except in the sky.

and just to let you know why I believe this, I HAVE SEEN IT. it wasn't 3d but it was DEFFINATLY holographics. and it was god damned scary.

peace.

Could be quite possible. I would have loved to have had your vantage point.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Look for yourself EM

Test 1

Using the time indicator on youtube as a guide:

4 second mark: (using the top part of the exhaust at the "2:00" position)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a37dc8dd47d7.jpg[/atsimg]


5 second mark: (exhaust is now at the "4:00" position)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/46cdf3f1ba0c.jpg[/atsimg]


6 second mark: (exhaust is now only at the "6:00" position)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bc16f5584364.jpg[/atsimg]


7 second mark: ( exhaust has only reached the "9:00" position)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3029d225f8a7.jpg[/atsimg]


So in four seconds as you can see with your own eyes the spiral hasn't even made one complete rotation--- yet your analysis will have us believe that it's "spinning" at a rate of once per second-- clearly that is incorrect

His entire mathematical hypothesis rests on this value-- lowering it buy just half will reduce his values by that much-- don't you see?

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by wonkamaniac

 

I'm just amazed that even when you've all been shown that there's a verified, proven and plotted trajectory and altitude for the spiral event ... and it's 800+ kms AWAY from EISCAT and smack bang in the middle of Russian territory, the White Sea ... and yet you're all clinging like drowning men to a lifeboat which in your case is EISCAT.

Can someone explain to me how EISCAT managed to affect the ionosphere ABOVE the White Sea ... then tell me how EISCAT controlled the trajectory of the spiral so it moved even further AWAY from EISCAT's location and deeper into Russian controlled airspace ?

Look, I know that EISCAT is your pet theory ... but I've just asked 2 very simple yet important questions that at least one EISCAT fan should be able to answer right now.



[edit on 20/2/10 by tauristercus]

Okay Tauristercus. I want to repeat this again so that, hopefully, the repetition allows you to think outside of your findings. And, I'm not at all being insulting here.

HAARP and Eiscat are directed energy devices that works with the power of the ionosphere. It does not matter where the image supposedly appeared or moved because Long wave radiation has no boundaries. Long wave radiation exists on every square inch of planet earth, therefore, all of it can be manipulated by directing the energy. TESLA was one of the first to develop and understand this. With the power of the ionosphere that taps unlimited energy from the sun, RF frequencies can hone and direct that power accordingly. Whether it appeared over Russia territory is irrelevant. It was still close enough to Eiscat where it could have been directed. And how do you know that the Russians had anything to do with it? They denied involvement initially. Elites were in that area at that time, and could have been playing with their new "toy" for all we know with Russian permission. They probably had no idea that people would be out with their little cameras at that time of the morning, and thought, "Hey, you wanna see something cool?" Or, worse...it could have been a message to the Russian govt. or the American govt. for that matter.

You asked for an explanation...there it is.

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.

Well done Point of No Return. That was my explanation as well, and it is quite collaborative with Eiscat and HAARP abilities.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]