Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

Originally posted by tauristercus

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 ?

Well let me answer that last sentence for you. Eiscat CAN direct its power anywhere, as well as HAARP.

As far as the rest of your evidence. I've already addressed that.

But I will say this, and this is where you need to revamp your hypothesis again. If everything equates to Russia and when and where they were testing their missiles, and you PROVED that it wasn't a Buluva Missile failure, why are we having this conversation?

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Test 2 (from another video capture- )

Pay attention here EM

23 second mark: (exhaust position roughly at "5:00" mark)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae1357deca5a.jpg[/atsimg]

24 seconds: (exhaust position roughly at "9:00" mark)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/460789eab6c2.jpg[/atsimg]

25 seconds: (exhaust position now roughly at "4:00" mark)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/acce7d7e1555.jpg[/atsimg]

So one rotation in 2 seconds- lets give it another round to make sure

26 seconds: (exhaust at "12:00" mark)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7cf8e80985a8.jpg[/atsimg]

27 seconds: (exhaust at "6:00" mark)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2d8e7bfec7fe.jpg[/atsimg]

28 seconds: (exhaust at about "2:00" mark)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ad6f19e1515f.jpg[/atsimg]

So here it looks like we have one rotation every 1.5 - 2 seconds...

Still slower than your analysis has assumed

Shall I keep going?

Originally posted by Chadwickus
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...

So are we questioning NASA's findings through the research of HARVARD Scientists again???

Are we attempting to question the credibility of NASA???articles.adsabs.harvard.edu... ype=SCR
Maybe you need to take one more look before you jump on the bandwagon against EISCAT, and questioning the observations of notable, and credible researchers. Or, I guess you're suggesting that there is a "conspiracy" behind this paper.

Well, here is the day where the "Debunker/skeptic" turns into the conspiracy theorist/believer.

You all witnessed it with your own eyes.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


No one is questioning Harvards work EM--

They're questioning your interpretation of it

I'm not sure the scientists over at Harvard would appreciate how you're misrepresenting their work

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.

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

By the way, according to Phage, they went to full expansion in 2007.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

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!

Nicely done my man. I think you made a valid point especially between the Norwegian and Russian political connections.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
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?

I'm going to repeat this again. Over a period of 3 threads, you have done nothing but evade my question of why the mathematics are supposedly "Wrong." You actually have the nerve to demand anything from me, after you haven't even attempted to support any of these threads with information that back your claims? You haven't provided one link in support of your wild opinions. Not one. I have proactively contributed to all of these threads with loads of information. You haven't provided anything except your opinion. Phage has, Tauristercus has...but you remain the weak link and i'm surprised they haven't dropped you from their crew because of your lack of contribution. You even passed the explanation earlier to Tauristercus because you were completely out of your league.

Now, the day that you provide the explanations I have repetitively asked you for, will be the day that I break down the mathematics for you. The unfortunate thing is this...even after I break down the mathematics and show you the err of your ways, you will still remain in complete denial because of your inability to understand or translate the math. I know this game, and so far, your predictability is at an all time high.

Quit destroying the progress of your buddies because ultimately, you're doing nothing but bringing down the IQ of this thread. For real. And, I say that with the utmost love. Otherwise, I'll just have to put you on ignore until someone tells me that you're proactively contributing information. Give me a link, give me a source...give me anything. But don't ask me to explain something that I have repetitively asked you to explain. That's for kiddies and people like Davesidious. Hopefully you're above that.

Despite what you may think...I have a great deal of respect for Phage (he does his homework) I have a great deal of respect for Tauristercus (he's a work horse)...but, you have simply been a non-contributing mosquito who has forgotten how to get his own sustenance. Do some work and get back with me.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by Pryde87
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.

Show me video of a rocket failing in this way. Please!!!

www.youtube.com...

Now, in this short video, not only do we see the crazy spiral. We hear Brian Williams explicitly state that this was a "Never before seen spiral." If it was never before seen, then how can we come to the conclusion that it was a rocket. If rockets fail this way all the time, then, we would have much more video evidence of it. RIGHT??? Rocket tests are far more common than blue spirals churning in the atmosphere. Am I correct? Have you seen Tauristercus's thread that "proves" that it could not have been a missile failing in its 3rd stage? Or how about the many links that I've provided that shows the impossibility of it being a missile? Or how about Harvard's study through NASA which clearly shows that they observed spiral-like geometry being created by Eiscat in 1996???

Also, did you get the part in the video where Russia denied any involvement? But, lo and behold, a day later, "OOOPS, um yeah, I guess we WERE testing a rocket that failed, on the same day Obama was accepting his Nobel Peace Prize" Sounds a bit suspicious to me.

Now, if that doesn't throw up red flags...then you're not thinking. And when the media (which you are defending) says one thing on one particular day, and then changes the story the next...there are problems that need to be addressed with their consistency. So, while you swallow the official story, others are looking for the truth. If I believed the "official story" about our reasons for the Invasion of Iraq, then I would have been REALLY SURPRISED, when Bush finally came forward and admitted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Wake up!!!

[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


From the patent:

The method of claim 1 wherein said threshold excitation of electron cyclotron resonance is about 1 watt per cubic centimeter and is sufficient to cause movement of a plasma region along said diverging magnetic field lines to an altitude higher than the altitude at which said excitation was initiated.

HAARP is not what Eastlund was talking about in the patent. HAARP can produce about 4microwatts per cubic centimeter in the ionosphere. The "threshold excitation" required by the patent requires 250,000 times the power of HAARP. EISCAT produces 1/3 the power of HAARP.


[edit on 2/20/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Photon. Thank you for finally contributing. I mean that sincerely.

That's all I was asking from the beginning. Just because we have opposing views does not mean that we can't work together and try to figure this thing out.

I will look at your info in a minute. I am trying to reply to this other information and as soon as I do, I will address your stuff.

I've already given you a star for the contribution.


[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

No one is questioning Harvards work EM--

They're questioning your interpretation of it

I'm not sure the scientists over at Harvard would appreciate how you're misrepresenting their work

Photon. There is no misrepresentation of Harvard's work here. They observed a spiral-like phenomenon when they turned on Eiscat. Further, they noted a brightening and subsequent break-up of the arc. It is in plain English. And you might want to read the title of this observation:

Triggering of local substorm activation by powerful HF Radio Waves.

There is no misrepresentation here, unless you can show me where this supposed misrepresentation is.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

From the patent:

The method of claim 1 wherein said threshold excitation of electron cyclotron resonance is about 1 watt per cubic centimeter and is sufficient to cause movement of a plasma region along said diverging magnetic field lines to an altitude higher than the altitude at which said excitation was initiated.

HAARP is not what Eastlund was talking about in the patent. HAARP can produce about 4microwatts per cubic centimeter in the ionosphere. The "threshold excitation" required by the patent requires 250,000 times the power of HAARP. EISCAT produces 1/3 the power of HAARP.


[edit on 2/20/2010 by Phage]

Actually, I'm not the one who posted the patented information. If you can re-post it for me I would love to have a look at it.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
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?

Post the video in its entirety so that I can see it in action. Because the video that I have shows different results.
www.youtube.com...

And, if you notice, there is a speed fluctuation from the first appearance of the spiral to the second appearance when it changes its geometry from the center.

And from what I can see of this photo. If it was a missile, then you are looking at two separate and simultaneous exhaust trails, one on the front of the missile, and one on the rear. I have never seen a missile that demonstrates this sort of configuration with their exhaust system. Look carefully, one at the rear...one at the front. Seems impossible to me. That would mean that the Buluva missile was specifically designed for failure. It would also suggest that the rocket fuel that propels it would have one stage for lifting in the atmosphere, and another to purposefully set it into a spiral motion, which would be in the front. However, with engineering like that, the spiraling would have been far more quick and would have spun out far more uncontrolled than it displayed. Unless of course, the front exhaust system spewed out at a much lower rate of rotation than the rear. It seems like a stretch to me. And, then when you consider the speed fluctuation of the spiral that I was referring to, it almost eliminates it as a possibility.

Since your friend Tauristercus has ruled out the Buluva missile theory, then we shouldn't even entertain this as a reality.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Here
www.youtube.com...

The portion I used is within the first 1o seconds-- later they show it in slow mo--

However the first portion I used is in real time because you can clearly hear the man who's filming talking in the background--

The small portion shows that it doesnt even complete one rotation in 4 seconds--but of course I wasnt comfortable with just that one example, although I was quite pleased with the results of that test, so I went on to find other videos

I have have found 4 separate instances over the vourse of 5 or more seconds where the so called frequency value is less that 1Hz-- you can even do the tests yourself using the time stamps

I have to go --but ill be back to show what happens to his values when using the lower value...


EDit to add-- notice too that there are 2 separate exhausts spewing vapor-- so for every rotation your getting 2 spirals or "waves" as the author prefers to call them-- essentially doubling "wave frequency"

[edit on 20-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Here
www.youtube.com...

The portion I used is within the first 1o seconds-- later they show it in slow mo--

However the first portion I used is in real time because you can clearly hear the man who's filming talking in the background--

The small portion shows that it doesnt even complete one rotation in 4 seconds--but of course I wasnt comfortable with just that one example, although I was quite pleased with the results of that test, so I went on to find other videos

I have have found 4 separate instances over the vourse of 5 or more seconds where the so called frequency value is less that 1Hz-- you can even do the tests yourself using the time stamps

I have to go --but ill be back to show what happens to his values when using the lower value...


EDit to add-- notice too that there are 2 separate exhausts spewing vapor-- so for every rotation your getting 2 spirals or "waves" as the author prefers to call them-- essentially doubling "wave frequency"

[edit on 20-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

I like the way that we are interacting now. Much better than before. I will study this. Thank you.

Another star from me.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by Phage


Lol, again, you seem unable to directly respond to me, I understand it must be a real nuisance.

HAARP is not what Eastlund was talking about in the patent. HAARP can produce about 4microwatts per cubic centimeter in the ionosphere. The "threshold excitation" required by the patent requires 250,000 times the power of HAARP. EISCAT produces 1/3 the power of HAARP.

Do you have a source for those numbers?

I couldn't locate the "treshold excitation" in the patent.

And what was Eastlund talking about then?

Is this not the patent that HAARP originated from.

He also said:

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."

So it seems that it was the goal, that it was possible, and surely any government would put more money into development and keep it's real capabilities a secret.

Again, the info comming from EISCAT itself should not be seen as absolute truth, I know this concept is hard to grasp for you, but it is kinda inherent to the possible conspiracy we are speaking of here.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


EM
You tend to think along these lines when your missiles are pointed at each other.
HAARP is a weapon, nukes are weapons satellites are dual purpose weapons. Lasers are weapons.
And they are all tied together. Especially in the hands of the military.
If HAARP was used for inter galactic communication I could see the need for about one zillionth of it's power.
UHF or higher frequency would be more suitable for space.
I haven't heard any reports of whom is communicating with whom, except the subs. This would require some modulation and a lot of projection in my opinion. If the subs were right there in the White Sea you could probably click some rocks together with Morse code to communicate with them.
They must be in the 30 degree range espoused by Phage to be reached by a HAARP type signal.
I guess they'll be putting thirteen acres of HAARP on a Aircraft carrier just to say Hi to Red October.
LOL
the best Donny
PS No one has taken the challenge to straighten out the phony missile path and give it a length and duration.
Where's the math?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

EM
You tend to think along these lines when your missiles are pointed at each other.
HAARP is a weapon, nukes are weapons satellites are dual purpose weapons. Lasers are weapons.
And they are all tied together. Especially in the hands of the military.
If HAARP was used for inter galactic communication I could see the need for about one zillionth of it's power.
UHF or higher frequency would be more suitable for space.
I haven't heard any reports of whom is communicating with whom, except the subs. This would require some modulation and a lot of projection in my opinion. If the subs were right there in the White Sea you could probably click some rocks together with Morse code to communicate with them.
They must be in the 30 degree range espoused by Phage to be reached by a HAARP type signal.
I guess they'll be putting thirteen acres of HAARP on a Aircraft carrier just to say Hi to Red October.
LOL
the best Donny
PS No one has taken the challenge to straighten out the phony missile path and give it a length and duration.
Where's the math?

Indeed you have a point. If its made by the military, no matter what, it will have military applications.

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

 

Lol, again, you seem unable to directly respond to me, I understand it must be a real nuisance.

HAARP is not what Eastlund was talking about in the patent. HAARP can produce about 4microwatts per cubic centimeter in the ionosphere. The "threshold excitation" required by the patent requires 250,000 times the power of HAARP. EISCAT produces 1/3 the power of HAARP.

Do you have a source for those numbers?

I couldn't locate the "treshold excitation" in the patent.

And what was Eastlund talking about then?

Is this not the patent that HAARP originated from.

He also said:

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."

So it seems that it was the goal, that it was possible, and surely any government would put more money into development and keep it's real capabilities a secret.

Again, the info comming from EISCAT itself should not be seen as absolute truth, I know this concept is hard to grasp for you, but it is kinda inherent to the possible conspiracy we are speaking of here.

I am still under the impression that it only takes a small amount of RF frequency to tap the unlimited power of the ionosphere, hence signal amplification doesn't need to be substantial to warrant the usage of tons of power. However, HAARP has made revisions since its inception and contains far more power than it did in the 90's. 3.6 megawatts is no joke.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Did you read my link? The heater was off.

The whole premise of the paper you linked to is the use of the heater.

So your interpretation is what I'm questioning.

I have to wonder how many of those that flagged this thread actually went and read your link, and of those people I wonder how many actually understood what was being said. I doubt it's many, but I digress.

To reiterate, the heater was off.

You are wrong.