Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

reply to post by Chadwickus

To reiterate, the heater was off. You are wrong.

To reiterate, it is inherent to the possibilty of a conspiracy that EISCAT will cover it's own tracks.

In other words, info comming from EISCAT, saying it wasn't EISCAT, isn't automatically the truth.

It is so narrow minded to blow of the whole theory because of that little tidbit on EISCAT's site.

Tell me me this ain't projection of a HAARP signal. A half million miles.
Oh yeah! Boo ya!
The entire artical has more if you need to check it.


Lowest Frequency Radar Echo From The Moon Ever Detected
ScienceDaily (Jan. 10, 2008) — A team of scientists from the Naval Research Laboratory, the Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL's) Research Vehicles Directorate, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., and the University of New Mexico (UNM) has detected the lowest frequency radar echo from the moon ever seen with earth-based receivers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lunar echo experiment (more properly called a lunar bistatic radar experiment), the Air Force/Navy High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) high power transmitter, located near Gakona, Alaska, launched high power radio waves toward the moon. The reflected signal, weakened because of the long distance to the moon and back, was detected by receiving antennas in New Mexico.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
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.

Well, A, post the information that says the heater was off. B, I'm not necessarily going to swallow it even if you post it because it is just as easy for someone to claim that it was off, when it was activated. These sort of things have been done in the history of mankind you know. People and Governments will lie to cover their "proverbial butts."

For instance: Official story of the Norwegian Spiral states that Russia conducted a test of a Buluva missile that failed on the same day that Obama was accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. However, not only a day before that, Russia denied any involvement.

www.youtube.com...

Now, are you going to believe the same government (Russia) that told you that they had no involvement in one sentence and then claim something different on the very next day??? That's part of our problem here Chadwickus. There seems to be a bit of inconsistency in the story. That's an immediate Red Flag.

Secondly, if Russia could simply decide to change their story on the drop of a dime,...how easy would it be for Eiscat to simply, change some one's and zero's around in their computer system to make it appear that they weren't functioning at all? These people are professionals Chad and they run and operate the government. They've probably hired some of the best in their field to cover any situation that may present adversity.

People are too eager to swallow the first thing that they're presented especially when it comes to the media, and I'm afraid that this is not conducive to critical thought.

edit

[edit on 20-2-2010 by WASTYT]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


EM- This touches on a just couple of the issues I have found with this analysis of yours. Maybe you can clarify

So let's have a quick look then :

He uses this photo from Skjervoy as the basis for all of his distance measurements and spiral measurements:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/798fe29a5cb7.jpg[/atsimg]

Note: This, as he even concedes, used a long exposure time which we all know exaggerates the amount of light that's actually present. So it's been my argument that the spiral in this picture appears larger than it actually was, thereby inflating the values he's obtained from using said photo as the basis for his measurements.

Now, without getting into redoing all of his work lets skip down to the part where he's determined his so called "wavelengths" of the spiral which he uses to ultimately achieve his upper and lower limit velocities...

(Note: I don't agree with his usage of "wavelength" since we're not dealing with actual waves here, it's a 3D spiral- more on that later)

Here's his formula for finding velocity:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d60f7cc1cf3b.png[/atsimg]

f = 1hz
lambda = wavelength = 316.58m - lower, 17,074m - upper

v = 316.58 * 1 = 316.58m/s
v = 17,074 * 1 = 17,074m/s

So using this formula it's pretty simple to see how he's achieved his velocities- and these are certainly pretty high...

However as you can see from the 2 tests I've provided (and there are more) there seem to be indications that his value of 1hz for the frequency is overstated. Having studied many videos of the spiral I have determined that the so called frequency actually ranges from less than .25 hz up to about .75 hz but mostly settling in at .5hz

So lets see what happens when we use those 3 values instead:

Lower limit wavelength: 316.58m
f = .25hz
v = .25*316.58m = 79m/s
f = .50hz
v = .50*316.58m = 158m/s
f = .75hz
v = .75*316.58m = 237m/s

Upper limit wavelength: 17,074m
f = .25
v = .25 * 17074m = 4,268m/s
f = .50
v =.50 * 17074m = 8537m/s
f = .75
v =.75 * 17074m = 12,806m/s

Comparing these to what the author achieved we can see considerably lower velocities... which are perhaps more in the range of what a Bulava is capable of reaching in the 3rd stage

It should also be noted that his entire hypothesis is assuming that this white spiral was 2 dimensional or flat-- it is my contention that this is not the case, that the spiral is in fact 3 dimensional or more cone shaped:

Recall this:

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

combined with this profile view of another launch:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c19049b36387.jpg[/atsimg]

Many people would like to believe that this thing was suspended in mid air and just cartwheeling in one spot-- this is a misconception IMO and based on an optical illusion resulting from the viewers' perspective-

But putting that aside, the point is, you can't achieve the "wavelength" of a 3D spiral, not in the manner that your author has- So in this regard his entire analysis, in the words you like to use, is at worst null and void, and at best, is flawed in a number of ways-

[edit on 20-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

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?

We are having this 'conversation' for one very simple reason ....

Irrespective of how the Bulava may or may not have created the spiral structure, I have produced more than sufficient evidence to implicate Russia and the Bulava launch with the event itself.
I have PROVED conclusively that the event occurred in its ENTIRETY in and over Russian soverign territory. I have also beyond a shadow of a doubt linked the event to the launch of a Russian Bulava missile at that specific time and at that specific date. I have a PROVEN trajectory that the spiral follows that would have intercepted the Russian missile test range on Kamchatka Peninsula where the majority of Bulava launches are designed to impact.
So the 'smoking gun' points clearly and definitively as a Russian originated event.

Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that you can produce to link the spiral event to the EISCAT facility as STRONGLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY as I have linked it to the Bulava launch ?

Can we once and for all get you or any other EISCAT proponent to supply such a link ?
No more talk or discussions ... no more back and forth with claims and counter claims ... please just finally supply a similar 'smoking gun' to uphold your EISCAT belief.

[edit on 20/2/10 by tauristercus]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


And PhotonEffect is correct in his rework of the original authors 'ripple effect' conclusion that the spiral frequency/wavelength radial expansion speed calculated by the original author is not accurate based on his 1Hz assumption.

And I also agree that because of the distances involved between the observers and the spiral itself, that we are seeing the spiral structure as an illusory 2D shape, when it more than likely, and as i have hinted at in my last thread, has in actuality a 3D structure ... again, this would invalidate the original authors assumption of a flat and planar spiral structure and consequently, invalidate his 'ripple speed' conclusions.

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

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?

We are having this 'conversation' for one very simple reason ....

Irrespective of how the Bulava may or may not have created the spiral structure, I have produced more than sufficient evidence to implicate Russia and the Bulava launch with the event itself.
I have PROVED conclusively that the event occurred in its ENTIRETY in and over Russian soverign territory. I have also beyond a shadow of a doubt linked the event to the launch of a Russian Bulava missile at that specific time and at that specific date. I have a PROVEN trajectory that intercepts the Russian missile test range on Kamchatka Peninsula where the majority of Bulava launches are designed to impact.
So the 'smoking gun' points clearly and definitively as a Russian originated event.

Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that you can produce to link the spiral event to the EISCAT facility as STRONGLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY as I have linked it to the Bulava launch ?

Can we once and for all get you or any other EISCAT proponent to supply such a link ?
No more talk or discussions ... no more back and forth with claims and counter claims ... please just finally supply a similar 'smoking gun' to uphold your EISCAT belief.

EISCAT VHF was cookin up a spiral. Crap you must have read that link a hundred times.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Forget about the wave length for a moment and tell us how long the pretty yellow coil is . Also which end is closer to Norway?

reply to post by Donny 4 million

EISCAT VHF was cookin up a spiral. Crap you must have read that link a hundred times.

Thats it ???? thats your ENTIRE linkage evidence between EISCAT and the spiral event occuring directly OVER Russian territory ?

I asked a reasonable question and you give me this !!!

It happened over Russian territory because it WAS a Russian originated event.

If EISCAT was indeed responsible, then why didn't they create the spiral OVER Norwegian territory instead ?

[edit on 20/2/10 by tauristercus]

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

And PhotonEffect is correct in his rework of the original authors 'ripple effect' conclusion that the spiral frequency/wavelength radial expansion speed calculated by the original author is not accurate based on his 1Hz assumption.

And I also agree that because of the distances involved between the observers and the spiral itself, that we are seeing the spiral structure as an illusory 2D shape, when it more than likely, and as i have hinted at in my last thread, has in actuality a 3D structure ... again, this would invalidate the original authors assumption of a flat and planar spiral structure and consequently, invalidate his 'ripple speed' conclusions.

Nothing here adds up. Where is the depth of field in the white spiral?

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

?
No more talk or discussions ... no more back and forth with claims and counter claims ... please just finally supply a similar 'smoking gun' to uphold your EISCAT belief.

What do you mean, NO MORE TALKS OR DISCUSSIONS. Since when did you become a mod on this thread?

Secondly, you can tie all of your evidence together about it being on Russian Soil, yet, every link in the world reads...NORWAY SPIRAL, not edit, to Tauristercus's information...Russian Spiral. So, maybe you should take your information and send it to the mainstream media so that they can get their heads on straight. Otherwise, you've proven nothing except for what you believe is the location and that it wasn't a Buluva Missile.

And, since you've proven it wasn't a Buluva Missile, then according to what I said to you the last time...WE SHOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.

Now, you're attempting to transgress a situation in which you had earlier taken a different tone, and your buddy Photon Effect was rectifying. I was just beginning to entertain this information when you chose to start making demands. That's no way to appeal to me. And again, until you have repetitively made your theory work and come up with the same conclusion multiple times, your theory doesn't mean much. That's how its done in the scientific community. All of your numbers, maps and diagrams are for nothing if you've started 3 different threads and had 3 different results.

In fairness to Photon and your earlier and more humble self, I will continue to look at the information, but you need to cool your jets and quick.

Since Photon has become a positive contributor, his information deserves a fair look like everyone else's. Don't be the one who closes my mind back up to your info.

And Tauristercus. I want to note right now that this link right here, carries more weight in the academic field and is far more reputable than all of your threads combined.

You want a smoking gun...This is it.
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...


[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

EISCAT VHF was cookin up a spiral. Crap you must have read that link a hundred times.

Thats it ???? thats your ENTIRE linkage evidence between EISCAT and the spiral event occuring directly OVER Russian territory ?

I asked a reasonable question and you give me this !!!

It happened over Russian territory because it WAS a Russian originated event.

If EISCAT was indeed responsible, then why didn't they create the spiral OVER Norwegian territory instead ?

[edit on 20/2/10 by tauristercus]

Sir with all due respect it trumps a Russian double speak propaganda press release.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

What do you mean, NO MORE TALKS OR DISCUSSIONS. Since when did you become a mod on this thread?

That was in reference ONLY to conversations taking place between yourself and myself as we have made numerous posts without much of a resolution and hence, I asked YOU to supply a similar argument to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that EISCAT created a spiral OVER Russian territory ... and using similar logic as I did when I concluded Russia was responsible.
I have posted many, many times EXACTLY what data and information I used and was simply asking for you to reciprocate and show what data you used to PROVE (as I did) that EISCAT created the spiral over Russian territory.


[edit on 20/2/10 by tauristercus]

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

EISCAT VHF was cookin up a spiral. Crap you must have read that link a hundred times.

It happened over Russian territory because it WAS a Russian originated event.

If EISCAT was indeed responsible, then why didn't they create the spiral OVER Norwegian territory instead ?

Sir with all due respect it trumps a Russian double speak propaganda press release.

You didn't answer my question ... why did EISCAT not create the spiral over Norwegian territory ?

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

EISCAT VHF was cookin up a spiral. Crap you must have read that link a hundred times.

It happened over Russian territory because it WAS a Russian originated event.

If EISCAT was indeed responsible, then why didn't they create the spiral OVER Norwegian territory instead ?

Sir with all due respect it trumps a Russian double speak propaganda press release.

You didn't answer my question ... why did EISCAT not create the spiral over Norwegian territory ?

My guess is because there is more Russian money and influence at EISCAT than there is Norwegian. Since when is Norway dong Super Power stuff anyway? No disrespect to the Norwegians.
Why did Russia put it's missile launch area adjacent to EISCAT?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Forget about the wave length for a moment and tell us how long the pretty yellow coil is . Also which end is closer to Norway?

The bottom (wider) end would be closer to Norway looking at it from behind (or underneath as it pertains to that picture) or as the missile was moving away from the viewers

Here's a very similar perspective to the Norway photos but without the spiral- this would be what that profile view I posted above might look like from behind
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a4e2441fc1b.png[/atsimg]

Is that a "blackhole"?

Now imagine if that were rotating-- what do you think it might look like?



[edit on 20-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by Donny 4 million

My guess is because there is more Russian money and influence at EISCAT than there is Norwegian. Since when is Norway dong Super Power stuff anyway? No disrespect to the Norwegians.
Why did Russia put it's missile launch area adjacent to EISCAT?

Adjacent to EISCAT ??? Take a look at a map and you'll see that the White Sea launch area is 800+kms distant from EISCAT ... I wouldn't call that being adjacent !

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Okay. So, I've seen some of this info before which certainly is compelling. Much of this had led me to believe in the idea that it could have been a coupled technology of sorts which created the spiral. Plus I had looked at tons of information that was on the borderline of complete conspiracy which attempted to include UFO's and other aspects (I've not completely rejected those theories, but, I'm looking for something more conventional). So, there's quite a bit of info to sift through.

Therefore, I cannot completely rule your evidence out as much of it makes sense. However, a couple of engineering friends of mine insist that there was a blast of electromagnetic radiation which made this spiral possible, and dually insist that it could not have been caused by a missile.

My father, who is an Industrial Engineer for Crane (NWSC) completely ruled out the idea that it was a missile...but, offered no further explanation other than he thought it was Aurora Borealis, which, seemed quite ignorant to me. I had to show him the difference between the spiral itself and Aurora lights...but, it went no further than that. He's a hard man to convince or talk with.

I'll keep digging, so should you. That's what this thread is for.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Forget about the wave length for a moment and tell us how long the pretty yellow coil is . Also which end is closer to Norway?

The bottom (wider) end would be closer to Norway looking at it from behind (or underneath as it pertains to that picture) or as the missile was moving away from the viewers

Here's a very similar perspective to the Norway photos but without the spiral- this would be what that profile view I posted above might look like from behind
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a4e2441fc1b.png[/atsimg]

Is that a "blackhole"?

Now imagine if that were rotating-- what do you think it might look like?



[edit on 20-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

One problem here with the photo. Although it is the best I have seen of a rocket launch in these threads.
Do you have any dimensions to go with it?
How wide do you make the Norway spiral to be at it's widest?
Thanks Donny.