Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

reply to post by tauristercus


T- let's try to keep it simple here ok?
Your requests are in tirade form. More like you feel you are being personally attacked. EM has tried to address this with you and every one.
I can't even get straight replies from my local government representatives. (Congress and Senate).
Let's see you produce a reply about you concerns from Medvedev or his underling Mr. Putin.
They are in charge of Russian air space.

reply to post by Exuberant1


You've still not shown how the heater can create what we saw in the sky, so far away from the site, and how what we saw isn't the more plausible explanation of simply a failing Russian missile.

"I've not seen a missile do that before" is not evidence, btw

reply to post by Donny 4 million


That doesn't explain anything. You seem to place so much weight on words from EISCAT when they support your theory, but then condemn EISCAT as liars when their explanations of their work fails to include "creating massive spirals in the sky for no apparent reason using laws of physics unknown to the rest of mankind".

Selection bias. You have it.

EM, et al ... nicely done side stepping my DEFINITIVE proof and explanation.

Actually, what am I talking about ? no side-stepping at all occurred.
What did however occur was a complete and utter IGNORE as if I hadn't even posted anything ... not a single word in rebuttal ... not a single commentary.

But what was posted instead ? a BELIEF that the heater may have been run.
And there you all are patting yourselves on the back and hi-5'ing each other for a job well done !

Judging by the deathly silence coming from Team EISCAT, Im guessing that not one of you seems to have the courage of their convictions to go up against the data and analysis I just presented.

That alone speaks volumes .... guess when you can't stand up to and deny valid data and deductions, it's best to say nothing ... isn't that right, Team EISCAT ?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by tauristercus

 

T- let's try to keep it simple here ok?
Your requests are in tirade form. More like you feel you are being personally attacked. EM has tried to address this with you and every one.
I can't even get straight replies from my local government representatives. (Congress and Senate).
Let's see you produce a reply about you concerns from Medvedev or his underling Mr. Putin.
They are in charge of Russian air space.

Simple ???
I've gone out of my way to keep things as simplistic as possible so that you guys can understand ... did you NOT see all the pretty pictures and explanations associated with them ? How much simpler do I have to make it ?

Nicely done .... again we notice the side-stepping (almost become an art form for you guys) and the immediate turn around asking ME to do something ... instead of you guys responding to the data and conclusions in my recent post.

reply to post by tauristercus


Team EISCAT don't seem to understand the burden of proof, or that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. They seem to imagine that two explanations are equal regardless of the evidence supporting them, or how fantastically unlikely they are. We have two competing ideas here:

- One is based in actual science, using actual measurements of actual observed phenomena, all tightly aligning (albeit with one measurement that is not too far beyond the pale, but indicative of something hitherto-unknown)

- The other is based in a very loose chain of assumptions all without supporting evidence. That the very existence of a facility the proponents simply don't understand is somehow evidence of it being able to do other things they don't understand. Their explanation requires realms of science currently unknown to the greatest minds on the planet, with fantastic conspiracies involving thousands of people, all conducted in perfection, with no leaks. EISCAT's information, if agreeing with their ideas, is the gospel truth, and if it disagrees, is all lies. The fact that all of this ties in with the paranoiac "TPTB are keeping secrets from us!" mentality that seems pervasive in the unbeliever crowd speaks volumes. They don't want to believe in the demonstrably mundane when the undemonstrable fantastic fits their assumed world-view even better. Where's the fun in that?

Or, we can sum the two groups up even simpler:

- One group wants to know
- The other group wants to believe

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Prove it? Sure. The independent analyses of the photos shows that the spiral was clearly in space. The ICBM that is claimed to have made it travels in space. Of course it can travel for more than 12 minutes through thousands upon thousands of miles of space.

You're not getting this whole "evidence" thing, are you? The ICBM theory is backed by evidence - from the testimony of rocket scientists, to the warning given by, and subsequent admission of, Russia. It is incumbent on YOU to show actual real evidence (and not conjecture) that each and every piece of that supporting evidence is incorrect. The ball is squarely in your court.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". My claim, and that of the experts, is not extraordinary. Your claim, and the claims of other "enthusiasts" are very extraordinary.

So, put up or shut up.

omg lol ! ok ok you forgot one thing ! in space no air or remember ICBM missile go out of control in space ! rotation spin like a bullet/round spin im talking here

ok that is completely possible !! space shuttle does this every time
its not what the norway spiral shows
the inner center point of that Spiral is moving like its in its own orbit ( little wobble) na i don't buy it ,, if it was torque in laws of physics in space still there is no AIR to keep it stable , Harnessed like a gyro effect.. unless it was descending back till air and gravity takes over then its burn time ! as yes the spiral did move not downward but upward as ATS member *Taur* shows in his calculations I give him complete credit for that

but not like it i it was in space www.youtube.com... and icbm would be so small you would faintly able to see it from space not like the norway spiral unless it was a re entry

if it was that would be one dam missile 3 miles wide ! if not more ( that came from a submarine) and i think somone said the radius of the spiral had to be at least 500 miles wide ?


have a look at this ! ok put a spin to it but as you see its descending

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Wolfenz


What are you talking about??? Are you really that poorly-versed in simple Newtonian laws of motion? Air is not required for anything we've seen in the spiral. You clearly have no idea.

Did you take physics lessons in school??

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by Wolfenz
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

well well lookie here at this site that also explains that what i have thought of right at the begining taur* did you get your pics and calculations ? from this site ?

www.enterprisemission.com...

Wolfenz ... let me caution you to think VERY, VERY CAREFULLY before you post your response to this question of mine:

ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF PLAGIARISM IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE ATS COMMUNITY ?

no not at all but the pics are allot a like on the site caution ? are you threatening me ? did you look at the site i have posted ? the pictures and calculations are very close to yours is it not >? or are they yours ? im not saying im asking you ! a yes or no or a litte answer will do
did i say that you copied no i did not !

So now you back peddle on the accusation of plagiarism by saying you phrased your accusations as questions instead of directly accusing me to my face.


^^^^ yes i mis phrased ^^^^

Seems to me that being unable to refute my analysis, you decide to attack me personally and try to discredit my work with thinly veiled accusations such as this:

^^^
woah woah ! that is not what i was refering its is either some person copied your work or either someone had the same idea

well well lookie here at this site that also explains that what i have thought of right at the begining

And what did you mean by "what I have thought of right at the beginning" ?
Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out ... you're saying that all along you thought my work was not my own and instead, a copy of, and therefore stolen from someone else ... in other words, plagiarized !

NO NO!! did you look at the site i would be upset myself if i were you
look at the site ! if you haven't already

boy you picking a fight it seems what i thought right at the begining is that EISCAT and MISSILE were connected! NOTwhat you Think i MEANT

ok that what i we refering too!!!!! _javascript:icon('

') the link of EISCAT and Missile / rocket projectile paylod etc...


I therefore will be expecting one of the following from you immediately:

Either an expose showing in detail EXACTLY what you claim in my work is NOT original and show EXACTLY what parts of the other researchers work that I have used and claimed to be mine.

OR

An immediate apology indicating CLEARLY that your earlier statement regarding the non-originality of my work was incorrect and mistaken.

Irrespective, I may still use my ATS right to lodge a formal complaint against you to ATS management.

ok ATS Members


1 i Asked this ATS member tauristercus A simple yes or no 2 questions

2 i meant what i thought all along as both EISCAT and the Missile are working together from that website we are arguing about not his work and now he is threating me to call the ATS Website operators WTH !!


tauristercus
I apologize for being poor in my grammar as i should of spaced it and it was read wrong personally i would probably would done the same

BUT i will not apologize for some thing that i was not referring to (((NOT))) your pictures or your calculations but my thought of EISCAT and Missile working together and i did not back step!

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


EM- that's all I ask.

And if he comes back and says he was wrong in asserting that a Russian rocket was the cause of the spiral based on what you showed him in that Harvard study... hell - I'll be the first to tell you you were right, and you can shout at me "I told you so!" as many times as you'd like

I will look forward to Jonathans response and you posting it here.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Yes Russia did initially deny this didn't they, but I might be the only one considering this from the other angle...

My theory-

Clearly this event seems to only have been witnessed by those in certain parts of Norway, why? Maybe because they had the most optimal viewing conditions and perspectives (angle); i.e more west of the launch, clear skies, and it was the right time of the morning where the sun's rays would reflect the particulate being ejected in just a way that it would create such a visually stunning effect. This is very common as can be seen from pictures of other launches (check twilight effect)-- IMO this has to be considered.

Of course the farther east you'd go the less apparent the effect would be because the sun is higher up over the horizon and thus when viewing from this perspective you're most likely only going to see whitish smoke. Also too as Phage showed there seems to have been more cloud cover over eastern parts of Scandinavia which would've prevented people from seeing anything.

Why did the Russians deny it? Well I don't believe it was a matter of trying to cover anything up. Think about it- This was supposed to be just another routine test firing- number 13 I believe it was. It was launched from a submarine, underwater, which would lead me to believe that those how launched it weren't able to actually view what was happening. They were keeping track of the diagnostics from computer read outs... It is my belief that they had no idea that the missile was creating a huge spiral that could be seen by Norway! Although they probably knew it had failed sometime during the 3rd stage-

Ok so test is done, the Bulava failed yet again, like I said all routine. The sub now heads back to base to deliver the results of the test to headquarters where it can be further analyzed and a determination can be made about the nature of the success or failure...

This process takes time-- As people were witnessing this the Russians had no idea that it was creating such an effect from Norways perspective... So before they've even received word from the sub about what happened with the launch they're being asked if they caused the Spiral probably minutes after it was seen... "Well no, it wasn't us" How could they have known at that time...

Of course now hours have gone by and the western MSM have caught on to it and have said they suspect it could be a meteorite or a Russian missile launch (your boy Brian Williams) but that Russia was denying it- Well yeah- Russia was still pouring over all the data to understand what had happened to their missile--

Once they had the chance to do that they finally conceded - only a day later- that in fact yes, it does appear that a failure in the 3rd stage may have been the cause of the dramatic spiral seen from Norway...

I don't see a conspiracy here do you?

And why is it when the MSM says they don't know what it is they're word is as good as gold but when they finally give us the explanation they're lying and can't be trusted?

[edit on 25-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

img269.imageshack.us...


it does say meteor dust studies with vhf and heater !

and ((vhf )) was at 933+ ? full use in the power log at the time of the spiral event

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Wolfenz]


i was my intention to put vhf instead of heater originally before i edited sorry folks

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Wolfenz]

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

What are you talking about??? Are you really that poorly-versed in simple Newtonian laws of motion? Air is not required for anything we've seen in the spiral. You clearly have no idea.

Did you take physics lessons in school??

Blue spiral in space? Duh
You could better than that. oops

Sorry taur, I only have conjecture but here it is anyway:

For me, all the elements add up in a logical sort of way. I'm satisfied that this was a charged plasma experiment.

OK, the blue spiral looks like a classic missile contrail(whatever the terminology is) No problems there. And the form of the blue spiral looks like it HAS been altered by the atmosphere...it is quite uneven.

I say the big halo surrounding the whole thing is an expanding aerosol cloud that was dispersed from the beginning of the launch through till termination. It looks remarkably like the diagram (provided by zorgon) of the dispersal pattern of aersol in the Navy/NASA experiments.

I say the big spiral is some weird EM effect that we know nothing about, but it sure would make for a good radar shield if it were composed of charged plasma. Maybe the spiral holds the plasma together so it doesn't just float away. Who knows.

The fact that these elements are connected makes sense if you look at the diagram of the plama experiments. It explains the halo(plasma) and the blue contrail (missile). Nothing really explains the bloody big spiral. It's 300kms across and strangely perfect. I don't trust anyone who says this is normal for a missile contrail without proof. Where is the precedent?(davesidious says he's seen proof. We'd like to see it too.)

I say we couldn't see a missile because the experiment was a success. It was hidden behind a veil of plasma.

For all the people who want evidence of them using EISCAT; if this is a weapons technology, information about it is going to be a bit thin on the ground.

Originally posted by mrwiffler


For all the people who want evidence of them using EISCAT; if this is a weapons technology, information about it is going to be a bit thin on the ground.

Heck wiffler, If anyone needs proof that Electro Magnetic technology is weapons grade---- all they need do is read the interview of Secretary of Defense ---William Sebastian Cohen back in the late 90's..
He lays it out in undeniable terms.
Good post BTW.

reply to post by mrwiffler


It's perfect because it was being produced at a steady state, and was in space.

We couldn't see a missile because on the scale of the photos, the missile would be far less than a pixel in size.

The proof? Newton's laws of motion. A body in motion will continue to be in motion until something else acts upon it. As it was in space, where there is nothing, the spiral continued to expand unabated.

It's not up to the missile believers to prove anything to anyone - we've already got all the sources available, from testimony of experts, to the Russian warnings, to their admission, to the simulations, to the laws of motion. It's up to people proposing exotic explanations that are based on previously-unknown technologies and conspiracy to show us their evidence. Conjecture is not evidence.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

What are you talking about??? Are you really that poorly-versed in simple Newtonian laws of motion? Air is not required for anything we've seen in the spiral. You clearly have no idea.

Did you take physics lessons in school??

ok

here is a child level of understanding
AIR + Heat = WIND




tonto.eia.doe.gov...

Space has no air as it is a vacuum it has friction in only if 2 elements collide

as i said before

go ask a miiltary pilot that just when over a mach if his plane is kinda warm

en.wikipedia.org...(astronomy)

go fly a kite ! en.wikipedia.org...

i hope you can understand now


Wind speeds are greater at higher altitudes especaily when the eiscat heater is on generating heat and charging up the ionosphere



but it could be both playing the role eiscat and projectile


[edit on 25-2-2010 by Wolfenz]

adding more fuel to fire ok donny and em i got this log !



artificial aurora rings could it be related ?
www.ursi.org...

make sure you look at the conclusions at the bottom of this pdf

another hf artificial aurora www.ursi.org...


the way it look eiscat is not even sure what is going on

for this i say norway spiral eiscat staff is not saying anything until they solve what they found ? 12/09/09 until they themselves can explain what happened

people say that the heater is off but the tequila sunrise event experiment
say otherwise as meteor dust studies with vhf and heater is in the description of the schedule i just dont know enough to understand




[edit on 25-2-2010 by Wolfenz]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

I have noted the hours of operation in the next image along with all the coordinates given by the Russians as areas that the launch might be occurring from (the coordinates given by the Russians are listed in a screen capture from the Frisnit website (top of image) and are denoted by the yellow tacs):


snip pic

At the bottom of the above image is a screencapture from the EISCAT website regarding what equipment was scheduled to be on that night. It states that the Heater was not going to be on, but that information conflicts with other information that was available (see below) and which indicated that the heater would indeed be in use. *Had one looked no further than the schedule, they would have never noticed that the heater was to be used.... :

snip pic

Do you know if the times indicated are being represented as the same universal time zone?

For example if Norway is considered UTC (central European time) then the area around the White Sea is considered to be UTC+3 (hours) or Moscow time
en.wikipedia.org...

Are they both being represented as UTC?

[edit on 25-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

A question for the EISCAT camp-

Exploring the EISCAT schedule on their site, shows that the heater has been turned on and used plenty of times before yet we've never seen any spirals having formed before...

Can any of you explain why this is if you're so certain that the Heater causes this phenomena? Why haven't we seen this happen before??

Also I'd ask that you please watch this video on the usage of EISCAT and its current capabilities. Its 13 min long but will give you a good idea of what this facility is about-- nothing there about what you all are claiming--

**Also please play attention to the part where they discuss the facility's limitations, about 9 mins in--**

If you care to learn something about what these scientists are doing instead of making stuff up then you should watch it.

It certainly doesnt seem they'd be aiming this antennas 800km away into Russia when they can aim them straight up above where they are-- there's a reason why they put those antennas where they are--watch the video to learn

Its an interesting video either way
video