Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

reply to post by Exuberant1

Please note the header for the schedule note you posted.

VHF: TEQUILA 2009 12 08 0700 - 2009 12 08 1000

Please note the header for the scheduled heater use on the 12th.

HEA: TEQUILA 2009 12 12 0630 - 2009 12 12 1030

www.eiscat.se:8080...

Please note the header for the scheduled VHF radar use on the 12th.

VHF: TEQUILA 2009 12 12 0630 - 2009 12 12 1030

www.eiscat.se:8080...

The schedule notes are for each instrument. There were times when TEQUILAsunrise did use both the heater and the VHF radar. On the 9th, only the radar was used.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
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.

Actually, I wouldn't do that to you even if that was the result.

Originally posted by tauristercus
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 ?

Tauristercus, I am not High fiving anyone or side stepping you.

Quit getting angry. I'm not angry at you, therefore you shouldn't be angry at me. I have a great deal of respect for your work and I think I've mentioned that a few times. But, I am utterly convinced from the observations that Harvard made, that the spiral was at least partially caused by Eiscat.

I cannot help that belief anymore than you can help yours.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by PhotonEffect


There have been many post here from the non official side of the fence stating that a collaborative joint venture solves this problem we have posted also info about Russian / Norwegian relations.
Did you read them?

Originally posted by davesidious
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

"I've not seen EISCAT do that before" ain't either.

Besides, Tauristercus concluded in his last thread that the spiral itself couldn't have been the result of a failing Bulava 3rd stage.

It is not even a plausible explanation.

reply to post by tauristercus


Tauristercus, I don't understand why you feel the need to react so strongly against an alternative explanation.

Noone should claim to know what exactly caused the spiral.

You proved that the spiral couldn't have formed as a result of a failing Bulava 3rd stage.

I agree.

You said that you believed that some sort of new technology caused the spiral.

Since it's capabilities are unknown, this is off course speculation(not saying you claimed it as fact).

Since, reallistically speaking, noone here can verify what EISCAT's real capabilities are, it should not be ruled out as explanation, especially with HAARP inventor saying stuff like this:

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,

It seems that this has been a goal since the beginning of this kind of technology, so why is the idea so prepostrous to some?

It seems that this technology is something governments would invest in and keep it's real power a secret.

I'll just throw this theory out there again: what if the spiral was a missile defense system, against Russian missiles.

Think about it, America wants space missile shield, Russia objects, America says it won't pursue the plans anymore, Obama is in Norway, Russia tests missile in that general area where Obama is at that time, some strange new technology is used in the missile's flight path.

Russia first denies involvement, then admits to rocket failure, to save face?

A facility with technology that is, according to it's inventor possibly capable of destroying or deflecting missiles, is situated in the general area.

The nature of a facility with this capability would be not to inform the public of it's real power.

Also just speculation, but an angle that seems possible to me.


[edit on 25-2-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Im sorry, I have not- which link was it?

Or maybe you can just answer- does it address a collaborative venture where Russia allows Norwegian scientists to aim some sort of HF wave at their multi billion dollar weapons system?

Considering how Russia feels about our attempts to place missile defense shields in neighboring NATO countries is this even a plausible theory?

Also, Did you watch the video I posted about EISCAT- you should if you care about what they really do-- and in that vain I would accept Russia being interested in collaborative ventures with Norway

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


You're a gentleman and a scholar

reply to post by Point of No Return


Great post. I wish I could be as diplomatic with the forgetful ones.
I would assume the opposite camp is some how tied into the NO_RETURN_TO_THE_MOON camp.
When you are a downer you cease to evolve. Just like the US space intuitive. Those that say NO we CAN'T GO are relegated to stagnation.
Same applies to HAARP technology and crooks.

reply to post by Wolfenz


Ok, Wolfenz ... let's just leave it at an unfortunate mutual misunderstanding and phrasing of words ... these things DO happen so forget about it and lets move on, shall we ?. But please rest assured that despite similarities that are expected to occur because we're all studying the same phenomenon and using the same limited data, that EVERYTHING in my work is ENTIRELY my own ... I guarantee it !

Anyway, I'm sure we can find lots more relevant stuff to 'argue' about ... ok ?

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Sorry dude. I have told your camping partner Math T that I am done being the lacky and legs for you guys; Go find it yourself and then when you COMPRENDE come on back.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

 

Tauristercus, I am not High fiving anyone or side stepping you.

Quit getting angry. I'm not angry at you, therefore you shouldn't be angry at me. I have a great deal of respect for you work and I think I've mentioned that a few times. But, I am utterly convinced from the observations that Harvard made, that the spiral was at least partially caused by Eiscat.

I cannot help that belief anymore than you can help yours.

Ok, apologies for getting a bit hot under the collar ... but when I go to so much trouble to show everyone how there can be NO DOUBT that the spiral event trajectory runs clearly through the White Sea, then show how it falls perfectly on to a great circle and then conclude by showing that the great circle trajectory goes straight to the Russian missile test site on kamchatka ... it just gets annoying that even with this amount of missile consistent evidence being presented, such evidence continues to be completely disregarded.

I just don't get it ... if I had NO interest whatsoever in the Norway Spiral and someone had shown me such information and explained it, I would have said immediately "yep, sure looks like a missile was involved".
Why ? because of the location where the observers were looking ALL intersected in the White Sea ... and because EACH ONE of those locations in the White Sea lined up PERFECTLY along a trajectory ... and because the trajectory itself aligned perfectly along a great circle route.
Even the little I do know about missiles EXPLAINS EXACTLY why that trajectory path is where it is. Unless someone corrects me, ALL long range missiles follow a great circle route during flight as it's the shortest path between launch and destination ... meaning minimal fuel used and minimal flight time.

So those findings are in complete agreement with an initial missile launch.

I'm sure that you do agree that there is an obvious trajectory, but looking at it from an EISCAT perspective ... WHY (and HOW) would EISCAT want to, or need to, go to the trouble of creating such a trajectory ?
I can understand (hypothetically) EISCAT projecting HF into the ionosphere and somehow creating some or all of the spiral event BUT why go to all the trouble of simulating a perfect missile trajectory ?

The ONLY scenario I can come up with to explain EISCAT 'needing' to follow that trajectory path is because they were tracking the Russian Bulava in flight. Because the Bulava would be following this trajectory, therefore EISCAT would also be following this trajectory.

But such a scenario implies immediately that EISCAT were attempting to 'influence' the Bulava in realtime as it flew over Russian territory and airspace ... which could quite legitimately be interpreted by the Russians
as an Act of War.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Ok here is the deal for the missile crew.
Who is real and who has a missile loaded with poo poo
Honestly which report is FACTUAL and which ones are not. When you have completed your assignment, you then can present your findings to prove a missile created the NORWAY SPIRAL.
thank you so very much Donny

North Korea 'preparing to launch missile towards Hawaii' - ...
Jun 18, 2009 ... The last test-launch in April, which was officially a satellite launch but was described as a "covert missile test" by the US, ...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/Iran Tests Missiles On Eve Of Talks - washingtonpost.com

Sep 27, 2009 ... This Story. Iran Test-Fires Its Most Advanced Missiles ... publicize its short- and medium-range missile development programs while covertly ...

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/27/A... - SiTime for a missile test ban | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Jun 24, 2009 ... So the time might be right to seek a global missile test ban. ... as demonstrated by China's covert transfers of INF-class M-9 and M-11 ...

milar

North Korea issues nuclear missile test threat - SFGate
... ballistic missile test, and some Western intelligence agencies suspect that North Korea has already been pursuing a covert uranium-based nuclear program ...

articles.sfgate.com/2009-04-30/news/17194331_1_north-... - Similar Iran Fires Missile Tests After Secret Nuclear Facility ...

Sep 27, 2009 ... Iran Fires Missile Tests After Secret Nuclear Facility Disclosed ... "he Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium ...

abcnews.go.com/Politics/iran-fires-missile-

reply to post by tauristercus


Dude,
Think about it! You are the one and only math dude here on the thread.
You have no math backers!!
No big deal. But you must think about this.
Your math and your math alone is the weak glue for your camp.
I do not say this without respect for your work.
Here is another aspect of the thread. The like minded folks that think electro-magnetic's were a part of the Norway Spiral have been complimentary and willing to do work from all avenues, not just individual math or personal opinion. You and your crew are not All That.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Dude,
Your math and your math alone is the weak glue for your camp.

Donny, I say the following to you with all due respect ... WTF !!!!!

How the heck do you have the right to make such a statement when as far as I know, you (and the rest of Team EISCAT) haven't made the slightest attempt to peer review my data, analysis, calculations or deductions.
If you do NOT have sufficient mathematical background or experience to follow my work, then have the upfront-ness to admit so.

But by God, don't come on here slinging around your accusations that "your math and your math alone is the weak glue for your camp" unless you're prepared to peer review my work and then, and ONLY then, will you be in a position where you can make such statements.

Here is another aspect of the thread. The like minded folks that think electro-magnetic's were a part of the Norway Spiral have been complimentary and willing to do work from all avenues, not just individual math or personal opinion. You and your crew are not All That.

But don't you see the problem here with the stand that Team EISCAT have taken ?
You're accusing me of using my 'individual math' as sole evidence of a missile being involved. At least I have made use of data collected on the very day that the event occurred AND data that directly relates to the event.
On the other hand, your side has made NO attempt to analyze that data and has made NO attempt to integrate that data into your hypothesis, whatsoever.

Instead, all you do is find obscure documents dating back many, many years and/or show a timetable that may or may not indicate use of a heater on that day.

Basically, you've totally ignored current and realistic data and evidence ... ignored analysis and conclusions based on that same data by other researchers ... and instead keep throwing EISCAT can do this and EISCAT can do that at us ... without a single shred of analytical work being done to show HOW EISCAT can do such miracles.

In fact, take my last post as an example ... I've done the hard work analyzing the data obtained on that day and yet you choose to disparage it and myself for relying on it's conclusions.

Tell me something ... WHY does Team EISCAT refuse to take that recent data/evidence and perform your own analysis and deductions as I have done ? Why do you continue to ignore that data ? It's certainly much more relevant to this discussion then hard to understand documents that are many, many years old.

Take a look at just ONE facet of what happened that morning ... namely, the fact that there IS an obvious trajectory involved.
And yet Team EISCAT can't even come up with a reason as to WHY that trajectory exists ... Thats how lacking in analytical skills Team EISCAT really is !


[edit on 25/2/10 by tauristercus] Crap !!! why doesn't that last color command work .... ggggrrrrrrr

[edit on 25/2/10 by tauristercus]

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Ok, Wolfenz ... let's just leave it at an unfortunate mutual misunderstanding and phrasing of words ... these things DO happen so forget about it and lets move on, shall we ?. But please rest assured that despite similarities that are expected to occur because we're all studying the same phenomenon and using the same limited data, that EVERYTHING in my work is ENTIRELY my own ... I guarantee it !

Anyway, I'm sure we can find lots more relevant stuff to 'argue' about ... ok ?

thank you for understanding im not much in grammar as i should be
more less i write like George Orwell i agree and give you credit in your hard work as we are all trying to understand and throw our theory's and findings from both sides of the missile team and eiscat team s of the norway spiral event

as indeed from NASA and university's and eiscat themselves said EISCAT can create Artificial Aurora Spirals and they themselves said they do indeed say and admit the can create artificial spirals and can not explain it and calling it a phenomenon but those spirals are horizontal not vertical and more greenish
if you notice i put a link of a picture from a previous post in this thread that look sorta like the norway spiral just horizontal greenish nicely formed but not so tight and has a man stands in a yellow winter snow gear pointing to it !
i also posted a picture of an artifical auroa spiral creation right above the site of EISCAT ( note look were the picture came from) but a more spread out finger painting spiral it has either the uhv or vhf or is it the radar in it the picture ( night setting )

someone is not talking about the event that undeniable obvious
as they can say it a missle failure but there nothing that backs the duration
an newtons law or space physics if it was in space as daveidious claims
as he thinks its all from space but if you notice at the center of the spiral the is a slight wobble in the rotation in space it wouldnt do that i would think
and dont forget the blue spiral narrowing inward toward the ground in space it defiantly would not do that

but if the missile was spinning like a football it would not have a wobble
i cant explain it its like swirling your index finger (center of the spiral) this what it reminds me of and don't forget the 1988 china spiral it does the same thing except it only last 30 seconds and rotates in 3 directions before coming to a black circular mass but to me it looks like artificial aurora structure + its green is there a HAARP like facility close by in china ? i dont know i have not research that direction yet but if there was i would not be surprised.


there could be a possible link of the artificial aurora and norway spiral
i do not know and im trying to find the evidence proves it exactly

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.

That is why they demand such evidence - because they can do it all day long and get away with it.

*Demand someone post something that you are not cleared to know, then declare victory when they don't post it. It makes one look like they are winning.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Did you already post it? The information where I can contact him via email. I think that you did, but, can't seem to find it. If you could show me the thread page or re-post the email it would be great.

reply to post by tauristercus


Actually Tauristercus, I have factored some of your information, especially about the artifact in the center of the spiral to my personal Hypothesis which is the reason I said that I believed it to be the collaboration of technologies.

So, despite what you may think, your work HAS actually influenced at least, my opinion.

Just so you know, your effort has not been in vain. But, we're (at least, I'm) not ruling out Eiscat as a possibility especially with earlier findings.

And in the end, this isn't Team Eiscat vs Team Buluva Missile/new technology. This is all of us working towards the same effort of illuminating the truth of what really happened. I have nothing against your camp because obviously, you all have a great deal of interest in this too.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

i wonder if anyone missed this in the thread from page 4 from ats member no thing posted ! www.viewzone.com...

as the teller of this story and the 2 discharged from the navy men that told him about the spiral event was not a Russian missile failure and explains to him what they seen and heard when they were at HAARP (this is another log to the fire ) its heating up
will it rain ?