Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


EM
My Dad was a HAM since he was a young man. I remember when I was a kid, Dad would slide a wire up and down a large quartz crystal to tune in a transmission.
A buddy of mine down the street had a Dad with a radio/TV shop.
He got us some of the first commercial transistors and diodes. We soldered them up with a tuning coil, a few resistors and a small battery. Slip these into a hard pack Marlboro box and put in your earpiece.You were cool. You had a radio in your T=shirt pocket.
I spent time with a Top Secret clearance with Radar picket aircraft, radio controlled missiles and the first AWACS aircraft.
I have a deep respect for RADIO. My greatest pleasure in the spiral threads is seeing and knowing so many are exposed to this amazing tool.
EM I know you have taken some pretty nasty remarks when you mentioned your Dad.
Well I am having a beer for the two Dads, I think helped bring some sanity to the world of radio.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

EM
My Dad was a HAM since he was a young man. I remember when I was a kid, Dad would slide a wire up and down a large quartz crystal to tune in a transmission.
A buddy of mine down the street had a Dad with a radio/TV shop.
He got us some of the first commercial transistors and diodes. We soldered them up with a tuning coil, a few resistors and a small battery. Slip these into a hard pack Marlboro box and put in your earpiece.You were cool. You had a radio in your T=shirt pocket.
I spent time with a Top Secret clearance with Radar picket aircraft, radio controlled missiles and the first AWACS aircraft.
I have a deep respect for RADIO. My greatest pleasure in the spiral threads is seeing and knowing so many are exposed to this amazing tool.
EM I know you have taken some pretty nasty remarks when you mentioned your Dad.
Well I am having a beer for the two Dads, I think helped bring some sanity to the world of radio.

Yep, without my father, I would not have been able to argue intelligently or have much of the information that I have about radio frequencies and Electromagnetic radiation. I definitely am no expert, but, I know how to find the information to back my claims.

Originally posted by sparrowstail
Has anybody proposed that the test was to see what effects Eiscat would have on a fired missile?

Probably, right?

It would account for both theories. Can EISCAT disrupt guidance systems of missiles? Is that one of it's applications?

Exactly! I'm often amazed at how unilateral people can be in their thinking, believing that any explanation must only have a single element to it. We saw TWO things that day:

1) A trail in the sky that was clearly from a missile. Most photos of the spiral left this part out, probably because it opened the door for people to say "it was JUST a failed missile."

2) A strange spiral in the sky that looked very otherworldly.

Instead of people arguing whether it was a MISSILE or an unusual scientific PHENOMENON, the first thing people should ask is "could it be both?" When faced with two polar extremes of possibility, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. Either it was an unusual experiment involving a missile, or the missile launch was a way to cover-up the true intention of the event.

Anyhow, star for you in bringing this up!

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

 

It has been presented. You must have not been paying attention.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why are you dissing the poster, suggesting that he "wasn't paying attention" when it was you who came off so cock-sure of yourself that this thing just HAD to be a failed missile?

I remember clearly how pithy you were about it all, talking like some expert on the subject. Maybe he just missed that article, not that he wasn't "paying attention."

It is good to know that we are ALL just mere fallible mortals after all

Well, how about it might be a SONIC BOOM of a missile or other object?

Look at this analysis here, there is a resemblance.

It take place around 1:54 in the video.

Case Closed?

reply to post by downisreallyup

Because he wasn't paying attention, as he himself stated. Contrary to the thread title, there is no "new evidence" that EISCAT created the spiral, this "evidence" was presented long ago. This "evidence" does not indicate that EISCAT can produce anything like the spiral.

The spiral was created by a missile and there was no connection with EISCAT. EISCAT cannot direct its heater beam to a point 800km away. The EISCAT log shows that the heater was not in use at the time.

[edit on 2/19/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Jinni

Although your film as awesome...and I do mean awesome, the Spiral lasted about 12 minutes and had a blue trail with perfectly rotating concentric circles in a spiral. The sonic boom effect here only lasted a brief second.

reply to post by Phage

The spiral was created by a missile

Whatever Phage, there is no proof for that either.

And that's the difference between me and you. I have no problem admitting if I am somehow wrong.

You will never admit if you were wrong, and you consistently ignore my arguments directed at you, you only respond back to me when you absolutely positively have something on me.

You keep using the same lame arguments like "according to Eiscat, the heater wasn't used that day", wich is just plain stupid.

Tauristercus has pointed out lots of points that disprove the missile theory, especially in his new thread, wich you and your littlle minions choose to ignore, shocking.

Just like you ignore my last post directed at your post in this thread. Just like tens of other posts of mine in the last weeks.

There is no proof whatsoever that the spiral was caused by a Bulava missile, none, just speculation.

You keep stating speculation as fact, wich shows you're not a real skeptic, you are only into pushing a certain agenda.

You fell off Phage, you still have some groupies, but you can't fool everybody.

There is no way for you to know what Eiscat is really capable of, because you base your facts on the illusion that "official" sources are always speaking the truth.

You are a bad joke.

Jeah, you have knowledge, but knowledge clearly is not wisdom.

You get less credible every day.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

Because he wasn't paying attention, as he himself stated. Contrary to the thread title, there is no "new evidence" that EISCAT created the spiral, this "evidence" was presented long ago. This "evidence" does not indicate that EISCAT can produce anything like the spiral.

The spiral was created by a missile and there was no connection with EISCAT. EISCAT cannot direct its heater beam to a point 800km away. The EISCAT log shows that the heater was not in use at the time.

[edit on 2/19/2010 by Phage]

The information that was posted on a different thread was sent to me by the same poster. Wolfenz. It clearly states this fact in the introduction. Since it wasn't discussed much on that thread, I chose to create a new one.

Nice to see you again Phage.

However, these two pieces of evidence is enough for me to say...It was pretty much Eiscat. It is the most simplistic explanation, and I am sure you know the saying that goes along with that. Often, the simplest explanation is often the best. Since I have never seen a missile behave in this manner, and Harvard Scientists had observed this effect before, it would pretty much jive with the info given. As another poster stated, given the fact that the blue trail was going behind the mountain where the Eiscat facility just so happens to be located, it would be quite simple minded to dismiss it as an explanation. And, just because YOUR records indicate that it wasn't on, doesn't mean that it wasn't unofficially being tested conveniently at the same time that many elites were there while Obama was receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

I'm not really concerned whether you are convinced or not. I already knew your stance on it from the other threads that you and I have butted heads on. This is for the people who are looking outside of that box.

Here are the sources...again. One can make their own decisions with the information presented.

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm







[edit on 19-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by downisreallyup

 

Because he wasn't paying attention, as he himself stated. Contrary to the thread title, there is no "new evidence" that EISCAT created the spiral, this "evidence" was presented long ago. This "evidence" does not indicate that EISCAT can produce anything like the spiral.

The spiral was created by a missile and there was no connection with EISCAT. EISCAT cannot direct its heater beam to a point 800km away. The EISCAT log shows that the heater was not in use at the time.

[edit on 2/19/2010 by Phage]

George Bush said we would land men on the moon in 2015.
I guess you believed that too.
So you also believe that a missile shield just works right over the HAARP
facilities.
In other words they build these things and hope somebody will shoot a missile at it so they can use it to destroy the missile shot at it. WOW what a way to pee away the tax dollar. I can't wait for my first taste of moon water.

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Originally posted by sparrowstail
Has anybody proposed that the test was to see what effects Eiscat would have on a fired missile?

Probably, right?

It would account for both theories. Can EISCAT disrupt guidance systems of missiles? Is that one of it's applications?

Exactly! I'm often amazed at how unilateral people can be in their thinking, believing that any explanation must only have a single element to it. We saw TWO things that day:

1) A trail in the sky that was clearly from a missile. Most photos of the spiral left this part out, probably because it opened the door for people to say "it was JUST a failed missile."

2) A strange spiral in the sky that looked very otherworldly.

Instead of people arguing whether it was a MISSILE or an unusual scientific PHENOMENON, the first thing people should ask is "could it be both?" When faced with two polar extremes of possibility, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. Either it was an unusual experiment involving a missile, or the missile launch was a way to cover-up the true intention of the event.

Anyhow, star for you in bringing this up!

I have entertained that idea, but, there seems to be no video evidence of a missile going up beforehand. And, there are multiple video sources for the spiral, but none that show a rising, or malfunctioning missile. With the amount of people who were taking evidence with multiple camera angles, you would think that at least one of them would have caught the missile in flight.

That's just my theory.

reply to post by Phage

This "evidence" does not indicate that EISCAT can produce anything like the spiral.

They were producing spiral-like forms 23 years ago, you have no way of knowing what they are currently capable off.

reply to post by Donny 4 million

Good point. A localized "missile shield" wouldn't make sense. HAARP is not a "missile shield" and never was. It, like EISCAT, is an ionospheric research facility.

reply to post by Point of No Return

They published their work of 23 years ago and continue to do so. Please provide evidence that they have progressed in their art.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

That is the very thing we are referring to with EM radiation, and that by the way is slightly different than Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) which is typically used to knock out communications, which is what you are consistently referring to. And, project bluebeam still requires Electromagnetic Radiation to operate. You are aware of this...RIGHT?

What exactly is your point?

1 - The Norway spiral was an atmospheric involuntary collateral effect caused by massive EM radiation.

2 - The Norway spiral was an atmospheric voluntary effect (pre-programed) caused by EM radiation.

3 - The Norway spiral was a hologram (not an effect), a 3D projection.

Let me get this straightly: As I see here, people are supporting the statement that the Norway spiral was a voluntary experiment with EM radiation. Thus the manipulated electric particles themselves, through the beam, would have created those exotic effect, very basically, that was what happened there, am I wrong?? That is what r u saying, right??

So, why there is ANY video or image in ANY part of the world showing exactly how is this made, due the importance of the experiment and scientific implications???

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/faea623015ed.jpg[/atsimg]

You said the Project Blue Beam needs EM radiation to project a hologram, so I assume that there was a holographic apparatus, basically like seen above, to cause those spiral. So, the EM radiation, itself, without intermediate devices couldn't make a perfect moving spiral like seen in Norway, am I wrong??? I mean, just a massive EM pulse fired by some HAARP antenna couldn't make a figure like that, almost a Spielberg special effect, or could it?? And when I say EM "PULSE" I mean exact that, once that HAARP supposedly is a military device or weapon, if you wish, created to bring down US enemies communications, among other things...
Back to my issue, if it could as you say, WHY there's no other report in any place of the world where HAARP facilities are installed or event similar to Norway???

I mean, since wasn't possible to hide from world that EISCAT was involved or was fully responsible by the Norway spiral, would be quite more comfortable to its scientists, to admit a scientific experiment, than a hologram fired onto skies, in the SAME day that Obama would receive his Nobel, just to give some kind of NWO-freemasonry-illuminati-occult mind-control-message to the sheeple, huh???

What am I missing from the geniuses here??

[edit on 19-2-2010 by ucalien]

[edit on 19-2-2010 by ucalien]

Originally posted by Point of No Return

You keep using the same lame arguments like "according to Eiscat, the heater wasn't used that day", wich is just plain stupid.

Why is it plain stupid? It's a completely valid argument based on solid evidence.

It's silly to call someone a bad joke especially when you're the one up on stage with no material.

reply to post by serbsta

Why is it plain stupid? It's a completely valid argument based on solid evidence.

Off course one must explain to the stupid, why something is stupid.

Just because the Eiscat site says something, doesn't make it true.

If they are responsible, wouldn't it be logical for them to cover their tracks, like not admitting it was them.

What solid evidence is there for the theory that a Bulava 3rd stage failure created the spiral, there is none.

The ones that should know, the Russians, said nothing about the spiral.

They said they tested a Bulava, and it failed, 3rd stage.

The rest is pure speculation.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Good point. A localized "missile shield" wouldn't make sense. HAARP is not a "missile shield" and never was. It, like EISCAT, is an ionospheric research facility.

The military is not a research organization. They are weapons users. Not weapons developers. That's why we have Ratheyon and Lockheed etc.
The ionosphere can be manipulated by HF and VHF the VHF was turned on during the phenomenon.
Who says the heaters are necessary anyway?
What have they learned Phage in the last 50 years of playing around up there? The US blew nukes up in the 50's to experiment with the ionosphere. What have we learned ? Since it is not military then it must be commercial.
What do we the people get for our bucks. Just bull crap?

Originally posted by Edews
There's a pretty extensive thread about this where the OP basically proves it was a rocket...

Uhhhmm

No he didnt....

He proved it was not a rockit, only you and mentally challenged children ever belived it was ever a rockit, "that should have been proven using your own eyes in seconds TBH" the government could do with a few more people like you,

No Offence Like but enuff with the rockit fantasys.

reply to post by Donny 4 million

The military is not a research organization. They are weapons users. Not weapons developers. That's why we have Ratheyon and Lockheed etc.

You mean Raytheon, the company that owns HAARP.

HAARP wich is similar to EISCAT.

So HAARP is owned by a weapons and defense systems manufacturer, and EISCAT is a similar installation.