Proof NASA Is Trying To Cover Up The Source Of The Norway Spiral!

page: 37
104
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Luminaught
 


IT WAS A DEMONSTRATION
Bizarre Blue Light Spiral over Norway Spiral - Failed Missile? Or Successful demonstration?
www.youtube.com...

haarp..who would have thought...?




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
---

There are other shots from different angles to establish a three-dimensional image of the event?
The spiral is flat (galaxy) or tapered?

Richard - from Italy

...

[edit on 14-12-2009 by RichardGiuliani]

[edit on 14-12-2009 by RichardGiuliani]

[edit on 14-12-2009 by RichardGiuliani]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Hello, I just want to know. How is this a rocket? I don't understand how it would make a spiral like this. Also; it would be interesting to know The position in the sky by Azmuth,altitude, and location seen.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Sorry people, it's a rocket. This has happened before in 2006, people thought it was a UFO then too.. it is a confirmed rocket.

Here is a video


...go back to sleep now...



[edit on 11-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]


Ok- believe what your government tells you like a good citizen.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Another cool Vid from the same uploader !
Click the More Info on the Vid Page to read more ...



www.youtube.com...

[edit on 14-12-2009 by MrSholez]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
One thing about the big spiral as seen in the still is that the "individual" spirals are in part shadowed from the spiral that, presumably comes after. This would imply that the still is showing an image of something that is in a forward motion away from the camera.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


they aren't finished with missile launches in the white sea,

not by a long shot....teehee.

dec 15th should be the last for this round.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Luminaught
 
IT WAS A DEMONSTRATION!
Bizarre Blue Light Spiral over Norway Spiral - Failed Missile? Or Successful demonstration?
www.youtube.com...
haarp..who would have thought...?

I was recording effects of the U.S.A.'s first powered up test of our High A. Altitude Atmospheric Research Project from south Texas back in the late 90's. Our observation platform was a specially prepared 737 at 30,000ft.. I'm not at liberty to tell you what I was responsible for recording, however I CAN tell you what I SAW. For more than 6 hours the sky was alive with rolling sheets of colors, most not in any box of Crayons, and beyond description. This was after the grid was fired for aprox. 15 minutes. The colors rolled from the north, but began a heavy swirling/mixing in all compass points.
I suppose it is common knowledge the recievers "caught" several thousand multiples of what was "sent". You would be wrong to believe that H.A.A.A.R.P. was not designed to be weaponised. Our team over the Pacific in a "specially prepared, electronically shielded craft" recorded effects on a "target" which was on auto-pilot before power-up. We are talking about people with 30 and 40 years in military flight operations. The words most repeated were molecular disintegration. That it can be directed to cause unique atmospheric conditions in very limited or huge areas is another fact that is not secret, though it is not well publisized. 9-11 be damned, we own the sky. BTW the Norway spiral is old news by at least a week, you are seeing managed release. Check it. At LEAST 1 WEEK, and nothing was released by accident. Don't take my word for it, look into it, find out, look for blown date stamps, check with any Zoomies you might know, or call N.S.A. down in Austin, BTW, they are hiring bright young people right now. Need a good job with a great future that you won't be able to tell anybody about? This could be you'r future returning you'r call. Unlocked VFO slide to KSS and 10s. I'm clear on you'r final.

Just so you know= CAIN MARKOV

Can YOU guess the extra A.?
The Patent Office could probably tell you, but they won't.
Ring up Uncle Ace at the Cape NASA cement torture track, tell him the pinhead said you are cool.
RICHARD "DICK" BRANSON, You'r "Spaceships" are JOKES DOOD.
Somebody gonna pay for sub-substandard low orbit? Pshaw...quit it silly boy. Our stovepipe flies higher and WTF faster.
Now then kids, why did our attempt at a slightly higher orbit than usual FAIL?

Energetic whats? Tracing across whats? Wearing WHAT KIND of cover?

I double dog dare ya to go for high frontier.








[edit on 14-12-2009 by Luminaught]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tojfrd7931
Ok- believe what your government tells you like a good citizen.


The government didn't tell me anything nor did they have to. I came to the conclusion on my own after witnessing several missile launches in person. I KNOW it was a failed missile test just from looking at it. I wish people had the same ability as I so dumb topics like this wouldn't waste time and space.

Shortly after personally identifying it as a failed missile, I did research that only confirmed my opinion. When you make a hypothesis and then later have it supported by others, it usually means you are close to being correct, if not completely correct.

Anyway.... maybe this would interest you. On Dec. 8, 2009 there was a warning for all ships to stay away from certain coordinates in the White Sea because of rocket launches.

NAVTEX



Station F - F Archangelsk,RUS
2009-12-08 16:54:55 (GMT+0)


ZCZC FA79
031230 UTC DEC 09
COASTAL WARNING ARKHANGELSK 94
SOUTHERN PART WHITE SEA
1.ROCKET LAUNCHING 2300 07 DEC TO 0600 08 DEC
09 DC 0200 TO 0900 10 DEC 0100 TO 0900
NAVIGATION PROHIBITED IN AREA
65-12.6N 036-37.0E 65-37.2N 036-26.0E
66-12.3N 037-19.0E 66-04.0N 037-47.0E
66-03.0N 038-38.0E 66-06.5N 038-55.0E
65-11.0N 037-28.0E 65-12.1N 036-49.5E
THEN COASTAL LINE 65-12.2N 036-47.6E
2. CANCEL THIS MESSAGE 101000 DEC=
NNNN


They even warned of rocket launches in the future:



ZCZC FA80
071400 UTC DEC 09
COASTAL WARNING ARKHANGELSK 95
SOUTHERN PART WHITE SEA
1. ROCKET LAUNCHING 2300 10 DEC TO 0800 11 DEC
0900 TO 1700 11 DEC 2100 11 DEC TO 0600 12 DEC
1000 TO 1700 12 DEC 2200 12 DEC TO 1000 13 DEC
1100 TO 1700 13 DEC 0100 TO 1400 14 DEC
0100 TO 0700 AND 1600 TO 2200 15 DEC
NAVIGATION PROHIBITED IN AREA 65-12.6N 036-37.0E
65-37.2N 036-26.0E 66-12.3N 037-19.0E 66-04.0N 037-47.0E
66-03.0N 038-38.0E 66-06.5N 038-55.0E
65-11.0N 037-28.0E 65-12.1N 036-49.5E
THEN COASTAL LINE 65-12.2N 036-47.6E
2. CANCEL THIS MESSAGE 152300 DEC=
NNNN


So we have;

1) Warnings of missile launches the day before.

2) Looks like a missile launch to knowledgeable people like myself.

3) Leaves plume trails like a missile.

4) Looks like other confirmed failed missile tests.

6) Confirmed as a missile test.

7) Is in a common area of missile tests.

.....hmmm......

To think it is not a missile with all the available info is pretty pathetic IMHO.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Ok. While i'm all for believing what the establishment tells me (?) I thought i'd take the chance to make an observation that it seems nobody has made yet.

I'm sure by now we have all heard about the comparisons being drawn between the Norway Spiral and other 'similar' events such as one in China as a means of 'establishing' that the Norway Spiral was, indeed, caused by an errant Russian missile. Alright, let's look at that one a little closer:

Here we have a shot of the China spiral just moments before it dissipates.



Fine, it looks similar. However, once it begins to fully dissipate there seems to be a difference.



As the spiral fully disperses the vague "nucleus" becomes even more visible.



What i'm wondering is could this apparent "nucleus", that was at the heart of the China spiral, be the missile that was generating the spiral? And if so, why does the Norway Spiral seem to be sans tracings of a missile?

If that is the case, and both the phenomenon in Norway and China were supposed to be caused by the same thing (that being an misfiring rocket outside the atmosphere).

Then why is the missile visible from the ground in China but not in Norway?

In fact I blew up the area of the Norway Spiral just as it was becoming the supposed "black hole" and got this:



Now, I don't know about anyone else, but the bottom of my stomach dropped out when I rendered this. Yes, I suppose it could be argued that the Norway 'missile' exploded and, therefore, there is nothing to see from the ground. Ok, where is the evidence of an explosion, of any kind?

Am I just seeing things, in both events? Do I have the facts incorrect? Just my 2 cents.

Here is the original China spiral footage:




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 

The visual seems upside down until one considers a gyroscopic stabiliser probably lost electric input.
I do believe we see the tell-tale plume of unreacted N2H4, probably with some LOX and a touch of H overburden X2 for crunchiness and a little 14.00674u in AQS. just to keep the Stoichiometric ratio within T+- for B taps.
The upper deck already thinner than almost anywhere was getting one hell of a game of Spin The Bottle on, which would explain the inverse optic take.
Still, the photos were being inter-officed a week ago, in fact a little diging will locate an unauthorised pre-date online aprox 4 days back, loads of cooperation though. Fire a kite over to Matt Drudge I think he put and pulled on it...GS said you first, but NOT YET.
Something IS wrong with the multiple time line on the release.
Pretty pic though, I hated the compound lighting, really smudged, it's seen a little shop, Tech Night 0wl would be best boy to say how who and why, as well as when. The date is popularly wrong.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by VoyagingMind
 


China's rocket was shot at a different day, different time, different place, shot with a different camera, at a different distance, and is a totally different rocket.

China's rocket was launched 20 years ago, so I would imagine that the rocket was bigger than the newer Bulava rocket from Russia which could make the China rocket more visible.

The China rocket was shot at a different day, and time, and place, which all determines the amount of sunlight and what angle the sunlight is reflected, which would cause totally different lighting.

The China rocket was shot with a different camera, from a different distance. Distance is key... if it was further it would be smaller and less visible. If it was closer it would be more visible. From Norway to the White Sea is pretty far... +/- 500 km away, not sure how far away the China rocket is, but I wouldn't doubt it's closer than 500 km.

I know the Russian missile was self destructed after failing. It was most probably rigged with a small amount of C4 or similar explosive. That type of explosive doesn't make a flash, it's just instant expansion at extreme velocities. It would blow the 3rd stage of the rocket to such small pieces that they wouldn't be big enough to reflect enough light strong enough to pass through the atmosphere and avoid refraction from air.

The Russian missile was not a real missile with an active warhead. It was just a test of the flight system itself, so there would be no secondary explosion if it was self destructed. It also think the fuel was ejected before it was self destructed.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

China's rocket was shot at a different day, different time, different place, shot with a different camera, at a different distance, and is a totally different rocket.


I didn't make the comparison, i'm simply pointing out that it is being used. If all of those conditions you state, nullify it as a possible example it should not have been used in the first place.

If I recall correctly, proving a weaker position (such as the China footage) and tying it to a stronger positon (Norway) and stating that the first proves the second is called a "straw-man argument".


Originally posted by ALLis0NE
China's rocket was launched 20 years ago, so I would imagine that the rocket was bigger than the newer Bulava rocket from Russia which could make the China rocket more visible.


Unfortunately, precise information seems to be very hard to find. I suppose that is more convenient for those making the comparison. That aside, from what i've been able to find, however, the missile seen in the China footage was of the Taurus-type. A couple of the more popular models would've been the Taurus Orion and the Taurus Nike Tomahawk.

However, in regards to length the Bulava-class (without a warhead) is 11.5 m while the Taurus Orion was 10.77 m and the Tomahawk was 10.80 m. Either one was well-capable of going to the 100km altitude claimed by the 'experts' for the Norway 'missile'.


Originally posted by ALLis0NE
The China rocket was shot at a different day, and time, and place, which all determines the amount of sunlight and what angle the sunlight is reflected, which would cause totally different lighting.

The China rocket was shot with a different camera, from a different distance.


You've stated all this once already. Restating it shouldn't be required.


Originally posted by ALLis0NE
I know the Russian missile was self destructed after failing. It was most probably rigged with a small amount of C4 or similar explosive. That type of explosive doesn't make a flash, it's just instant expansion at extreme velocities. It would blow the 3rd stage of the rocket to such small pieces that they wouldn't be big enough to reflect enough light strong enough to pass through the atmosphere and avoid refraction from air.

It also think the fuel was ejected before it was self destructed.


Any links for that? Otherwise it is just opinion. Also why eject the fuel when the point is to blow up the rocket?

As for C4 not making a visible flash, try setting it off sometime, you'll change your mind.

Well, unfortunately I was going to post a video to YouTube displaying an C4 explosion but it keeps throwing an "malformed ID". In any event, it would not be too difficult to search for "C4 Explosion" on that site.



[edit on 15-12-2009 by VoyagingMind]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Well one way to tell if it was a "Blackhole, Wormhole" or they opened a hole through the atmosphere will be a spike in cancer rates and related illnesses as with all the above there would be a large amount of radiation directed at the observers.

I'm still thinking Norway/US decided to live fire test EISCAT at the expense of the Russians. Or.....playing devils advocate could it have been a coop effort? Could you use a HAARP type system to punch a whole into space to ease orbital achievement by creating less drag for the rocket into orbit? I don't really know but that thought crossed my mind.



[edit on 15-12-2009 by DEEZNUTZ]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
Well one way to tell if it was a "Blackhole, Wormhole" or they opened a hole through the atmosphere will be a spike in cancer rates and related illnesses as with all the above there would be a large amount of radiation directed at the observers.


Technically black holes emit nothing (even Hawking radiation, which is thermal, is debated but generally accepted as the only form of 'radiation' emitted by the hole itself) so they alone would not cause increases in anything. Perhaps the matter in-falling to such a hole?

Even a demonstrable increase in local radiation levels would not be iron-clad proof of a black(worm) hole, merely an increase in radiation. So even, speaking hypothetically for the moment, if people in the Norway region became sick with various cancers, etc a decade from now it only shows they were exposed to radiation, not that the radiation came from a black(worm) hole of any size.

As for an "ionospheric heater" producing that effect (radiation), if anyone will be exposed to that, it would be the scientists working with the equipment on a regular basis I would speculate. Even then the radiation produced by HAARP or a HAARP-like device is radio-frequency.

As for wormholes, there is no reliable data to suggest one would produce radiation of any frequency. There are plenty of mathematical models, speculation and educated guesses, but nothing solid, yet.


Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
I'm still thinking Norway/US decided to live fire test EISCAT at the expense of the Russians.


Actually, I think one of the earlier posts in this thread spoke about that very idea. A link was posted to the EISCAT data tape archive showing the Heater was powered down during the time in question.


Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
Or.....playing devils advocate could it have been a coop effort?


Have you ever known any politician or any military-type to be capable of playing well with others especially when you throw in the idea of a "weapon" capable of creating black(worm) holes?


[edit on 15-12-2009 by VoyagingMind]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Luminaught
 


Your avatar freaks me out...



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Any one who beleives for a second this is a rocket is absolutly off there rocker.

can we look at this sensibly and just think about the whole russia launching a rocket at such a sensitive time and place.

i always thought any country launching rockets on the sly would have them shot out the sky cos think about it, any neighbouring country would have there military #ting there pants mode and on the verge war

???? boggles the mind this one but it was an awesome sight



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by KDM_Souljah
 


Actually they didn't launch it on the sly-- they announced it ahead of time, just like all the other test launches before...

It's why there hasn't been an all out war over it--

Allis0ne was kind enough to post the NAVTEX messages above on this page-- all you had to do was read it.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
In answer to your many questions, how the heck should we know?
I'll just e mail the Russian military and ask huh? I'm sure they won't mind since you are an ATS poster after all.
WHY is it incumbent on those of us that have figured out it was nothing more than a missile to explain every minute technical detail? And who know if your questions have an validity anyway. Though many of you imagine yourselves to be experts all of a sudden in this field ( ), I freely admit I'm not!
But I don't need to be to see the obvious, I can add 2 and 2.
It WAS a Russian ICBM



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
So is this 2012 thread about NASA trying to cover up the source of the norway spiral still derailed?

Yes, this thread is pointless because NASA had nothing to do with it and yet conversation continues

stick to topic or get out!





top topics
 
104
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join