It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !

page: 10
286
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
it seems very plausable to me to be eiscat,tequila sunrise programme after looking at this thread but i definately know what it`s not and that is a out of control rocket fired from russia.

here`s a link to a video named haarp and strange phenomena in locations supposed to have similar haarp experiments

www.youtube.com...




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
There's no denying that a lot of work was put into the OP. The author seems to be making two points; 1) In order for the smoke trail to be visible from Tromso it would have to extend to 40km into the atmosphere and 2) The observed size of the spiral was too great to have been created by a missile.

1) Would seem to be nothing more than an assumption that this presents a problem. The sensible atmosphere reaches an altitude of about 100km (referred to as the Karman line). I see no reason the smoke trail from the launch would not reach an altitude of 40 km or higher. Certainly the images and videos we've seen of Bulava launches demonstrate a significant smoke trail from the solid propellant of the first stage.

2) Remember the infamous "urine dump" from the shuttle not long ago? The one that was seen all over North America? Apparently it left a pretty impressive curved plume. But that's not the only occasion on which such things have been seen.

Here's a little something about another observation. It gives an idea about just how much a visible cloud of effluent can disperse and the distance from which it can be seen.

August 12, 1986, 10 p.m. Hundreds of thousands of people were outside in the eastern half of the United States, looking for Perseid meteors. Many of them had their astronomical instruments and cameras at the ready.
Suddenly a bright, fuzzy spiral, wider than the moon, appeared in the eastern sky, moving from right to left. Sightings occurred from Georgia (Florida was socked in with clouds) to Texas, from Oklahoma City to Quebec, Canada, and all points in between.


Wayne Madea, an amateur astronomer in northern Maine, saw a bright starlike object emit a luminous, rapidly expanding donut-shaped cloud; through a telescope he saw “a pinpoint of light, like a satellite, traveling with the cloud.” In Massachusetts, an amateur astronomer watched the plume perform two full turns in four minutes, painting the spinning spiral as he watched.

What was it?

In the United States and Canada, observers had witnessed a spray of surplus fuel from the used-up third stage of the Japanese rocket. Their altitude was almost a thousand miles (1,500 km), high enough for it to have been sunlit even though the ground below had been dark for more than an hour.

bb.nightskylive.net...

[edit on 12/14/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   


been clearly visible from both Sweden and Finland which both would have been within the missiles flight trajectory - yet corroborating eye witness reports from either of these countries is almost non-existent.


This is not true there are lots of reports from Finland and Sweden.



ALSO that EISCAT link was debated heavily in the ORIGINAL thread. I even gave links to the bio and papers fo scientists on duty for the 2 known projects from that day.

There are extensive links to tests ran that day and TONS of archived data from those hours( link again in original thread).

The EISCAT "heater" is the only device that can produce optical effects.
The heater was not on during this period ( at least according to them).
The heater so far has only been able to produce optical effects at over 150KM high, invisible to the naked eye and not uniform ( more like a blob)


I was one of the original posters thinking it was EISCAT, after a full day (last week) of links and going over the data I've concluded that even though its a strange coicidence, it was most likely a rocket.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 


I just joined the party. Maybe I missed it but could you please explain the rockets trajectory one more time? I was unaware it was acceptable to test fire ballistic missiles over sovereign nations? Thank you in advance.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by liveandletlive
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 


I just joined the party. Maybe I missed it but could you please explain the rockets trajectory one more time? I was unaware it was acceptable to test fire ballistic missiles over sovereign nations? Thank you in advance.


It is if you have an agreement.

which they do



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   




Bravo







Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


Please provide a source so I can check it out. I’m assuming the Secret Service signed off on it as well. Could you provide the documentation for that as well?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by HankMcCoy
 



Your signature
"I am a paid governmental disinformation agent. Pay no attention to anything I say".

I pay attention on what you (all of you) say..... and I hope that you are very well paid from your government for this "dirty" job.
No offense.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Heres a crack pot theory. please be openminded
I would like to point out that night before the LHC had it's strongest run as of yet. I think it was 2tvt or something like that. I was wondering if that norway haarp could of caused a rip in time itself. seeing how it's playing with the ionicsphere maybe causing a small crack the universe. Perhaps the lhc made it rip even more. this is my biggest crack pot theory, but it makes you think



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I scanned this thread very quickly, but I din't see any evidence presented that EISCAT caused this thing. What I saw was proof that EISCAT is in Norway, and that an experiment was scheduled( and apparently performed), in other words the array was in use.
What I haven't seen is any real connection between the event and EISCAT. What are the details of the experiment? Was it the first time performed? What does EISCAT say the results were?
What could the array have done to cause the event? Explain the physics
of it. Not amatuer sci fi conjecture, but what did EISCAT do, and how could it cause this? Every picture I've seen has been consistent with a missle launch, the exception being the dramatic pic of the spiral. untill we know details of how that pic was taken, we can't really analyze it. ALL the other pics clearly show all the characteristics of a missle launch. Untill somebody comes up with a plausible explaination of how EISCAT could have caused this, I'll stick to the missle.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


Hanks at lunch. Seethelight is on duty right now.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


I agree with the Russian ballistic missile malfunction, but where is the fun in that?

Now you can't tell me NATO didn't enjoy watching a Russian failure.If you were a scientist at the Norwegian HAARP facility, wouldn't you want to charge up the sky and see what happens to a Russian ballistic missile? You don't build one of these things just to communicate using long wave radio frequencies all the time.

There is of course no evidence yet of regional electronic disturbances yet, and if you want to involve the HAARP you would need some proof.

Another question to ask is why Obama cancelled an anti missile program for Poland while going to Norway during the Russian missile test. It is possible HAARP has been successful in anti missile defense and wanted to show the President firsthand while he was there. Don't you think the Russians were putting on a show for the President too? Maybe someone that lives in the region can discuss power or radio interference that night, if any.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Here's an idea;, what if both your theory and the explanation are right. Maybey a russian missile did malfunction, but that the missile didn't creat the light spiral phenomenon. Maybey whatever it was that was manifesting in the light spiral that was caught on camera caused a russian missile somewhere else to malfunction.

Wouldn't that be interesting.

Great post imho, I think someone ought to pay you to write this kind of stuff its so thorough.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I have stayed silent on this all week, but have been following closely for obvious reasons.

Throughout this circus I have come to several firm concrete conclusions.

These are the FACTS as I see them.

1) A lot of people have been acting like childish jerks to fellow posters. *Wheres the mods?*
The personal attacks are NOT ACCEPTABLE. Doesn't matter what side your on.

2) NO ONE HERE KNOWS exactly WTF happened. Everyone has theories. If you think you know for sure, than your oblivious and in denial.

3) The ONLY people who know what happened are military/government and they are NOT TALKING. This much is obvious.

4) There has been no solid concrete proof to conclude that this event was caused by a rocket or whatever other explanation. Everyone is just assuming things and believes what they want to lol.

In regards to the OP, I must say that you hit the nail on the head when you calculated the diameter of the spiral based on variable altitudes. This type of math shows clearly that the event remains anomalous.

Thank you ATS for keeping this debate raging. Thank you for actually asking questions and seeking relevant answers.

I have been on the fence with this incident all week, but I have been leaning towards EISCAT atmospheric heating experiment due to the correlating factors such as location, timing, and the features of the event itself.

I will still stand firm however in my conviction that the Truth is not known by any of us at this time and that in the future more answers will become apparent. However I feel that this debate is on the right track.

I agree that due to basic logic, that the spiral formation could not have been any larger than 20km wide. This makes it's altitude extremely low, rather than it being in the exosphere which would have made it visible for a insane distance.

Also, why didn't Russia firing a nuke over Scandinavia cause a nuclear war? This is by far the most perplexing aspect of the entire issue, from my point of view. Things just do not add up.

I will await further developments.

However a suggestion for all involved, please refrain from being a jerk to other posters, as it ruins any credibility you may have.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by A52FWY

There is of course no evidence yet of regional electronic disturbances yet, and if you want to involve the HAARP you would need some proof.



Except for the one problem this issue faces.

That all "proof" on this subject so far is subjective rather than objective. There has been no actual documentation or other solid evidences provided to support any theory, so you must realize that no one has proved anything , yet.

No one can prove it was a missile, simply because there is no relevant way to prove such a thing without a wide assortment of evidences, such as radio intercepts so we can hear the voice chatter, radar intercept recordings, mathematical analysis reports done by Russian scientists, etc etc.

And for you to Assume that if it's EISCAT than there "must be electrical disturbances in a wide area around the facility during testing" is pure assumption with no facts or concrete reasoning behind it. PROVE that EISCAT causes electrical disturbances everywhere around it during a test operation. You cant, because thats requires you to go camp out there with equipment and take loads of readings to prove it.

Both sides of this argument are simply making rash assumptions and then convince themselves they know exactly what happened. This is not prudent however.

I suggest you take a few steps back and mull things over a bit more. Perhaps asking questions rather than assuming answers would be a good start.

From where I stand this issue is still a mystery. Pertinent questions must be answered before a end conclusion will surface.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Also, why didn't Russia firing a nuke over Scandinavia cause a nuclear war? This is by far the most perplexing aspect of the entire issue, from my point of view. Things just do not add up.



Let me repeat again, the test was announced well ahead of time! You can read online a story from a year ago announcing at least nine tests in 2009! ALL missle tests are announced in advance to prevent accidental nuclear war. There was NO NUKE on the missle, the test was of the missle, it would be insane ( and uneccesary ) to test with a live nuclear warhead!

[edit on 14-12-2009 by OldDragger]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

In this link it shows another rocket that Russia suppose to have launched about a day later with the explaniation being a failed attempt. Why would they continue to launch failed rockets?

Suppose that rocket or missle is a better term would have stayed in tact and hit Norway what then?

Then if one hits the U.S. or any other country and the explaination is it was a failed attempt and we couln't control it but SORRY we destroyed part of your country and millions of lives were lost. A good cover up?

I'm not sure what it was but if this link with that video on it is another way of explaining it, I'm not buying it.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


When did Russia announce they were firing a rocket over Norway?

They didn't.They claimed it was going to the Far East.

I've been here all week...

Can we refrain from twisting things or using half-truths ? This is a problem that distorts the issue imo.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Katie
 

The test on the 10th was a different type of missile and the test was a success. That is all explained in the link you posted.

[edit on 12/14/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
There was NO NUKE on the missle, the test was of the missle, it would be insane ( and uneccesary ) to test with a live nuclear warhead!


Maybe.


How would anyone other than Russians know this anyway? Of course logic dictates that it was empty. Of course.

But then again, the Nazi's did some V2 tests while it was loaded, and to catastrophic results. It's not out of the question.

Plus, you must admit, when your watching a radar screen at NORAD, the blip of a ICBM/SLBM does not indicate whether it is loaded or not. All it looks like is an incoming projectile. There is no way to know it's contents without advanced scanning technologies that we may not have yet.



new topics

top topics



 
286
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join