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.

 

TEQUILAsunrise - AKA Norway Spiral - Proof it was a scientific experiment.

page: 24
182
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


I'm just going to leave this here...



Peace!




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Take a look at the last photo from Jan Petter Jorgensen in here:

www.rexfeatures.com...

You can see the reflection of the blue trail on the water....what does that mean?? that's weird...




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal
Take a look at the last photo from Jan Petter Jorgensen in here:

www.rexfeatures.com...

You can see the reflection of the blue trail on the water....what does that mean?? that's weird...


Those pictures are all "touched up". Photoshopped.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv

Originally posted by hateeternal
Take a look at the last photo from Jan Petter Jorgensen in here:

www.rexfeatures.com...

You can see the reflection of the blue trail on the water....what does that mean?? that's weird...


Those pictures are all "touched up". Photoshopped.


Its just a reflection in the water, the blue smoke was the only light in the sky at the moment, so a reflection would not be that wierd, or?

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Gromle]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I posted this in response to someone on another Norway thread. i think it might bear re-posting on this one.


In regards to your post, it would seem that the evidence quite often does point to what you might think is a mundane explanation. I guess it depends on a persons goal, to find the most "alternative" explanation, or to find an explanation that fits the facts in evidence.
A lot of people here have knee jerk reactions to all kinds of events. They reject the "official story" out of hand as well as any "MSM" news reports under the assumption that everything "they" say is a lie. That's not very objective now is it?
With ANY given event, there is a race here to see who can come up with the conspiracy angle, who can post first getting stars and flags. Very often logic is ignored to promote the conspiracy fever. This serves nothing, and only indicates ATS is a game to many posters and hardly indicates open minds and careful consideration, or any real interest in finding out the truth about anything.
I'll end by saying two things.
First, as I often say, just because all things may be possible, it doesn't mean all things are likely.
Second, you know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


[edit on 16-12-2009 by OldDragger]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by x2Strongx
 


Nice pic. And?

The plane is zoomed in just as much as the moon.

Try and take that pic of the moon with buildings in the foreground, just like the spiral pic.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mixmix
reply to post by hateeternal
 


thank for your post.
It's nice remind the basic evidence.
are these picture been debunked ?

I notice the smile of the author

but you confuse me also
do you say the light was in the south direction of TROMSE
cause theaurosicus make a map with the east

for east, the blue beam come from the right, so it could be EISCAT
but for south, I don't know, the sea ?



I dont know what direction was he facing...but it says on the site with his pics that this happened over the Trondelag region, which is 41,383 square km and south-east from Tromso.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by hateeternal
 


Trøndelag is south - south west of Tromsø.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


How is bluebeam a hoax? Please educate me, cuz i'm starting to freakout about the possablities of something like that. Indulge deeper than "its just a hoax".



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


How is bluebeam a hoax? Please educate me, cuz i'm starting to freakout about the possablities of something like that. Indulge deeper than "its just a hoax".



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


You mean like this?

Just let me know exactly what your looking for... I'm sure I can find it...



And another one here
Telephoto Image

[edit on 12/16/2009 by x2Strongx]

[edit on 12/16/2009 by x2Strongx]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
With ANY given event, there is a race here to see who can come up with the conspiracy angle, who can post first getting stars and flags. Very often logic is ignored to promote the conspiracy fever. This serves nothing, and only indicates ATS is a game to many posters and hardly indicates open minds and careful consideration, or any real interest in finding out the truth about anything.


Beautifully said!

It's pretty tragic though that "real" conspiracies here on ATS are drowned in a virtual cesspool of conspiracy-at-any-cost-to-reason posts and don't-trust-government-ever mantras. There has been enough of this nonsense in LHC-related threads, and in moon hoax threads before that. ATS is devalued and defaced by unfounded speculations. As I said in my recent thread, this is a kind of medieval mentality.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by x2Strongx
 


Mmm, it does look more out of focus in the surroundings, compared to the spiral pic.

I'm not sure now.

Can you explain how it would work?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 

It was better explained on Wikipedia... Sorry for not being more personable. Maybe somewhere we can find out what kind of lens was used in the Norway shots.



Telephoto and other long-focal-length lenses are best known for making distant objects appear magnified. This effect is similar to moving closer to the object, but is not the same, since perspective is a function solely of viewing location. Two images taken from the same location, one with a wide angle lens and the other with a telephoto lens, will show identical perspective, in that near and far objects appear the same relative size to each other. Comparing magnification by using a long lens to magnification by moving closer, however, the telephoto shot appears to compress the distance between objects due to the perspective from the more distant location. Long lenses thus give a photographer an alternative to the type of perspective distortion exhibited by shorter focal length lenses where (when the photographer stands closer to the given subject) different portions of a subject in a photograph can appear out of proportion to each other. Long lenses also make it easier to blur the background more, even when the depth of field is the same; photographers will sometimes use this effect to defocus the background in an image to "separate" it from the subject. This background blurring is often referred to as bokeh by photographers.


Source: Wikipedia



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by x2Strongx
 


Lol, I'm sorry for not being more personable to.

At least now I know that it is in fact possible to have objects appear out of proportion in the same pic.

Like you said, I would like to know if and how it was done in the spiral pic.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I have read most of the posts here and laugh. No one talks about the spiraling effect of the blue beam heading into the center of the "spiral". Why not, that would indicate that the "spiral" effect was produced by alternating the antenna waves on the ground. In a circular motion turning on and off the different antennas. Simple. As for the heater being on or off, I don't think it matters. If you are accelerating the positively charged electrons in the atmosphere or mesosphere (with radio waves) as the EISCAT site claims to be checking, the accelerated electrons would heat up the hydrogen (moisture) in the air and cause the white cloud effect. OR they may have launched a concussion rocket to explode a small amount of material so the antenna waves, radar waves or other, could be seen.

I find it extremely funny that so many people hold on tight to what they "beleive" it to be. I am not sure exactly sure what it is, I have a few ideas and why TPTB would be testing this type of device. Yes, there are HAARP type facilities the world over, that can be easily checked out. Do some research on your own, you may learn something. But to sit on this site and cry foul or make claims that could, to many, be deemed as absurd is just hilarious to me.


One other thing, the different sections of the atmosphere are miles high, so the vertical or horizontal of the spiral really does not matter if you are conducting the experiment in that level (mesophere) of the atmosphere. The northern lights are a result of the suns activity and are thus on the extreme outer ionsphere.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by daddio]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 

Maybe because it was not a "beam"

"Spiral" also walked across the sky, leaving a bright blue track.

www.altaposten.no...

EISCAT was using radar. Radar does not "accelerate" anything.


[edit on 12/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Does it matter what we call it, making it simple so that everyone may understand it. I apologize for my error, please forgive me.


Well, since NONE of us was there and we really don't know exactly what they were doing or if a mistake had been made, we can only speculate. So whatever they WERE using, does not matter in the end does it?

[edit on 16-12-2009 by daddio]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Isis_Is_I
 

Why? His premise is based on the use of the heater in the experiment. The heater was not in use at the time. His premise is incorrect.


Phage, I really hate having to chime in to point out your fallacies.

Please re-read the OP. The only mention of the heater is in the description of the experiment. Also, after making his point, he posted some other articles about the project that mention the heater.

So, I'm sorry, YOU are incorrect, his premise was not based on the use of the heater.

Edit: didnt realize this was 24 pages already, and here I am replying to a post on page 1...sorry bout that

[edit on 12/16/2009 by His Doodness]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by daddio
 


The "beam" did not produce the spiral. The "beam" came from the spiral.
The "beam" persisted as a cloud for 15 minutes after the spiral disappeard.
The "beam" was an exhaust trail.



new topics

top topics



 
182
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join