Norway Spiral: Additional evidence presented regarding EISCATS involvement

In my previous thread
"Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I tried to present a strong case based on logic and mathematical analysis to show that assigning blame to a failed Russian missile launch was completely untenable and unsupportable. Instead, circumstantial evidence actually indicated a possible link to EISCAT's involvement in the event.
This involvement was further emphasized and broadened in the excellent thread started by danman23
"TEQUILAsunrise - AKA Norway Spiral - Proof it was a scientific experiment."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Throughout my thread, I was constantly beaten about the head by proponents of the "failed missile" explanation who apparently fell victim to a case of acute tunnel vision syndrome and became incapable of understanding or comprehending that the available evidence was strongly indicative AGAINST such an explanation ... both from a logical as well as an intuitive and commonsense point of view. Because MSM said it was a failed missile launch, then that obviously MUST be the correct explanation and consequently, case closed. EISCAT's, and consequently, Norways involvement, was just too inconceivable to consider ... the Russians were the obvious "bad boys" and had been clearly "caught in the act".

Well, things are not always as clear cut as one is led to believe ....


Seems like EISCAT (and other facilities around the world are very heavily involved in the creation and manipulation of high altitude artificial plasma - created by heating regions of the atmosphere with focused, beamed energy, then manipulating the resultant plasma with high-intensity radio waves.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b15121bf75de.jpg[/atsimg]



From an experiment conducted by EISCAT (Tromso) on 16 February, 1996

"Triggering of local substorm activation by powerful HF radio waves"

"It should be pointed out that a most remarkable optical phenomenon was observed during the two heating cycles 21:20 - 21:24 UT and 21:30 - 21:34 UT. A development of local spiral-like forms in the auroral arc near Tromso ..."

"Furthermore, the brightening and subsequent break-up of an auroral arc at 21:33:50 UT took place above Tromso.

Source

Did the above description ring bells for anyone ? Seen anything similar lately ?



From an abstract dated 13 July, 2004 and involving numerous institutes including
EISCAT, Ramfjordmoen, N 9027, Norway

"Heater-induced phenomena in a coupled ionosphere–magnetosphere system"

"Other results have shown the modification of a natural auroral arc and local spiral-like formation. It is thought that a local heater-driven current system is formed."

Source

From the Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Box 537, SE-751 21 Uppsala, Sweden. [email protected]

"Radio Pumping of Ionospheric Plasma with Orbital Angular Momentum"

"Optical emissions from the pumped plasma turbulence exhibit the characteristic ring-shaped morphology when the pump beam carries OAM."

scitation.aip.org...

From "Letters to Nature"

Nature 433, 498-500 (3 February 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature03243; Received 13 September 2004; Accepted 6 December 2004

Creation of visible artificial optical emissions in the aurora by high-power radio waves

"Generation of artificial light in the sky by means of high-power radio waves interacting with the ionospheric plasma ... "

"Here we report observations of radio-induced optical emissions bright enough to be seen by the naked eye ..."

www.nature.com...

The following reported in "Physics Today, June 2009"

"Resonant radio waves rotate tokamak plasma"

"Experiments at various tokamaks around the world found that plasmas rotate in response to the various methods used to heat them."

fire.pppl.gov...

"Plasma experiments show that rotation is a natural function of interacting electric currents in plasma."

"To see the connection between plasma experiments and plasma formations in space, it is essential to understand the scalability of plasma phenomena. Under similar conditions, plasma discharge will produce the same formations irrespective of the size of the event. The same basic patterns will be seen at laboratory, planetary, stellar, and galactic levels."


A slight resemblance to the Norway spiral ?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1795f9dbce9.jpg[/atsimg]

Source

The above references were found quite quickly and I'm certain that if I was so inclined, that I would be able to dig up a lot more info tying atmospheric artificial plasma creation/manipulation and atmospheric heating to EISCAT and other facilities around the world.
But in my opinion, the above sample is more than sufficient circumstantial evidence to tie EISCAT (Tromso) and Norway to the Norway spiral event ... which is much more solid, substantial and reasonable than the "Russian spinning missile" fantasy !



[edit on 18/12/09 by tauristercus]

Mod edit: some links corrected.

[edit on 18/12/2009 by ArMaP]

Good find! It's a pity there are no pictures of the atmospheric artificial plasma creation/manipulation and atmospheric heating phenomena, the papers seem in-depth otherwise, one thing I was wondering about is, if they have had this technology for some time now, how come the Norway incident was the first anyone's seen of it? (in detail) and why would they try and cover it up?? That's the thing that get's to me, if there is evidence out there that this is what this tech does and the population is able to access it, why cover it??

Originally posted by Majestic RNA
Good find!

It's a pity there are no pictures of the atmospheric artificial plasma creation/manipulation and atmospheric heating phenomena, the papers seem in-depth otherwise, one thing I was wondering about is, if they have had this technology for some time now, how come the Norway incident was the first anyone's seen of it? (in detail) and why would they try and cover it up?? That's the thing that get's to me, if there is evidence out there that this is what this tech does and the population is able to access it, why cover it??

thats a very good question and unfortunately one I don't have an answer to

I can only assume that there is a major military component involved which would allow research to continue but in a compartmentalized fashion and kept away from public awareness ... maybe thats why so many countries have their version of EISCAT/HAARP technology and are investing in it's development and researcch.

As for last weeks spiral event, I can only assume that there was a test scheduled for that time but something unexpected happened that they weren't prepared for ... maybe instead of beaming 50 Megawatts into the atmosphere for a "small and unobtrusive" test, someone accidentally punched in 500 Megawatts instead, and all hell broke loose .... followed by a "cover up and denial" as per usual !

reply to post by tauristercus



Yeah that is the big question 'why cover it' one thing I was also wondering, do these experiments draw from the power grid or do they have their own power generators? Because the thing is, if say they were drawing 500MW (I know you were talking hypothetically) that would be a massive drain on the local grid, I work at a power station we have four boilers/turbines they only produce 500MW each, 500MW is a massive amount of power drain from any grid, was there any reports of a power drainage at the time? That may be an angle to look into..

reply to post by tauristercus


At last, a songbird in the midst of all the Parrot Speak and squawking, and mimicking of MSM! "It was just a rocket. It was just a rocket. Who's a pretty boy then?"

I'm looking forward to an interesting and intelligent thread. Star & Flag.

Please don't be disheartened by the naysayers - a counter stance is essential for the debate and in the particular instance of your (excellent) thread I personally feel that your reasoned point was strengthened because of it.. Keep up the good work

Berth

Like I said in another thread I think all the hush up is because Norway/NATO/US live tested EISCAT against a real warhead. It was just that Russia probably didn't know about it.

1: Russia doesn't want to lose face in front of the world and most especially in the eyes of their people that they just lost a major route for their ICBM's destined for the US Eastern Seaboard. If this one is successfull then other countries will build them. Relatively cheap STAR WARS if it's working. Russia would rather admit another failure than to admit that half of their ICBM's have a new threat against them and throws the whole DETENTE equation off balance.

2: NATO and the bunch don't have to admit to anything. That's why the official story as reported is being pushed. I don't think they're ready yet to reveal HAARP technologies real potential.

At first sight of this phenomenon I didn't buy the failed rocket due to the perfect symetry. I was thinking unknown astrological(dark matter/energy flux, some new cosmic energy that we drifted into) event. I was keeping an open mind because I knew the official story was crap. That rocket would have to have rotated 90deg to it's flight path almost instantly in order to provide that kind of symetry.

I don't think so..Homie don't play that!

This is ridiculous. The serious stretch of the imagination you're asking everyone to take, when there is a plausible, sensible, obvious explanation - a spinning missile venting fuel from the side, and exhaust from the back. Rocket exhaust can be blue, which would explain the blue trail, and the same fuel when unburned is white, which would explain the spiral. It looked illuminated because the rocket was at such a high altitude that it was still being hit by the sun's rays when it was venting. This is all rather obvious especially when you look at the photos, and you can see the blue exhaust leads down to the horizon, where it becomes white in the more direct sunlight, and appears exactly, 100% like rocket exhaust.

So until you can explain away how it isn't a rocket, when all physics says that it is, no one should have any reason to think it's anything more exotic. I know it's fun thinking you're getting one over on world players, but unless you've got evidence (hint: circumstantial evidence is not real evidence), you're just going to look amateurish, and foolish to boot.

Critical thinking is your best friend. Why do you detest it so much?

Originally posted by Majestic RNA
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Yeah that is the big question 'why cover it' one thing I was also wondering, do these experiments draw from the power grid or do they have their own power generators? Because the thing is, if say they were drawing 500MW (I know you were talking hypothetically) that would be a massive drain on the local grid, I work at a power station we have four boilers/turbines they only produce 500MW each, 500MW is a massive amount of power drain from any grid, was there any reports of a power drainage at the time? That may be an angle to look into..

Excellent point !

Unfortunately I haven't as yet located any info on how EISCAT obtains/generates it's power requirements but I have found the following power generator image relating to HAARP ... I wouldn't imagine that their power requirements would be all that different.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9401bf6970a.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by davesidious

So until you can explain away how it isn't a rocket ...

Sorry ... but I don't have to explain away your theory at all ... the onus is on you to provide reasonable supporting evidence to back your claims up with ... just as I have tried to do in this thread with my theory.

So far you're giving us nothing except your own personal theory/opinion. When are you going to stop talking and start walking ?
We're all waiting with baited breath for your disclosures ...

reply to post by tauristercus


Aha! Look at your Nature study... I quote the untampered fulltext... Alaska's HAARP!!!!!

The experiment was conducted on 10 March 2004, between approx6–7 ut, using the 960-kW transmitter array at the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facility near Gakona, Alaska (62.4° N, 145.15° W). The HAARP transmitter was run in a 15-s cycle alternating between 7.5 s of full power and 7.5 s off.

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Aha! Look at your Nature study... I quote the untampered fulltext... Alaska's HAARP!!!!!

The experiment was conducted on 10 March 2004, between approx6–7 ut, using the 960-kW transmitter array at the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facility near Gakona, Alaska (62.4° N, 145.15° W). The HAARP transmitter was run in a 15-s cycle alternating between 7.5 s of full power and 7.5 s off.

From your post, I'm assuming that you're inferring that I "tampered" or manipulated the Nature example to hide the fact that it was a HAARP based article.
This is patently untrue as you would have realized if you had read my opening post in full ... especially the part, and I quote:

Seems like EISCAT (and other facilities around the world are very heavily involved in the creation and manipulation of high altitude artificial plasma - created by heating regions of the atmosphere with focused, beamed energy, then manipulating the resultant plasma with high-intensity radio waves.

The Nature extract was to highlight the fact that technology was available whereby directing certain radio frequencies into an atmospheric plasma resulted in the artificial generation of light which was bright enough to be visible ... this has a direct bearing on the light display above Norway.

I would appreciate it if you did NOT attempt to quote me out of context and attempt to make me look like a fraudster.

Edit

Originally posted by tauristercus
Because MSM said it was a failed missile launch, then that obviously MUST be the correct explanation and consequently, case closed.

/Edit

Why, in your OP, do you assume that those who believe it was a rocket failure, only believe so because the MSM said so?

I didn't bother to watch a single news report on this specific event. I did my own research without a hint of biased MSM coverage. However, you've shown to be a bit "one-sided" on your argument regarding this case not only here, but on other threads, so I won't bother telling you what I've learned from my research. I'll only suggest that you do a lot more.

Honestly, you're great at providing facts. But you're even better at leaving them out.


Cheers,
Strype

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Strype]

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Strype]

reply to post by Strype

Why, in your OP, do you assume that those who believe it was a rocket failure, only believe so because the MSM said so?

Primarily because I've yet to have a single "failed missile" proponent offer up a single shred of even circumstantial evidence to support the "it was caused by a missile" hypothesis. Has a single person yet managed to even come close to linking the Russian Bulava missile with the Norway event ? Have they explained any course deviation ? Have they explained the mode of failure ? Have they explained the lack of self-destruct ? Have they explained the lack of missile remnants ? Have they explained what material the spirals were composed off ? Have they supplied the physical dimensions of the spiral structure ? Have they explained the method by which the spiral eventually terminated ? Have they explained the spiral properties of the green/blue ray ?
Have they .... stuff it, I'm tired of typing

May be this could help.
See the page here: wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil... for a view of the animations as described, that most certainly mimic the Norway event.

Originally posted by tauristercus
Has a single person yet managed to even come close to linking the Russian Bulava missile with the Norway event ? Have they explained any course deviation ? Have they explained the mode of failure ? Have they explained the lack of self-destruct ? Have they explained the lack of missile remnants ? Have they explained what material the spirals were composed off ? Have they supplied the physical dimensions of the spiral structure ? Have they explained the method by which the spiral eventually terminated ? Have they explained the spiral properties of the green/blue ray ?

Have the Russian Military ANY reason to give you ANY of those specific details? Does the Russian Military even care if you assume it wasn't a rocket? Did EISCAT even have to claim that they weren't capable of producing ANYTHING visible to the naked eye with ANY of their experiments?


No.

Unexplainable double post. I apologize. Was probably EISCAT.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Strype]

reply to post by Imagir

I agree it's certainly very suggestive and food for thought ... just too bad the the missile proponents can't come up with similar to help bolster their claims.

Originally posted by Strype
I did my own research without a hint of biased MSM coverage. However, you've shown to be a bit "one-sided" on your argument regarding this case not only here, but on other threads, so I won't bother telling you what I've learned from my research.
Honestly, you're great at providing facts. But you're even better at leaving them out.

I sure would be interested to see your unbiased research. That is exactly what many people here need is to see some unbiased research and evidence that would show support for one side or the other without any bias. Would you mind presenting some of your own unbiased evidence that supports the rocket theory?

Originally posted by IronDogg

Originally posted by Strype
I did my own research without a hint of biased MSM coverage. However, you've shown to be a bit "one-sided" on your argument regarding this case not only here, but on other threads, so I won't bother telling you what I've learned from my research.
Honestly, you're great at providing facts. But you're even better at leaving them out.

I sure would be interested to see your unbiased research. That is exactly what many people here need is to see some unbiased research and evidence that would show support for one side or the other without any bias. Would you mind presenting some of your own unbiased evidence that supports the rocket theory?

I second that request ... if you could provide said "unbiased and reasonably conclusive evidence", then I would be more than happy to switch camps and admit I may have been in error.
Could you give an indication of how much time you would require in which to organize and present said research ? Thanks ....