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: Additional evidence presented regarding EISCATS involvement

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by IronDogg
Would you mind presenting some of your own unbiased evidence that supports the rocket theory?


Yes, I actually would mind. There's been over four 100+ post threads on this topic and that original 400+ post thread will explain more than I would ever be willing. You appear to want factual information, so I highly suggest you read that entire thread as I did. It's long and boring, but every fact proving this event was a rocket is there. I'm sorry, I'm just not willing to scour over the entire crate of evidence and spoon feed it to you. It's not only easy to find, but most of it is already here on this website.

These posts do nothing to discredit the overwhelming evidence supporting a rocket, they simply attract the theorists who don't bother to look for it. It's depressing.


Cheers,
Strype


Edit: The OP has done an incredible amount of research on this topic, and by NO means do I not appreciate it. In fact, I respect it. I enjoy when the "obvious theory" is questioned, and people are able to have rational discussions regarding possibilities. What I don't respect is when those same people make blind assumptions, while remaining completely incapable of disproving the theories they're against. Then asking me to provide the evidence, again?

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Strype]




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strype

Originally posted by IronDogg
Would you mind presenting some of your own unbiased evidence that supports the rocket theory?


Yes, I actually would mind. There's been over four 100+ post threads on this topic and that original 400+ post thread will explain more than I would ever be willing. You appear to want factual information, so I highly suggest you read that entire thread as I did. It's long and boring, but every fact proving this event was a rocket is there. I'm sorry, I'm just not willing to scour over the entire crate of evidence and spoon feed it to you. It's not only easy to find, but most of it is already here on this website.

These posts do nothing to discredit the overwhelming evidence supporting a rocket, they simply attract the theorists who don't bother to look for it. It's depressing.


Cheers,
Strype

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Strype]


Ok, I can appreciate your stand and the fact that with so much available evidence supporting the missile hypothesis, that it would be very time consuming to have to reproduce it for those of us who remain unaware of it.

But ... would I be out of line if I was to ask you to just take a minute or so and present what is in YOUR opinion, the SINGLE most credible bit of evidence supporting the missile hypothesis ? Not ALL of the evidence ... just a SINGLE component ... it may be just sufficient for me (and others) to say "oh, my god ... yes, it WAS a missile after all".

Thanks



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


No evidence? The observed phenomenon fits exactly with a large ICBM failing during launch, when the missile is in the light of the sun when it failed, but the observers are not. That explanation doesn't require any leaps of faith, just a basic understanding of science. The simulation that's been posted here, that was made using nothing but Newton's laws of motion, describe exactly what we saw in the sky. I'm still waiting for your simulation.

You don't even have any evidence that EISCAT is anything other than it states it is, or how it could possibly cause what we saw.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Failed missile tests are not extraordinary, secret multinational energy weapon establishments and new scientific disciplines are extraordinary.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strype

Originally posted by IronDogg
Would you mind presenting some of your own unbiased evidence that supports the rocket theory?


Yes, I actually would mind. There's been over four 100+ post threads on this topic and that original 400+ post thread will explain more than I would ever be willing. You appear to want factual information, so I highly suggest you read that entire thread as I did. It's long and boring, but every fact proving this event was a rocket is there. I'm sorry, I'm just not willing to scour over the entire crate of evidence and spoon feed it to you. It's not only easy to find, but most of it is already here on this website.

These posts do nothing to discredit the overwhelming evidence supporting a rocket, they simply attract the theorists who don't bother to look for it. It's depressing.


Oh OK, I'm very sorry for totally misunderstanding your other message. I thought you had said:


Originally posted by StrypeI 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.


So that is why I had asked to see the "unbiased research" and "evidence" you had found separately from any msm coverage. My mistake for misunderstanding your statement...


So just to clarify, are you now suggesting that the "unbiased research" and "evidence" you have found yourself all came from the "long and boring" threads here on ATS? Or did you actually in fact find out unbiased evidence that did not come from a media source such as ATS?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
EMF spirals dont emit smoke, nor is there a smoke trail leading from miles away.

If its not a missile why is there a trail? If it was the EISCAT heater why is the spiral making smoke?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

But ... would I be out of line if I was to ask you to just take a minute or so and present what is in YOUR opinion, the SINGLE most credible bit of evidence supporting the missile hypothesis ? Not ALL of the evidence ... just a SINGLE component ... it may be just sufficient for me (and others) to say "oh, my god ... yes, it WAS a missile after all".

Thanks


Not at all tauristercus. Afterall, you've obviously put an extensive amount of time into your own research, along with making these threads. And please understand that it's incredibly appreciated, regardless of my opinion. It'd also be incredibly arrogant of me to deny your simple request. I'm just going to post this as a placeholder while I dig for some of the more relevant information relating this case to a rocket. Allow me to respect your more recent open-minded mentality regarding this subject while I'm here. If I take a bit upon editing this post, it's only because I now realize that you're willing to compare it with your own research, in high detail, in direct search of the actual truth. (Not that it wasn't your original intention!)


Cheers,
Strype

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Strype]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by IronDogg

So that is why I had asked to see the "unbiased research" and "evidence" you had found separately from any msm coverage. My mistake for misunderstanding your statement...



Obviously you have misunderstood my statement. I never stated where my research was applied. I simply stated that most of the facts (that I have researched) can easily be found here on ATS. Also, that I'm not willing to spoon feed them to you. All I'm saying is, if you don't understand how it could (most definitely) be a rocket, then you're missing out on some important information.




So just to clarify, are you now suggesting that the "unbiased research" and "evidence" you have found yourself all came from the "long and boring" threads here on ATS? Or did you actually in fact find out unbiased evidence that did not come from a media source such as ATS?


You and I both know that I was referring to FACTUAL information, regardless of the source. Composition, dynamics, physical properties, similarities in previous rockets, etc.. All of it has been discussed. And just as I've stated previously, if you're really interested in the facts of circumstance, you'll seek them out yourself.

Cheers,
Strype

Edited: Removed a hairy sentence.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Strype]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


No, I did not try this. I showed a portion of text not visible to visitors that provided info not present in the abstract.

I should have said that I/me did not tamper the fulltext in anyway, not you.

I was providing evidence to further your case. The Nature study in fact provides evidence you are looking for, that is, HAARP-like facilities can easily fake the spiral, making visible to the naked eye an illusion of exploding missile.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jjjtir
 


There's a difference between creating plasma above the antenna and creating a massive spiral not directly above the equipment, but miles away.

It makes more sense that the sun simply illuminated a rocket's ejecta. That doesn't require any new thinking or guesswork to the capabilities of an institution, and it doesn't require new laws of physics to explain them.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by jjjtir
 


There's a difference between creating plasma above the antenna and creating a massive spiral not directly above the equipment, but miles away.

It makes more sense that the sun simply illuminated a rocket's ejecta. That doesn't require any new thinking or guesswork to the capabilities of an institution, and it doesn't require new laws of physics to explain them.



I don’t want to get directly involved in an argument here, but I’d like to point out that your wrong in your assumption the EISCAT facility can’t produce it’s effects other than directly above it, and hear is the proof….

I found this data that says previous tests that have produced an airglow region positioned approximately 160-170 km to the north of Kiruna and 50 km to the west.. So it can produce its effects not only directly above but other places too….



The EISCAT Heating facility

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Majestic RNA]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Majestic RNA
 


You're right - thanks for pointing that out.

The noted phenomenon that wasn't directly above was producing airglow, though, not an actual spiral. The two won't look anything alike.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Yes airglow I know.... and I must say I'm on the fence here, I'm not the one saying it was the EISCAT facility causing this spiral, I'm just the curious type, I don't take what is put out in the news as 100% real or correct thus I tend to question things, sorry Ill but out now...carry on



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The pictures of the EISCAT light spirals shows 2 sources of light making a spiral. The video of the norway event only had one which is consistent with the bulava rocket. That rocket has 1 engine and 1 outlet for each of the 3 stages. One. Not two.

And still no answers on the smoke trails?

Exactly.

Anyone want to show me a single example in all of history that EMF in the atmosphere leaves smoke trails?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjjtir
reply to post by tauristercus
 


No, I did not try this. I showed a portion of text not visible to visitors that provided info not present in the abstract.

I should have said that I/me did not tamper the fulltext in anyway, not you.

I was providing evidence to further your case. The Nature study in fact provides evidence you are looking for, that is, HAARP-like facilities can easily fake the spiral, making visible to the naked eye an illusion of exploding missile.


In that case please accept my apologies ... I certainly did misinterpret your post for which I take full responsibility.

And thanks for the support



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
"Optical" does not necessarily mean "visible", it means that light (no matter how dim) was produced. Barely visible effects have been produced at HAARP when the 3.6 mW transmitter has been used but EISCAT is only capable of producing 1.2mW. I haven't found any reports of EISCAT producing naked eye phenomena.

The "spiral like forms" were observed in data from the DASI, a low light television camera used to study the aurora.

The computer determines the safe night-time recording intervals using sun and moon position prediction algorithms. The lens shutter and camera gain are also controlled by the computer. Video images are averaged digitally in time (typically 10 seconds) using real-time frame grabber and image processing hardware. The image is then transformed into a geographic grid of 67.6-72.6 North in steps of 0.1 degrees and 13.5-26.0 East in steps of 0.25 degrees at an altitude of 100 km. The resulting digital image is then saved to a high capacity magneto-optical disk for later analysis.

www.dcs.lancs.ac.uk...

It should also be noted that the "spiral like forms" were a distortion of the aurora, not an independent phenomenon.

It should be further noted that the spiral images in the OP are of galaxies, not anything produced by EISCAT.

It should still further be noted that there is no indication that the EISCAT heater was in use at the time the spiral was seen.

[edit on 12/18/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 12/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Majestic RNA
 




I don’t want to get directly involved in an argument here, but I’d like to point out that your wrong in your assumption the EISCAT facility can’t produce it’s effects other than directly above it, and hear is the proof….

I found this data that says previous tests that have produced an airglow region positioned approximately 160-170 km to the north of Kiruna and 50 km to the west.. So it can produce its effects not only directly above but other places too….


The EISCAT Heating facility


What an excellent find ... very well done !

Thats the sort of solid documented evidence that I was searching for yesterday when I created this thread.

After reading that report and seeing the images produced by their attempts to generate a plasma followed by subsequent HF radio wave excitation, how can anyone deny that an effect such as that seen over Norway on 9 December could NOT possibly be produced by the Tromso facility.
Also bear in mind that the attached study/experiment was conducted a decade ago and one can only guess at the advances that most certainly will have taken place since then in artificial atmospheric plasma generation and HF excitation.
The evidence certainly is mounting that such an effect as was observed was almost certainly deliberately produced.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Majestic RNA
 

The EISCAT antenna array is not located at Kiruna but 200 km north.

If you are referring to this image the heated region looks to be about 30 or 40 km from the transmitter.
www.irf.se...

The airglow observations were recorded with photometers, they were not naked eye observations. They were made at a radiated power level of 1.25mW, full power for EISCAT.


[edit on 12/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by watcher73
 



And still no answers on the smoke trails?


Admitedly, this has been an important point that needs to be addressed if we're to conclusively tie the Tromsol EISCAT installation directly to the Norway spiral event.
The obvious and clear sign of an exhaust trail pointed in the direction of the spiral certainly indicates that a launch took place ... but NOT necessarily the launch of the Bulava as the proponents of the "failed missile" launch would have us believe.

So we need to show that EISCAT (Tromso) could possibly have the facility/capability to launch even a small rocket. Such a capability would enable them to perform various high altitude monitoring tasks which otherwise might be difficult or impossible to do from the ground. Also, launch capability would also give them the ability to deploy material into the upper atmosphere from the rocket itself.

Finally, I was able to locate a hint that EISCAT (Tromso) does indeed have such a capability.
The article in question was:

Perturbations in EISCAT electron densities visualised by normalisation
Advances in Space Research, Volume 38, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 2413-2417
M. Friedrich, G. Egger, L.A. McKinnell, E. Belova


Even though I was not able to obtain the full article (need to pay for it), there was a small synopsis that thankfully had the circumstantial evidence required to make the EISCAT rocket launch capability stick.



... has beams that cover both the area of trajectories of sounding rockets launched from Esrange and EISCAT at Ramfjordmoen, near Tromsø, ...

www.sciencedirect.com... 141091759&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b48cdd4b4d72e9eca8980a91eed38829


Perturbations in EISCAT electron densities visualised by normalisation
Advances in Space Research, Volume 38, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 2413-2417
M. Friedrich, G. Egger, L.A. McKinnell, E. Belova



So finally, we've filled in another blank and now have yet another small link in the chain that ties the Norway spiral event to EISCAT and shows that the Bulava missile may not have been the only rocket in the skies at that time capable of generating a visible exhaust plume.
Also bear in mind the relatively short plume track which could be indicate that it was a small rocket launch such as the reference to a "sounding rocket" made in the article above.


One point that just came to mind ... there is NO evidence that conclusively proves that the exhaust trail was created BEFORE the spiral appeared ... it could have just as easily have occurred AFTER the creation of the spiral. If so, this could again indicate that EISCAT (Tromso) had advanced knowledge of the spirals creation and had a launch all prepared.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Phage, I am well aware of the location of the EISCAT facility, at no time did I claim it was located in Kiruna, If you re-read my post I stated the facility was capable to producing it’s effect in other locations other than directly above it, and that in the past it has been noted to produce it’s effects (not spiral effects.. just effects as in airglow, still effects yeah?) 160-170 km to the north of Kiruna and 50 km to the west, I didn’t say the facility was located in Kiruna.


[edit on 18-12-2009 by Majestic RNA]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Majestic RNA
 

The EISCAT antenna array is not located at Kiruna but 200 km north.

If you are referring to this image the heated region looks to be about 30 or 40 km from the transmitter.
www.irf.se...

The airglow observations were recorded with photometers, they were not naked eye observations. They were made at a radiated power level of 1.25mW, full power for EISCAT.


[edit on 12/18/2009 by Phage]


Phage ... I think you're being deliberately obtuse with your responses.

The point that I (and others) are making is not so much that we are saying that "yes, we know EXACTLY how and who was responsible for the spiral" ... instead we're building a case that shows that the technology to generate artificial atmospheric plasmas and to manipulate them with radio waves does exist and has existed for over a decade ... and furthermore, that it is NOT a huge stretch to envisage that the capability to generate something like the Norway spiral actually may exist. We're basing it on EXISTING and KNOWN technology ... and linking it to the fact that Tromso has an extremely (and possibly the most powerful) heating facility available.
So, coincidence that this unique event occurred within sight of Tromso ? I think not.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join