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.
Originally posted by IronDogg
Would you mind presenting some of your own unbiased evidence that supports the rocket theory?
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]
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.
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.
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
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
And still no answers on the smoke trails?
... 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
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]