Norway Spiral: Additional evidence presented regarding EISCATS involvement

reply to post by tauristercus

I do not appreciate being called obtuse, intentionally so or otherwise. That is considered an ad hominem attack.

The spiral is described (and seen to be) quite bright. The effects produced by EISCAT are very dim. I have seen no evidence that anything has been produced at EISCAT which has been visible to the naked eye. HAARP has produced barely visible airglow effects by using its full potential of 3.6 mW, three times the power output of EISCAT (1.2mW).

The spiral moved across the sky. There is no evidence that any heater is capable of causing such an effect. In fact the effect does not appear until the heater has been applied to a single region for a period of time.

I do not know how much EISCAT can tilt its beam but HAARP can do 30º from vertical. Let's use that. The airglow effects talked from EISCAT occur at a height of about 250km. Even if the beam were aimed directly away from Tromso and even if the effect were visible, it would be very high in the sky, about 58º above the horizon. Even if it occurred as low as 100km it would still have to be 54º above the horizon. The spiral is was closer to the horizon than that, maybe 30º at the most. In order to have been at that elevation its height would have been about 11km. Ionospheric heaters cannot operate that low in the atmosphere.

You have not presented any evidence based on the known capabilities of EISCAT (or HAARP) for that matter. You have presented speculations about supposed capabilities.

But there is too, the evidence that the EISCAT heater was not in use at the time of the event.
www.eiscat.se...

reply to post by tauristercus


You haven't even tied the EISCAT transmitter to the event in any way at all yet, let alone conclusively! The holes in your argument are larger than the spiral itself.

It was a failed missile test.

reply to post by tauristercus


Crikey this is getting ridiculous now. You are completely misunderstanding the technology and abilities of the technology, and tying those poorly-understood concepts together, with a big dose of paranoia, and coming to your conclusion that a slightly-powerful heater can make a phenomenon that looks exactly like a missile failing. Don't say you're talking about known and existing technology, as you clearly don't have much of an idea about what the users of the technology are doing.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by davesidious]

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Crikey this is getting ridiculous now. You are completely misunderstanding the technology and abilities of the technology, and tying those poorly-understood concepts together, with a big dose of paranoia, and coming to your conclusion that a slightly-powerful heater can make a phenomenon that looks exactly like a missile failing. Don't say you're talking about known adn existing technology, as you clearly don't have much of an idea about what the users of the technology are doing.

This is what we needed, an expert in the technology and facilities to set everyone straight. Go ahead; enlighten them with your personal knowledge and experience.

reply to post by liveandletlive


I'm no expert on EISCAT and HAARP - that's my point. Neither are they. Phage knows a lot about this stuff, and he's saying it's foolish to believe they are possible causes for the phenomena. I'm saying we do know about rockets and basic Newtonian physics, which can explain every single thing we saw in the phenomenon. No one has been able to debunk this simple, ordinary explanation, but that hasn't stopped people from leaping to fantastic conclusions. That's the height of irrational behaviour.

It was a failed missile test. That's it. It explains everything - the two spirals, their seemingly perfect nature, the illumination, everything. There's no need to start making things up.

I think a rotated missile would produce a spiral, but the center of rotation would not be the missile itself.

reply to post by masterp


How else would the spiral form? The matter that the spiral consists of is from the missile, so the spiral must have the missile at the centre.

Originally posted by davesidious

I'm no expert on EISCAT and HAARP.

That's right ... you're definitely NO expert on EISCAT/HAARP ... neither is Phage ... and neither is myself.

Phage knows a lot about this stuff, and he's saying it's foolish to believe they are possible causes for the phenomena.

So because Phage has uttered a pronouncement, that's it, is it ? Mystery solved because HE says any other explanation is foolish ? How arrogant of him !
Sorry to have to tell you this but Phage doesn't know "a lot about this stuff" ... he simply uses Google to obtain information just as the rest of us do. Too many of you attach way too much importance to Phage's pronouncements ... he is by no stretch of the imagination an "expert" on any of the ATS topics he posts on ... simply someone with time on his hands to Google ...

The best we can do is scour the web looking for indicators as to whether certain technology can perform in a certain manner OR whether that technology has the POTENTIAL to behave in such a manner.
Obviously the people involved in that technology are NOT going to reveal the full capabilities or any advancements made in the last few years, and so we make educated assumptions, assessments and extrapolations based on what the technology HAS achieved and IS capable off.

I'm saying we do know about rockets and basic Newtonian physics, which can explain every single thing we saw in the phenomenon.

And this makes you an instant "expert" on the Bulava flight characteristics and performance ... or any missile system for that matter ? You give yourself way too much credit !

No one has been able to debunk this simple, ordinary explanation, but that hasn't stopped people from leaping to fantastic conclusions. That's the height of irrational behaviour.

As I have stated a few times now, people such as myself and now trigNspirals have gone to great lengths to try and put the entire spiral phenomenon into perspective using logical analysis on the available data and backing it up with mathematics. Now we may be far off the mark or we may be quite close, but both of us have presented reasonable mathematical deductions that in our opinions strongly suggest that a missile explanation is not tenable and highly unlikely to have been the root cause.

Fantastic conclusions ? irrational behaviour ? Hardly !!
It's called analysing the data and reaching a conclusion based on obtained results.

It was a failed missile test. That's it. It explains everything - the two spirals, their seemingly perfect nature, the illumination, everything. There's no need to start making things up.

So, on one side of the debate (not a missile), we have people prepared to go the extra distance to analyze the existing data and provide explanations for our conclusions ... whereas those on the other side such as yourself and Phage, come to a personal conclusion that it was a missile based on little more than "we know about rocket stuff and Newton" ... oh, and lets not forget Phage's pronouncements.

I offered up a challenge to Phage in another post yesterday in which I asked him to do a similar analysis from his point of view that it was a failed missile test. I asked him to use the existing data, as trigNspirals and myself have done, and do a reasonable analysis and provide a convincing explanation HOW the spirals are the direct result of a missile failure.

Instead of simply giving lip service and stating in your infinite wisdom "It was a failed missile test. That's it. It explains everything ...", put your "expertise" on the line and come up with a convincing analysis.

So, as I said to Phage, I'm now saying to you, Davesidious ....

"Are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is ... because talk most certainly is cheap !

Looking forward to a comparable analysis from your point of view explaining how the spiral IS the result of a failed missile.

reply to post by tauristercus


Here's a concise breakdown of what happened, with sources cited. The sources include astronomers, rocket scientists, Russian government spokespeople, and the like:

2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly

That is by far the most obvious explanation, and the one people have to make less leaps of faith to understand or believe. Until you can actually refute it, logic dictates you can't expect anyone to subscribe to your hypothesis, which so far is devoid of any real evidence, just some random ideas you and others have had, all neatly tied together with wishful thinking and a lack of understanding of Newtonian motion.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Here's a concise breakdown of what happened, with sources cited. The sources include astronomers, rocket scientists, Russian government spokespeople, and the like:

2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly

That is by far the most obvious explanation, and the one people have to make less leaps of faith to understand or believe. Until you can actually refute it, logic dictates you can't expect anyone to subscribe to your hypothesis, which so far is devoid of any real evidence, just some random ideas you and others have had, all neatly tied together with wishful thinking and a lack of understanding of Newtonian motion.

That's it ???? that's ALL you've got as supportive evidence of the event ?
Where's the ANALYSIS ?????
Let me repeat that special word for you a few more times .... perhaps it'll finally sink in.

ANALYSIS ... ANALYSIS .... ANALYSIS

Here's what you base your case on .... holy crap !!!!

Norwegian celebrity astronomer Knut Jørgen Røed Ødegaard commented that he first speculated that it was a fireball meteor, but rejected that possibility because the light lasted too long.

Thats it .. that's all he was reported as saying .. not much to go on, is it ?

Astrophysicists familiar with rocket launch behaviors suggested early that a launch failure was a likely explanation.

Yessir ... the evidence is staring us right in the face ... "suggested" and "likely" are certainly a rigorous analysis and explanation !

The Russian Ministry of Defence later reported that the spiral anomaly was caused by a test launch of a Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile from the RFS Dmitriy Donskoy, located in the White Sea, which had failed because of a malfunction of the missile's third stage ...

Exactly in WHAT manner did this fail ? How did the resultant spiral emerge from the physics of the failure ?

Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, suggested that the unusual light display occurred when the missile's third stage nozzle was damaged, causing the exhaust to come out sideways and sending the missile into a spin.

Errrrr ... the exhaust itself was damaged and thrusting sideways !!!!!!
Get real !!! The only controlled spinning resulting from this would be poor old Newton himself spinning in his grave !

You'll NEVER get a missile OR any other projectile maintaining a controlled attitude in flight with it's thrust being diverted in an uncontrolled manner away from the normal direction of flight i.e. sideways.


When are you going to stop spewing irrational and inconsistent arguments based on reports such as you just supplied ?

reply to post by tauristercus


Analysis? It's linked to death in the article. And the simulation I posted. That's enough for any rational person to see what happened.

Your analysis is just a bunch of gum-flapping, pointing fingers at EISCAT and HAARP, screaming and shrieking without any evidence at all.

Mashing your fists on a keyboard and calling it analysis doesn't make it so.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Analysis? It's linked to death in the article. And the simulation I posted. That's enough for any rational person to see what happened.

Your analysis is just a bunch of gum-flapping, pointing fingers at EISCAT and HAARP, screaming and shrieking without any evidence at all.

Mashing your fists on a keyboard and calling it analysis doesn't make it so.

I notice that YET AGAIN, you side stepped every point I made.
Ok, let me put it to you this way ...

"TELL ME AND EVERY OTHER READER OF THIS THREAD ... WAS THE MISSILE TRAVELING EAST, WEST OR ACTUALLY STATIONARY AT THE TIME OF SPIRAL CREATION ?"

Such a simple question to highlight your opinion of this important component of the event and to demonstrate your understanding of what was happening to the missile at that highly important moment of time ... or will you sidestep it once again ?


Anyway, lets be crystal clear on what you're really saying here ....

Everyone elses opinion based on an attempted analysis is meaningless and should be disregarded purely and simply because YOU are INCAPABLE of providing a similar analysis to support your particular claim.

The references to EISCAT are circumstantial but relevant.
The actual strength behind the "it's not a missile" excuse is that the dimensions and properties of the spiral are mathematically inconsistent with observations "if based on nothing but an escape of propellant".

reply to post by tauristercus


The references to EISCAT are pointless, as all EISCAT can do is slightly heat the ionosphere relatively above it, and even then the effects of that can't be seen by the naked eye. It's only on ATS that its abilities have been purported to be anything more, and that is completely without supporting evidence.

The missile, while failing, was indeed travelling (as you'll rarely find a missile just hanging out, not moving, while venting large amounts of fuel and exhaust). You can read an actual expert's explanation here. This thing is only a mystery to those who don't understand physics.

You have to debunk how it's not a missile before we can even start to talk about more bizarre explanations. That's how science works.

Originally posted by tauristercus

I notice that YET AGAIN, you side stepped every point I made.
Ok, let me put it to you this way ...

"TELL ME AND EVERY OTHER READER OF THIS THREAD ... WAS THE MISSILE TRAVELING EAST, WEST OR ACTUALLY STATIONARY AT THE TIME OF SPIRAL CREATION ?"

Such a simple question to highlight your opinion of this important component of the event and to demonstrate your understanding of what was happening to the missile at that highly important moment of time ... or will you sidestep it once again ?

Yep .... you managed to side-step the above simple question YET again.

I'm done arguing with you your posts contribute NOTHING and are a complete waste of space.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by masterp

 

How else would the spiral form? The matter that the spiral consists of is from the missile, so the spiral must have the missile at the centre.

Yes, the missile is at the center, but the missile does not rotate around its center, but around another point near it. What we saw in the video was rotating around its center.

reply to post by masterp


No, the missile was spinning. That's what happens when a pressurised body has a puncture not pointing at its centre of gravity.

Sit on an office swivel chair, get a fire extinguisher, hold it to one side of you, and set it off. You won't travel sideways, or backwards or forwards, in so much that you will start to rotate around your centre of gravity.

The only thing you can be sure of being correct is that it was a PLASMA event, HIGH DENSITY PLASMA. I don't think EISCAT has the power capability to put on a light show for that long and at such high energies... How do you know this wasn't natural? Just because there is a plasma research facility there doesn't mean it was responsible.

You're linking 2 similar things and saying they are related directly to each other with no way to prove it, so therefore if someone comes in and debunks your (and really, it's not yours, so many other people have suggested it) theory about the link of the PLASMA event and the PLASMA research facility, they would have debunked PLASMA as being responsible and therefore make people believe in the rocket bs again. At least this is how it works, for a lot of people.

And why would they LIE about it? If it really was the plasma facility, which has all this information on their site, why the hell would they need to LIE about it? It makes no sense. Unless it was accidental, there is no way they did that on purpose with a Ionosphere heating facility. They run those antennas and radars frequently, so why have we not seen such a spiral in the sky before? Unless it was an accident or it was natural.

Well I guess I should have read the last page before making that silly assumption about someone not having tried to "debunk" the high densitiy plasma connection.

Let's give this a go, see what this insane person has to say.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

The references to EISCAT are pointless, as all EISCAT can do is slightly heat the ionosphere relatively above it, and even then the effects of that can't be seen by the naked eye. It's only on ATS that its abilities have been purported to be anything more, and that is completely without supporting evidence.

The missile, while failing, was indeed travelling (as you'll rarely find a missile just hanging out, not moving, while venting large amounts of fuel and exhaust). You can read an actual expert's explanation here. This thing is only a mystery to those who don't understand physics.

You have to debunk how it's not a missile before we can even start to talk about more bizarre explanations. That's how science works.

Reference to EISCAT pointless, yes it is, but no the FACT that this was a high energy plasma phenomena. And these facilities can trigger minor and short aurora, nothing like the spiral seen.

This thing is only a mystery to those who don't understand PLASMA physics. Edited your comment to reflect more truth.

Your explanation of science may be one of the reasons why science is turning into religion so quickly. Science OBSERVES. FIRST STEP. ALWAYS. Then we look for explanations, if none is found to fit the observations then we create our own, using scientific methods. We, meaning anyone who actually has an shred of sanity, know this was no rocket. We, do not need to "debunk" your stupid LIE. The burden of proof is with you. There is nothing to BELIEVE, this is not a fairy tale.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Analysis? It's linked to death in the article. And the simulation I posted. That's enough for any rational person to see what happened.

Your analysis is just a bunch of gum-flapping, pointing fingers at EISCAT and HAARP, screaming and shrieking without any evidence at all.

Mashing your fists on a keyboard and calling it analysis doesn't make it so.

That "simulation" sent worldwide within a couple of hours of the breaking news of the spiral? That is no simulation, anyone can make that in 3DMAX studio, it's a 3D animation program. Not a super computer simulator. Plus, even if it was a proper simulation, it would be merely a "simulation" without any context or data. So, worthless. So this insane person seems to think "we" have to prove his LIE about a rocket when he KNOWS it's a LIE and cannot be done, before he would even consider anything else?

Sure sounds crazy to me. This person is clearly not interested in learning the real cause because it would cause their beliefs to be shaken, they will not see anything that they don't want to. So they stick to lies. Humanity is #ed.

reply to post by Xenus


1. EISCAT's plasma is invisible to the human eye.
2. Plasma doesn't leave a smoky trail all the way to, and past, the horizon.
3. Every single rocket scientist asked, and every single astronomer asked, all agree it was a failed Russian missile test. Everyone. You have to go to ATS to find dissent.

You have no reason to assume it was a plasma. The rocket was high in the atmosphere where it was still fully illuminated by the sun. You can see the light at the horizon indicating the proximity of the sun to the horizon.

Given all the evidence, it's foolish to think it's anything other than a failed missile test. Russia even said it was going to test a missile before we saw it, then they admitted to the failure afterwards.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Xenus

 

1. EISCAT's plasma is invisible to the human eye.
2. Plasma doesn't leave a smoky trail all the way to, and past, the horizon.
3. Every single rocket scientist asked, and every single astronomer asked, all agree it was a failed Russian missile test. Everyone. You have to go to ATS to find dissent.

You have no reason to assume it was a plasma. The rocket was high in the atmosphere where it was still fully illuminated by the sun. You can see the light at the horizon indicating the proximity of the sun to the horizon.

Given all the evidence, it's foolish to think it's anything other than a failed missile test. Russia even said it was going to test a missile before we saw it, then they admitted to the failure afterwards.

Heyyyyyyy, davesidious ....

What's the answer to this question ?


"TELL ME AND EVERY OTHER READER OF THIS THREAD ... WAS THE MISSILE TRAVELING EAST, WEST OR ACTUALLY STATIONARY AT THE TIME OF SPIRAL CREATION ?"