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.
... 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
Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by tauristercus
Star and flag for you my friend ! Once again you've produced more damning evidence to disprove the silly FARRRT ! Or Fart for short (Failed Rubbish Russian Rocket Theory) That theory is called FART cos it stinks !
Originally posted by davesidious
EISCAT operates from near Tromso, where the photographs we've seen from there clearly show the exhaust (the blue/green smaller central spiral) extending over the horizon, in the direction of the White Sea.
If the facility is like HAARP, its equipment can point to 30 degrees from vertical, which is obviously a damn sight less than all the way over the horizon. There is no way equipment of the type EISCAT has (even seeding rockets) can create an effect at such a long distance.
We can also see from the stability of the spiral that it is outside the atmosphere. If it was a plasma created by EISCAT, as some have theorised, it would be moving a lot more than that. If it was anywhere near atmosphere, it would have been buffeted and broken up. That didn't happen.
So no, it's not EISCAT. It's a failed Russian missile, which we know they have a lot of. The missile in question, the RSM-56 Bulava, is notoriously flawed, is launched from the same place the spiral came from, at the same time, in the same direction, at the same height, carrying exactly what's needed to produce the effect.
It's no mystery.
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by ProRipp
It really doesn't matter any longer. Because all we're doing is going round and round in circles. Evidence of a failed russian rocket has been presented over and over again in all of these threads. I'm not sure what more can be presented.
edit
I'm done with this one I think.
Proud to be a FARRT
[edit on 21-12-2009 by PhotonEffect]
Originally posted by Imagir
Still not convinced? It gets better: the EISCAT ionospheric heating facility documented a major surge of power usage -- right as the apparition was happening.
The power surged up to the maximum level the EISCAT facility is capable of generating -- nearly a gigawatt.
Look at the bottom of the graph to confirm that it was indeed the morning of December 9th, 2009:
Originally posted by tauristercus
Originally posted by Imagir
Still not convinced? It gets better: the EISCAT ionospheric heating facility documented a major surge of power usage -- right as the apparition was happening.
The power surged up to the maximum level the EISCAT facility is capable of generating -- nearly a gigawatt.
Look at the bottom of the graph to confirm that it was indeed the morning of December 9th, 2009:
Extremely interesting ... could you provide the source please ?
Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by DGFenrir
Let them have their fun. They don't want the truth, they want to think that super-secretive world organisations are making massive blue spirals in the Norwegian skies to mess with people's minds. A mundane, perfectly normal explanation like a failed Russian missile simply doesn't float their boats, so they ignore it and keep digging. They don't want evidence, they want conspiracy.
Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Xenus
No, natural phenomena are not pre-destined to increase on frequency. I'd love you to show evidence of how something natural happening means it will keep happening with increased frequency. That'll be great. As for those petroglyphs, they show spirals, even if that. Given the complete lack of certain context of the spirals, to assume they must show spirals in the sky is terribly irrational, as you simply have no evidence to prove it, just a desire for it to be the truth. You must realise how illogical it is to jump to such conclusions, right? That there is no actual, real, evidence (the kind that is hard to come by, that takes actual scientists, not ATS readers, decades of their lives to prove, and not just some furious fist-bashing on keyboards for a few minutes) that supports your position. You mention some assumptions that are either entirely fictitious, or are clearly lacking in supporting material. Then you expect people to believe you. The nerve!
powerful.