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: 5
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Xenus
 


All the actual evidence points to it being a failed Russian missile. All the circumstantial evidence and ass-delving points to it being whatever the fevered imagination of the person in question wanting it to be.

Russia admitted it launched a missile. What we saw was perfectly congruent with a failed missile test, from the exhaust plumes, to the spinning, to the illumination from the sun, to the exhaust plume reaching back down over the horizon.

I've read all of your 'evidence' and not found it to contain ANY actual evidence to the contrary, just people who clearly don't understand what EISCAT is trying to do, mixing that with a healthy dose of paranoia and absurd distrust of every rocket scientist and meteorologist ever interviewed about this phenomenon, a complete lack of knowledge of basic physics, and coming up with "ZOMG! EISCAT SUPER MEGA PLASMA WEAPON ANCIENT KNOWLEDGE!!!1111eleventy". So, to recap, come up with actual evidence, and we'll talk. Until then, the obvious and untouched explanation of a failed Russian missile stands. ICBM launch was warned. ICBM went up, ICBM failed (again), ICBM created spiral, ICBM fell to Earth. Case closed.




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Imagir
 


I've just realised that you may have in fact debunked the whole theory of EISCATS involvement with the spiral.

The image you provided shows that the heater was not activated at all around the time of the spiral.

Just for clarity, here's the chart again:



What we're seeing is that the VHF and UHF antennas were activated but the heater was not.

Nice work!



[edit on 27/12/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Xenus
 


All the actual evidence points to it being a failed Russian missile. All the circumstantial evidence and ass-delving points to it being whatever the fevered imagination of the person in question wanting it to be.

Russia admitted it launched a missile. What we saw was perfectly congruent with a failed missile test, from the exhaust plumes, to the spinning, to the illumination from the sun, to the exhaust plume reaching back down over the horizon.

I've read all of your 'evidence' and not found it to contain ANY actual evidence to the contrary, just people who clearly don't understand what EISCAT is trying to do, mixing that with a healthy dose of paranoia and absurd distrust of every rocket scientist and meteorologist ever interviewed about this phenomenon, a complete lack of knowledge of basic physics, and coming up with "ZOMG! EISCAT SUPER MEGA PLASMA WEAPON ANCIENT KNOWLEDGE!!!1111eleventy". So, to recap, come up with actual evidence, and we'll talk. Until then, the obvious and untouched explanation of a failed Russian missile stands. ICBM launch was warned. ICBM went up, ICBM failed (again), ICBM created spiral, ICBM fell to Earth. Case closed.


You and I both know that Russia only admitted to the tests of the missile, not that the missile was the cause. Just because you are stupid enough to only read headlines and not the articles which clearly state that it is all speculation and supposition and no real evidence. The only other "evidence" you have is some stupid 3D max studio "simulation" of a spiral.
Which proves nothing. If that's enough to make you believe it was a missile, you're clearly an idiot and too stupid to think. Meanwhile you have not even bothered to disprove anything found in Anthony L. Perrat's peer reviewed scientific paper and merely throw accusations and lies and claims around while expecting people to believe you. Belief is only required when there is no proof or evidence, that is not science, that is religion. I have proof, you do not.

(Snip). You offer no real evidence of your own and expect everyone else to disprove you first? You won't look at anyone else's evidence, you keep using weasel words and you keep using logical fallacies in your tantrums.

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Xenus]

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 27-12-2009 by asala]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xenus
 


Hah! Russia admitted a missile was to be launched from the White sea. Soon after the launch time, a plume of smoke was seen from the White sea, rising into space, above Norway. The smoke, when not against an illuminated sky, was a blue colour. The smoke then formed a spiral shape, and a second spiral started to form laterally. All of that is perfectly congruent with a failed ICBM launch. It's not up to me to teach you basic physics - if you feel you are up to the job of debunking the opinions of dozens of rocket scientists, astronomers, and meteorologists, then you clearly have that knowledge already, unless you are some sort of armchair know-it-all who assumes their brain contains the absolute entirety of human knowledge and who can not possibly be wrong. Either way, please show us how it can't be as every expert on the subject agrees, then we can talk. Until then you're not making any sense.

We have a plethora of theories, and only one has any evidence supporting it. That 3DS Max simulation is just that - a simulation. 3DS Max can, accurately model physics, as that is what it is frequently used to do. And so that simulation is far more than any supporter of any other theory has. Not to mention the reports of Russian warnings, etc., and the opinions of countless rocket scientists and other assorted experts. Anyone who understands basic Newtonian physics knows that a body ejecting matter laterally from a point not pointed directly at its centre of gravity will start to spin, and that matter will form a spiral. So there's a good first thing for you to disprove - Newton's third law.

You crack me up.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
How amusing that I "crack you up". I did not think you could get more cracked up. No one is disputing that a failed rocket will not spin sometimes, when the fuel leaks out juuuust at the right spot. The only FACTS here is that I don't need to believe #, because I know and thought people would want to know. Take it or leave it, your choice. FACT is you never looked at my evidence at all. Hence all your ignorant questions. FACT is you DON'T KNOW the cause. You BELIEVE it was a missile. Whereas I KNOW it was plasma. FACT is I have evidence and proof, which you simply don't understand because you're too stupid or too into your beliefs of it being a rocket.

The paper is here, part 2 is separate from this one, the link is on the right hand side. www.scribd.com...

Then I did an image search for spiral petroglyphs, and I saw all the spirals. This guy has found and GPS marked over 4 MILLION of these carvings worldwide, mostly in caves and around mountains.

A sample from the published paper.

The discovery that objects from the Neolithic or Early Bronze Age carry patterns associated with high-current Z-pinches provides a possible insight into the origin and meaning of these ancient symbols produced by man. This paper directly compares the graphical and radiation data from high-current Z-pinches to these patterns. The paper focuses primarily, but not exclusively, on petroglyphs. It is found that a great many archaic petroglyphs can be classified according to plasma stability and instability data. As the same morphological types are found worldwide, the comparisons suggest the occurrence of an intense aurora, as might be produced if the solar wind had increased between one and two orders of magnitude, millennia ago.

ON July 9, 1962, the United States detonated a 1.4-megaton
thermonuclear device in the atmosphere 400 km above
Johnston Island. The event produced a plasma whose initial
spherical shape striated within a few minutes as the plasma electrons and ions streamed along the Earth’s magnetic field to produce an artificial aurora.

Concomitant with the artificial aurora was a degradation of
radio communications over wide areas of the Pacific, lightning discharges, destruction of electronics in monitoring satellites, and an electromagnetic pulse that affected some power circuitry as far away as Hawaii.

*snip*
A discovery that the basic petroglyph morphologies are the
same as those recorded in extremely high-energy-density discharges has opened up a means to unravel the origin of these apparently crude, misdrawn, and jumbled figures found in uncounted numbers around the Earth.

Drawn in heteromac style (Fig. 12), these ancient patterns
could mimic and replicate high-energy phenomena that would be recorded on a nonerasable plasma display screen. Many petroglyphs, apparently recorded several millennia ago, have a plasma discharge or instability counterpart, some on a one-to-one or overlay basis. More striking is that the images recorded on rock are the only images found in extreme energy density experiments; no other morphology types or patterns are observed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 27-12-2009 by Xenus]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Xenus
 


It's not JUUUST at the right spot, but anywhere not directly along the line of travel. I take it you skipped physics at school, otherwise you wouldn't have posted such a ridiculous statement.

Spiral petroglyphs mean nothing. Spirals are common in nature. Stop reaching for conclusions without supporting evidence - it's making you look foolish and desperate. You see how the paper even says 'possible', as in they haven't proven anything yet, and yet you're leaping all over the paper like it's vindicating your entire hypothesis. And there is no evidence that the spiral was any kind of aurora, anyway. You're seeing all kinds of disparate notions and events, and trying to tie them together with nothing but your imagination, then getting upset when people start to laugh and point, because you're playing scientist while ignoring actual, real rocket scientists. You're like the rainbow conspiracy lady, only instead of pointing to a sprinkler and screaming "CONSPIRACY!" you're pointing to a failed missile attempt and screaming "PLASMA!".

It's hilarious. The lack of critical thinking you're employing is simply wonderful. Emphasis on simply.

You're right - I don't know it was a missile, but the missile explanation fits 100% with everything everyone saw of the event. Your ridiculous plasma idea doesn't fit with anything, has no evidence to back it up, and never could. And yet you believe it. That is irrational behaviour.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
You are insane, you keep going around in circles, I don't know if this is due to your mental illness or because you simply want to squirm your way around like a fish, unable to be caught. You are a very sick person, look how manipulative you are, you have no proof or real evidence so you play word games with people. You KNOW it was not a missile, all you have are your insane beliefs. Beliefs do not equal reality. You have no proof, all you provide is some flimsy explanation explaining it away, a belief. You place trust in someone else to explain it for you then you make yourself believe it. No real proof. Unlike what I provided, and what I provided is the more simpler evidence, if you cannot understand it, then too bad, it doesn't make it false. It makes you ignorant and stupid.

Not going to bother to even read your response unless it's in my petroglyph thread since we both know EISCAT can't produce sugh high energy events.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
You are insane, you keep going around in circles, I don't know if this is due to your mental illness or because you simply want to squirm your way around like a fish, unable to be caught. You are a very sick person, look how manipulative you are, you have no proof or real evidence so you play word games with people. You KNOW it was not a missile, all you have are your insane beliefs. Beliefs do not equal reality. You have no proof, all you provide is some flimsy explanation explaining it away, a belief. You place trust in someone else to explain it for you then you make yourself believe it. No real proof. Unlike what I provided, and what I provided is the more simpler evidence, if you cannot understand it, then too bad, it doesn't make it false. It makes you ignorant and stupid.

Not going to bother to even read your response unless it's in my petroglyph thread since we both know EISCAT can't produce such high energy events.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Xenus
 


Ha! Thanks for the sane rebuttal of my points. Very nicely done.

EISCAT's heater wasn't even working. Every single analyst asked about the event admitted it could have been, or definitely was, a failed Russian missile test. Russia admitted they tested a missile, and it failed. They even warned shipping before the launch. There is nothing seen in the phenomenon that could not be caused by a failed rocket launch.

And your petroglyphs prove nothing. You are reading into it without any rational reason to do so.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Xenus
 


Look here Xenus www.abovetopsecret.com...

note who the response is to !



[edit on 093131p://12America/Chicago28 by ProRipp]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ProRipp
 


Chuckle! Hahaha! Excellent! Look how flawed your reasoning is. The missile can't be over that mountain (it's not a firework), and it's not over the White Sea (it's not a mortar). It's an ICBM. It flies at thousands of miles an hour, into space and back. You're treating it like a firework you'd buy in a store. They are designed to travel thousands of miles, not fly straight up and fall down again.

Your knowledge of basic physics, and even what ICBMs are or do, is appalling. And yet you keep on posting, showing everyone just how little you know, stamping your foot expecting everyone throw away logic and reason and jump on your rickety, wobbly band wagon.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
The Norway spiral could be interpreted so many different ways that it really needs to be treated as a work of art.

The Occums razor types seem to latch on to the MSM explanation of a missile. A simple pinwheel style fireworks analogy resolves the issue for them.

The Wilcock thread includes the Norway spiral in a wider end game disclosure theory. A telephoto lens may have distorted the distance scale so that we are unsure how far away this spiral is. Simple trigonometric calculations based on the spiral being over 500 km's from the camera raises questions about velocity limitations of a vapor trail expansion.

I don't think high altitude shock wave analysis would explain this but I'm open to the possibility. The larger spiral expansion likely occurred too high for any acoustic wave propagation theory. A gravity wave phenomena takes much longer than a matter of hours. My pet conclusion was that this was some kind of electrostatic dispersion pattern associated with a circularly polarized beam. Similar in principle to Ion trapping.

The Norway spiral is almost the perfect case to see how UFO phenomena propagates through the public consciousness. We have a high visibility event with enough complexity to breed diverse opinion.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 



I know full well how icbm's work mate and if you think this thing originated from the white sea theres only one thing flawed round here ! Can you guess ?

PS. please post your thesis and convince me it was a failed missile ?
Respects


[edit on 023131p://12America/Chicago28 by ProRipp]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by davesidious
 



I know full well how icbm's work mate and if you think this thing originated from the white sea theres only one thing flawed round here ! Can you guess ?

PS. please post your thesis and convince me it was a failed missile ?
Respects


[edit on 023131p://12America/Chicago28 by ProRipp]
\

This guy doesn't provide evidence or proof. He only asks that you provide it. He is like a fish in your hands. Every time you ask for any real evidence or proof he falls back to the MSM explanations which explain nothing and only propose possible explanations. Anyone with a basic understand in plasma physics will know this was PLASMA. Anyone who has none will not. He claims all these physics that prove his belief in the MSM explanations, yet he offers no calculations, no real workings to show his conclusions. Because he knows he is wrong and simply can't admit it. He shows his ignorance of the plasma phenomena and tries to cover it up by trying to explain away this event.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Only curiosity..............

Could someone say which constellations and which planets were visible (above the horizon) to that latitude in the moment of the Spiral in Norway?

Which was the sky in that date on Norway?

Thanks!



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I missed this thread earlier, and just found it, but S&F anyway man, you really deserve it.

The images you show in the OP, and the other information, not only makes a strong case for a relation to the Norway spiral, but is just damned interesting to know. So now they are studying plasma spirals that mimic galaxy formations no matter what the size of the heated plasma.



Great work man. This makes me proud to be an ATS member.


Stuff you will never see on MSM.




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join