Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Alex,..I'll take strange lights over Norway for $1000

page: 2
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


You have my highest respect.


Thank you for breaking it down. What you summerised corresponds to what i thought i was reading. Now i also understand what i am reading.

Peace and respect




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by tauristercus
 


You have my highest respect.


Thank you for breaking it down. What you summerised corresponds to what i thought i was reading. Now i also understand what i am reading.

Peace and respect


Just added further info to the bottom of my previous post ...just in case you missed it !t



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Cool, thanks!!!

I also saw the patent mention, besides communication, weather control. Wasn't Moscow recently very busy with controlling the weather over their capital to avoid the heavy snowfall?

Anyway....thanks again for explaining.

Peace



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   
From what I've understood ... essentially what we have here is a new form of communication that relies on using artificially created magnetic lines of force similar to the naturally occuring ones created by the Earth ... then generating a low altitude plasma ... adding electromagnetic energy to lift it to a higher altitude ... then modulating the plasma with a 2nd source of electromagnetic energy to produce modulated plasma waves that travel along the magnetic lines of force to a similar installation.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
It's going to be very interesting to see how the FAARTS discredit the clearly obvious similarities and links that this patent describes and what was observed over Norway.

The pro failed missile camp can only bury their collective heads in the sand for so long before it becomes obvious to even them that the Norway event could not possibly be due to a failed missile spewing fuel ... the damning evidence is mounting !



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


But what are exactly the advantages of this way of commuication? Would it not be a costly methods in regards to energy conservation?

And could the communication not only take place between two points along the same field line?

What i am saying is, could there be other reasons at play here than simply a new way of communication?

Peace



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

As for the rocket plume that was sited as clear example of a Russian Bulava missile and proof positive, well guess what ??

According to the patent:



... artificial particles can be added to the region which is excited by the electron cyclotron resonance in any manner such as from a rocket...


And so the exhaust trail has a reasonable explanation and does NOT necessarily mean it came from a Russian missile !

All the pieces are fitting snugly together ...


Wait wait wait!

Since this spiral incident you've been claiming it was something to do with EISCAT, now you're happy to say that because this patent uses a rocket that the pieces are fitting snugly together?

So which is it?



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Oh crap. Is this some previous thread pain i have no knowledge off?

I really hate when people continue discussions in new threads which some of us have no knowledge off.

I am gonna step out off this one real quick and let you deal with it amongst yourselfs.



Peace



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


No, nothing like that.

It's just that tauristercus has started two threads discussing how the spiral had nothing to do with a Russian rocket, or rocket at all.

Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !

Norway Spiral: Additional evidence presented regarding EISCATS involvement

I'm just confused is all.

Back on subject, one of the Inventors, Bernard Eastlund is the brain child of HAARP, so it's unsurprising that there are similarities here.

What we need to establish is if this invention went past the patent stage or not.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 



I'm just confused is all.


You and me both..


Thanks for explaining that Chad.


Unfortunatly my sort term memory is such that i forget who says what in which thread. That's why i always enter new threads like a freaking blank page. Be patient with me.....


Peace



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Further to the link with HAARP, I believe this patent along with two others:

"Method for Producing a Shell of Relativistic Particles at an Altitude Above the Earths Surface"
Bernard J. Eastlund inventor, US Patent Number: 5,038,664 Issue Date: 8/13/91,Assignee: APTI, Inc.

"Method and Apparatus For Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and/or
Magnetosphere" Bernard J. Eastlund inventor, US Patent Number: 4,686,605 Issue Date: 8/11/87
Assignee: APTI, Inc.


have in part, been utilized at the HAARP facility in Alaska.

Source

It is an interesting concept no doubt and the above website is quite interesting.

But the chance that this is related to the Norway spiral is pretty slim IMHO.


[edit on 27/12/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I guess with all these Norway spiral threads floating around and the countless posts pro and con regarding the failed missile theory, it's not surprising that confusion reigns supreme !

To clarify my stand, I've let it be known in no uncertain terms right from the start that in my opinion the failed missile scenario is sadly lacking in reasonable levels of proof and badly fails to explain any of the dynamics of the way the spiral could possibly have been produced. Simply spouting ad nauseum that it's OBVIOUS that it was a malfunctioning and venting 3rd stage is just not going to cut the cheese ... and many others besides myself have pointed out the many illogicalities and false premises that the pro missile camp are tenaciously clinging to with both jaws.

In one of my previous threads, I went to great trouble (more than any missile adherent has) to show using a mathematical basis why the missile hypothesis was in failure mode. Since then, others have used a similar mathematical framework to base their own conclusions that a missile is not the answer. But all these attempts fall on deaf ears in the pro missile camp.

In the process of my analysis, there was reasonable indication that not only was the spiral NOT necessarily occuring at a great height but indications were that it may have even occured at a relatively low altitude and in the vicinity of the EISCAT facility. This immediately raised the possibility of non-Russian involvement and furthermore the potential that there may have been some kind of exotic or unusual technology involved in the spiral creation ... something we were not aware of.

And knowing that EISCAT and HAARP were actively involved in atmospheric manipulation experimentation/technology, it was only natural to dig as deep as possible and try to come up with a methodology that would validate the non-missile hypothesis that I and others were promulgating ... thats why this patent is so important as it clearly identifies various processes that have a striking similarity to the Norway spiral and provides an alternative rational to that of a missile failure.
But most importantly, it provides a scientific underpinning that allows us to reasonably state that alternative technology could have been responsible and to examine a potential mode of creation and a reason explaining that creation.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Thanks for clearing that up.

What are your thoughts on the above website I linked to?



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Thanks for clearing that up.

What are your thoughts on the above website I linked to?


Based on that link, it's becoming apparent that Eastland is heavily involved in this amazing atmospheric technology that is clearly receiving a large amount of funding and attention. Also clear is that HAARP technology apparently utilizes a great deal of Eastlands research ... as can be seen by that image of the Earth and what can only be a representation of a magnetic field line.

As soon as I get some time tomorrow, I'm going to try and obtain a copy of his other patents and see if anything else of interest relating to the Norway spiral, shows up !



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Monts
 


The missile was in space, not in the sky, where there is no wind. The two colours are because of two different types of fuel, both being illuminated by the sun against a dark sky (in the pictures, if you follow the blue spiral down towards the horizon, it stops being a spiral and starts to be a plume of white smoke, when in front of the light sky).

Common sense, folks! Just because you don't think it's something doesn't make it the truth, especially when you're lacking some key pieces of information on the matter.

There is no missing evidence - Russia admitted to launching a rocket, it even warned shipping before. We then had photos of a white trail streaking up from the horizon (over the sea), up into space (where the white smokey nature of the trail was replaced by a steady, constant blue, unperturbed by the wind), where at just the point the Russians said there was a failure (start of stage 3), a white spiral appeared, consistent with two different types of fuel being burned (the blue from the launch motor, and the white from the failing stage 3 boost motor). Basic physics tells us that a spinning body, in a vacuum, spewing matter out not directly behind its centre of gravity will cause a perfect spiral. Every. Single. Time. But that's not enough for some folks. They demand proof of a very simple concept, and yet think that youtube videos and poorly-interpreted descriptions of scientific experiments is somehow far more evidential. It's sad. I thought we were here to deny ignorance, not sing it Christmas carols.

Apparently, the only way for it to not have been a Russian missile, is if we re-write all of Newtonian physics. This is getting silly.

The simplest explanation is often the case - a Russian missile makes perfect sense. It explains everything, unless you've already made up your mind, or are too busy playing Mulder and Scully getting a buzz off playing dress-up investigators finding out esoteric knowledge. Either way you're embracing ignorance.

Why does every single missile expert, and weather expert, around the world say it was a failed missile? A massive conspiracy? Without evidence? I know it's fun to think you're actually discovering some hidden truth, but unless you can prove it, you're peeing in the wind.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Doesnt anyone realize that a missle fired over a NATO country in itself by Russia is an act of war. Thats excluding the fact it went rogue. The contractor for these Isonosheric attennas happens to be the same. Why would all world goverments allow this. Everyone is missing the BIGGER picture.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I watched the video again of the incident in question, and need some help! I thought that once the center (whatever you want to believe it was) opened something came thru. Please find and watch the video and tell me I'm nuts!



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
ATS is a conspiracy site so with the EISCAT facility near the area of consideration near the arctic circle in Norway it is natural to speculate.

If you believe the EISCAT beam was modeled directly after the Tesla death beam, and that it was used by the Illuminati to control weather and assassinate Heath Ledger, then you are probably going to get some disagreement from other posters.

The science behind HAARP and EISCAT does entertain the possibility that positively charged ice crystals within clouds might be corralled using electrostatic force. The HAARP and EISCAT beams are circularly polarized and do spiral as they travel up through the atmospheric layers. Read up a little on how Ion traps use electrostatic force to align large charged particles.

There also is a clear correlation between hurricane activity and ionospheric heating from facilities like HAARP and EISCAT. I would be trolling if I did not conclude that an emergency maritime event such as a hurricane requires the optimized radio communications that a well charged ionosphere provides however.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
The communication between points along the artificial line thingamajig is something you hear about HAARP as well.
Actually, everything listed as a possible benefit of the technology is also a possible benefit of the HAARP , EISCAT facilities.

That being said, I think folks will come to find out that this technology never made it past the patent stage at all. Afterall, the money has been poured into HAARP and EISCAT.

Unless some are suggesting that these facilities are the super-duper-secret facilities and HAARP is just a front.


Anyhow, at this point, while this appears to be somewhat interesting, this is not nearly enough to sway me from the opinion that this event is precisely as it was described by the Russians, and the rest of the world apparently.

Afterall, the Russians warned they were going to be launching the missile, for god's sakes.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
OH MY #ING GOD.


CHEM TRAILS AND THIS

www.youtube.com...



If the spiral and the toxin have the same resonant frequency then people would die faster even if only small amounts of chemicals were administered.

[edit on 12/27/2009 by die_another_day]






top topics



 
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join