Alex,..I'll take strange lights over Norway for $1000, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 63 times

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 10:08 AM by AlwaysQuestion

Thanks OP and thanks tauristercus for some great information.

Regardless of whether this was or was not the cause of the Norway Spiral this is great information and highlights some of the known things that are being 'played' with - essentially there is some amazing yet possibly scary science going on.

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 10:18 AM by shauny

Question.

Could they be trying to FIX the earth ?
ie : the holes in the Ozone layer ?

All this is becoming like an episode of Stargate SG1

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 10:19 AM by davesidious

reply to post by JmpMastr

It wasn't over Norway, just visible from Norway, which an ICBM venting exhaust in space would be. You can see the photos from Tromso, which is very far north in Norway, show the missile to be far over the sea, which would place it over the Arctic ocean.

So no, there is no bigger picture, or at least not because of you assuming it was over Norway, when it clearly wasn't.

reply to post by Bordon81

No, EISCAT and HAARP are interested in the ionosphere, far above ice crystals. The Norway spiral was nowhere near EISCAT, but far out over the Arctic ocean.

reply to post by die_another_day

You are seeing common words in different baseless conspiracy theories, then leaping to massively incorrect conclusions. Chemtrails are completely bogus - there is no way to guarantee a single particle of a chemical will reach a targeted city by spraying it at such altitudes the believers on ATS would have you believe. Coupled that with that idiot on that video saying the non-lethal weapons are somehow stimulating previously-administered chemical compounds within the people? Rubbish.

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 10:22 AM by DGFenrir

reply to post by Monts

There is a speed limit to how fast an object can spin?
Obvilously you are gonna get color differences from two different things.
Jets don't fly in space.

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 10:22 AM by the_denv

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

Fantastic detective work mate

Great find on the patents. I have just finished reading the Patent: # 4712155 Method and Apparatus for Creating an Artificial Electron Cyclotron Heating Region of Plasma.

I tried to search for "APTI Inc" in Los Angels, the first Google result is "HAARP.

Then mentioning within patent # 4712155 of the following two things instantly struck a thought in my head:

1) Artificial Magnetic Lines
2) The field lines which intersect the Earth's surface near the poles have apexes which lie at the furthest points in the Earth's magnetosphere while those closest to the equator have apexes which reach only the lower portion of the magnetosphere. - Page 5 of Patent

Do you think that this is why the have metal compounds in the so-called ChemTrails? Magnetic properties?

The below quote is taken from Page 5:

The frequencies at which the electrons and ions rotate about the field line are called gyromagnetic frequencies or cyclotron frequencies because they are identical with the expression for the angular frequencies of gyration of particles in a cyclotron.

Also, don't forget this is manipulating protons and electrons.

This could possibly prove the L.H.C's purpose, to explore this technology of gyromagnetic and the cyclotrons.

I wonder if the emails our members sent to EISCAT where nothing but stonewall replies.

HAARP, EISCAT, APTI Inc, LHC and many more are to blame for the Norway Gyromagnetic Cyclotron (No need to call it a Spiral any more).

I found this ATS thread listing all of HAARP's "family tree" (associated companies):
HAARP's Family Tree (ATS Thread)

This is very interesting, great find OP!

S&F

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 10:28 AM by davesidious

reply to post by the_denv

Cool! Let's just jump to conclusions then wonder why people laugh at conspiracy theorists!

You have no evidence for it not being a Russian missile. None. Not a scratch. But yet you continue as if that absence of evidence is actual evidence of a conspiracy itself. It's pathetic. Don't you see how by using that ridiculous 'logic' you'll always end up with the conclusion that everything is a conspiracy?

You will learn nothing. Deny ignorance. Start with yourself.

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 10:49 AM by Eye of Horus

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

So is this one of those Reagan Era Star Wars projects that cost billions of US Tax payer dollars? And never worked? Or did it work, and some mad scientist type out there really built something like this? As what, and for what?
1. Offensive weapon system? Long range first strike system?
2. Defensive weapon systgem? Shooting down ICBM's, SRBM's, SLBM's, MRBM's? Dazzeling enemy spy satilites, or orbital launch platforms?
3. Deflector weapon to ward off incomming astroids?

Its dated 1987 on the patent. Makes you wonder.
Maybe PHAGE would know hes the big brain guy.

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 10:50 AM by RelentlessDespot

Found this website while poking around :

www.luxefaire.com...

Seems that this device is used for multiple purposes. It would seem that every purpose it is allegedly designed for would have been very usefull at the Copenhagen summit...

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 10:50 AM by the_denv

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by the_denv

Cool! Let's just jump to conclusions then wonder why people laugh at conspiracy theorists!

You have no evidence for it not being a Russian missile. None. Not a scratch. But yet you continue as if that absence of evidence is actual evidence of a conspiracy itself. It's pathetic. Don't you see how by using that ridiculous 'logic' you'll always end up with the conclusion that everything is a conspiracy?

You will learn nothing. Deny ignorance. Start with yourself.

Pull your horns in and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth.

If you bothered to read any of the original threads regarding the Norway Spiral, you would see that I said several times it was a rocket. My previous post within this thread was just hypothetical.

I hypothesized a "what if", a form of brain storming.

You will learn nothing. I am not ignorant, in fact it is one of my "dislikes" that you can see on my ATS profile.

Some people

EDIT: (My previous post)

Do you think that this is why the have metal compounds in the so-called ChemTrails? Magnetic properties?

EDIT2:

For those that are not ignorant, care to check out this PDF document from dtic.mil: (Speaks of Gyromagnetic Cyclotron technology and Ferrite devices)

Unclassified, 409596
Defense Documentation Center for Scientific and Technical Information.

The University of Michigan College of Engineering
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, Radiation Laboratory, A Study of Plasma Applications in Microwave Circuits by A. OLTE and E. K. MILLER
January 1963 0409596. (Source PDF)

[edit on 27/12/2009 by the_denv]

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 10:55 AM by Deny Arrogance

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by the_denv

Cool! Let's just jump to conclusions then wonder why people laugh at conspiracy theorists!

You have no evidence for it not being a Russian missile.

You will learn nothing. Deny ignorance. Start with yourself.

Wow. A nice healthy dose of irony this morning.

The argument from ignorance,[1] also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"[1][2]), argument by lack of imagination[citation needed], or negative evidence,[1] is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 11:04 AM by dune_mister

Click here for more information.

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 11:41 AM by Evisscerator

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

I think you've had way to much egg nog.

The "spiral" effect in the drawing, for those who know anything at all about ballistic missiles, shows the spin of the warhead, not a "spiral" that one might have imagined over Norway.

Doh!

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 11:53 AM by Realtruth

Now this theory makes much more sense than a botched missile.

That patent info was excellent, detailed and gave me chills at one point.

This is a Tesla spin-off project, it even gives reference to Mr. Tesla and a Tesla article.

Now for the kicker, even Nicola Tesla had zero explanations for many things that occurred with his technology's. Tesla was a person that acknowledged metaphysics.

Many of Telsa's works, patent's and designs disappeared or were confiscated, so the majority of the worlds will never know the full extent of his research.

Great find to the OP!

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 11:55 AM by dodadoom

What is....
a missle and it was hit by a star wars weapon during a test, Alex?

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 11:59 AM by DGFenrir

Doesn't RCP mean that a wave moving away from the viewer is rotating clockwise? In the videos of the Norway spiral the spiral is counter-clockwise.

And shoudn't we see (if visible) helical movement not spiral?

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 12:07 PM by Dagar

I find it quite telling that one or two people in this thread are completely ignoring the subject and information provided by those kind enough to have done all that research.

Instead they come in, holding a metaphorical bullhorn, and screaming at everyone ' It was a missile, and anyone who thinks different is a dummy!!'

How about addressing the information and proposals in the thread?... instead of doing an impression of a five year old delinquent, running around with their fingers in their ear, and screaming,'Nah, Nah nah nah nah, don't want to hear it, it was a missile!'

If this explanation for the Norway spiral doesn't quite measure up to the missile explanation, I'd like to hear WHY... If it fails to explain all the known events better than the missile theory, WHY?

'Nah, Nah nah nah nah, don't want to hear it, it was a missile!' doesn't really cut it.

@ the OP and the others who put in the effort to research this... Well done !

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 12:24 PM by Bordon81

One thing that would help is knowing the focal length of the lens that took the pictures. In order to view remnants from a missile launch above that mountain from the White sea 900 kms away you would need a very long lens to keep the mountain in that scale.

Knowing that a really long lens was used would raise the altitude of the event considerably. The wider part of the spiral would be above any ice crystals from cirrus clouds. We have seen the way mushroom clouds from nuclear blasts suddenly spread out when they reach higher altitudes with lower atmospheric pressures but this looks more like ionospheric painting.

I truly believe the photographer meant for the viewers to make a connection between the nearby EISCAT facility and the missile launch, even though the EISCAT heater was supposedly turned off. The spiral polarization of the beam could electrostaticaly corral propellant particles in a high altitude scenario like this.

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 12:32 PM by tripdz

HOLY S***!! Are you serious! it mentions weather modifications and effecting the ionosphere. But Im assuming it does more than that? I read from some posts on here that it could be a type shield too? I knew had something to do with the ionosphere but besides that is thing going to be a threat to us at all? Are we clear that this thing has nothing to do with affecting our brain waves?

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 12:54 PM by davesidious

reply to post by Dagar

I find it quite telling that some people ignore the fact that Russia warned shipping of a missile launch before the phenomenon, and that the phenomenon looks exactly like a missile losing control outside of the atmosphere. I'm all for alternative theories, but first the theory that makes the most sense has to be demonstrated to be false. So far that hasn't happened. All this talk of EISCAT and HAARP is all well and good once the missile theory has been debunked. So far, all the evidence points to the missile theory. The admissions from Russia, the warnings, the Bulava test schedule, the Bulava's history of failures, past failures that have formed admittedly less-perfect spirals, basic Newtonian physics, the opinion of every single rocket scientist, astronomer, and meteorologist out there. They all point to it being a failed ICBM. What does the EISCAT/HAARP theory have backing it up? Nothing. Conjecture, ignorant opinion, and more conjecture.

If someone can point out how all the established experts on such high-altitude phenomena can be wrong, and some people on ATS without such advanced educations and access to resources are right, then we can talk about alternate theories. Until then, however, suck it up. Science is hard. That's why it's science, and not make-believe.

reply posted on 27-12-2009 @ 01:06 PM by JayinAR

reply to post by Dagar

You realize though that all of these things that people are saying about this technology are the exact same things that are supposedly capable of the HAARP and EISCAT facilities?
And in fact, that this tech was patented by the same dude who is *responsible* for HAARP?

I don't see the point of having the same exact discussion again, do you?

By now, people have their minds made up.
I came in without discrediting this "find" because as I said, this will just digress into the exact same discussion.

I also said that I subscribe to the official story on this one. Color me crazy I suppose.
I also said that I don't think anyone will ever discover that this technology ever made it past the patent stage of development.
Afterall, the money was poured into HAARP and it does the same thing, just at higher altitudes.
Which, if they ever are able to develop HAARP into a shield, it will be more effective, being at a higher altitude.