It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:24 PM
Were there any power bumps, isolated brown outs during the sighting? the amount of current need to generate a magnetic field large enough to create the vortex would cause a substantial spike in the grid load. Any takers?

[edit on 27-12-2009 by lookingup4it]

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:37 PM
I think I'm back on the darn fence again about this issue. I do wonder, as some have stated, if this technology could ever produce a visual effect.

It may tie in with the EISCAT theory. They could have acquired the tech. that this patent covers and were testing it out in the area?

Some have said this is used for communication. This confuses me. What kind of communication? Why is it even necessary to communicate in this way?

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by lookingup4it

From David Wilcock's ebook page 2:


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:"

You will need to go to the link to view the actual graph as I don't know how to embed it.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by davesidious

As another poster stated, it would be very helpful if you could discuss why you believe the OP topic does not explain the spiral.

You obviously believe the rocket story. It's not a back and forth about whether it was a rocket or not. It's a discussion about how this technology might apply and possibly be an alternative explanation for the spiral.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:09 PM

But since the facility ramped up to 3.6 megawatts - roughly three times more than a typical broadcast radio transmitter - it has created full-scale artificial auroras that are visible to the naked eye.

But in February last year, HAARP managed to induce a strange bull's-eye pattern in the night sky. Instead of the expected fuzzy, doughnut-shaped blob, surprising irregular luminescent bands radiated out from the centre of the bull's-eye, according to Todd Pedersen, a research physicist at the US Air Force Research Laboratory in Massachusetts, who leads the team that ran the experiment at HAARP.


Unfortunately, it doesn't have a picture of the event.

edit to add: it says the bands were "irregular" but that was at 3.6 megawatts. What could happen if it amped up to almost 1 gigawatt?

[edit on 27-12-2009 by nunya13]

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by heffo7

The power surged up to the maximum level the EISCAT facility is capable of generating -- nearly a gigawatt.

are you sure it wasn't 1.1 jigawatts? you may be on to something....

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 06:57 PM
reply to post by heffo7

the times on the power surge and the times of the visual occurrence match up almost perfectly. what is with the power surge before the event? warm up period?

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:09 PM
reply to post by lookingup4it

You might want to check this thread out:

It will show you exactly what was activated on the day.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by Chadwickus

On second look of that graph you provided, there is no refrence scale. it could be 971 watts, amps, ohms, who knows. i cant find any document that points me in a direction that gives me any in sight.

on a related topic. why do you guys source other conspiratorial web sites? hardly any of sites i see re posted here could be used as legitimate sources in any published paper. lets stick to facts we can back up with "their" data. hold ATS to a higher standard please.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:39 PM
reply to post by lookingup4it


In all fairness..

hold ATS to a higher standard please.

I know Chadwickus to be one of the many to do exactly that.

Just my personal opinion, carry on!!


posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:49 PM
reply to post by lookingup4it

I'm wondering if you read the actual thread and not just look at the picture?

Although interesting, it's not the power that we're looking at, it is the activation of the heater, or more specifically the lack of activation of the heater at the time of the spiral.

Also, you will notice I have provided the original source of the image, which is from the EISCAT web page itself, not sure you can get much more legitimate than that?

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:53 PM
Wow! VERY interesting read!
Good job! S & F for you!

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:59 PM
reply to post by

i was making a broad statement, not trying to pin Chadwickus as being an unreliable source, i should have clarified. My bad

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:13 PM

Although interesting, it's not the power that we're looking at, it is the activation of the heater, or more specifically the lack of activation of the heater at the time of the spiral.

the atmosphere is "heated" by the HF. there is no on the ground resistive load heater. your confusing yourself. i dont know of any radio freq generation techniques that require a resistive load (electrical heater) other than the resistors in the radio itself. maybe heater refers to some input not required for this experiment.

now i have no way of knowing what kinda of technology is being used here other then the process the patent describes. however, i am pretty fluent in electrical theory. all i am trying to point out is that to emit a HF (high freq) signal the output of that signal is directly proportional to the current input. in other words signal strength depends on the amount of current being utilized. more current higher signal. with out electrical input, no signal is being cast.

the reaction of the atmosphere must be delayed in some respect and not under constant control of the "heater"

and i do favor pictures and graphs bad if i wasn't being clear with everyone. sorry

also last hours power, in white, is almost the same 24 hours previously. i stand by my previous comment on the graph, to many unknown variables to really decipher what is truly being represented. UHF band is white, as in blank. did they wipe that out? we dont know. not a totally reliable image.

[edit on 27-12-2009 by lookingup4it]

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:43 PM

"The Heating facility is situated next to the UHF and VHF incoherent scatter radars. See the list of publications that have come out of this facility since its construction in 1979.

The Heater is used for ionospheric modification experiments applying high-power transmissions of high-frequency electro-magnetic waves to study plasma parameters in the ionosphere. The name Heating stems from the fact that these high power electromagnetic waves, which are transmitted into the ionosphre with high-gain atennas, heat the electrons and thus modify the plasma state. To create plasma turbulence, the transmitted frequencies have to be close to the plasma resonances, which are 4 to 8 MHz. "

exactly what i was trying to say.....

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:51 PM

Originally posted by DGFenrir

Originally posted by the_denv
That is what the official story is, even at that - What interests Russia in flying test rockets over Norway?

OH MY GOD! Can we please stop this. The missile was not over Norway.
I apologize if this sounded rude.

And Russia never denied the rocket test.

I was just generalizing, if you check my original posts on numerous original "Norway Spiral" threads, you will see that I already knew it was in open water aimed towards Russia. The question remains, what interests does Russia have with testing a rocket that can host ten nukes ?

You said Russia never denied the rocket test? You could not be farther from the truth. Did you not read my post in the large Norway Spiral thread when it first happened?

Here is my post on December 10th:

It was claimed it was a UFO, then FOX News came out and said "DONT WORRY Russia's defense ministry refuses to confirm that the lights were caused by its Bulava missile, which can be equipped with up to 10 individually targeted nuclear warheads and has a maximum range of 5,000 miles.

Here is another example of Russia's denial:

He agreed with many other experts that the spiral pattern could have been caused by a missile from Russia — something the Russian military have strongly denied.

So, your have been proven wrong, please do your research before you pounce on someone and try to put them down.

[edit on 27/12/2009 by the_denv]

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by lookingup4it

The heater is still an array of antennas, it isn't part of the VHF or UHF antennas.

It would seem that it runs at HF, so either way, the chart shows that the HF (heater) array was not activated.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:19 PM
Things that make you go hmmmm

From the haarp wizard that seems to be the premiere expert ( well U.S that is) on producing visible artificial auroras using the heater, Todd Peterson USAF.

The Soviets, operating at higher powers than the West, now have claimed significant stimulated ionization by electron-impact ionization. The claim is that HF energy, via wave-particle interaction, accelerates ionospheric electrons to energies well in excess of 20 electron volts (eV) so that they will ionize neutral atmospheric particles with which they collide. Given that the Soviet HF facilities are several times more powerful than the Western facilities at comparable mid-latitudes, and given that the latter appear to be on a threshold of a new "wave-particle" regime of phenomena, it is believed that the Soviets have crossed that threshold and are exploring a regime of phenomena still unavailable for study or application in the West.

The Max Planck HF facility at Tromso, Norway, possesses power comparable to that of the Soviet high power heaters, yet has never produced airglow enhancements commonly produced by US HF facilities at lower HF power, but at lower latitudes. This is attributed to a present inadequate understanding of how to make the auroral latitude ionosphere sustain the conditions required to allow the particle acceleration process to dominate, conditions which are achieved in the (more stable) mid- latitude regions.

By neutral atmospheric particles he means particles well below the ionosphere, particles that make up our "regular" atmosphere will react to the high powered artificial ionization.

One thing thats important to note, Ive done a lot of research and I have not seen any VISUAL evidence from Tromso visible to the nakid eye.

A lot of problems with creating heater related airglow is location, the sky above has to have a good ion density to work with. It seems that its an area they are focusing on to improve since its somewhat new eureka style research that is getting a lot of interest.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by wtfhuh]

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:48 PM
If it did come from Russia, and from someone utilizing a patent for ionospheric heating, it may have been this:

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:15 AM
Someone email him and find out, if anyone knows he does.

the 2005 artificial haarp stuff

[edit on 28-12-2009 by wtfhuh]

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in