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

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Daily Double..........DING,DING,DING,DING

Which U.S. Patent number describes within it's document the exact scenario that happened over Norway in recent news?

You have 30 sec's....good luck.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.....times up. Let's see what your question was?

"What is U.S. Patent 4,712,155?"

In this special jeopardy round you the reader get to decide the fate of this question...

Sorry for all the links, but if you want to understand what happened it might be good to read through it....pretty neat really.

or it was a rocket....yeah red rocket....

Peace

Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11

Actually I did a google search on artificial electron cyclotron heating, and I found information on a number of fronts. I will post the articles and wiki article for everyone to read, but to make a long story short throughout this article and other it didn't explain what this process was for. After digging around and after you read the articles I found out in an Airforce pdf document called WEATHER AS A FORCE MULTIPLIER:OWNING THE WEATHER IN 2025. That it is a tool that was going to be used to control space and essentially land weather. As I said before thank you for posting this so I could do some research, because not only do I find out what they are doing (I thought it may be for power transmission like Teslas wireless transmission of power, but it wasn't since we already know how to do that with microwaves) but in the WIKI document it shows where the installations are. The Americas have two in Alaska HAARP is one and one at Eracibo in Puerto Rico. Europe has one (guess where) called European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association that pumps 1 Gigawatt worth of power into the Ionosphere near Tromso in Norway. And Russia has one in Vasilsursk near Nizhniy Novgorod. These Places are Ionosphere Heating Facilities.

I think that you and me and others have effectively knocked a hole in the cover story that was thrown out by Europe, Russia and the US. Why would they lie about this, because of one fact. And that is it's possible to control the weather by doing this. Can you imagine if they came out and said that they are controlling the weather and space weather around the planet (to disrupt communication and such). People and other nations would want to know how to do it and other places will wonder if this was used against them. Thats the whole problem with a conspiracy of silence or misdirection, when you lie its the lie that catches you. THANK YOU THE INTERNET. Imagine trying to find this information going to libraries and using card catalogs.

en.wikipedia.org...

csat.au.af.mil...

www.springerlink.com...

arizona.indymedia.org...

www.sciencedirect.com... 147828882&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=74ea54c94d2d047c017dd5505ea1f189

(the one above you have to pay for the information)

PS. The HAARP facility pumps out 3.4 Gigawatts worth of power to heat the Ionosphere, three times more than the other places. I guess the more power you pump into that part of the atmosphere, the better it works.

I guess the more power you pump into that part of the atmosphere, the better it works.

This is true but is also depends on location. Location factors greatly into how the solar wind and earths magnetosphere particles react (ion density) , thus the reason why the aurora is usually a northern phenomena.


Also i'm not sure about the power. One paper I referenced by one of the lead haarp guys is from 2005 and he said the Russian and Tromso's heaters were 4 times more powerful than haarp.

It went on to say they would need about 30 million dollars to upgrade haarp to "compete" and really surpass the Russians, maybe they have done so since 2005?

[edit on 28-12-2009 by wtfhuh]

Also Why reference an outdated paper ( 1987!) when a lot of the relevant 2009 Tromso EISCAT papers are on the web from a meeting they had in MAY.

e7.eiscat.se...


They are all in PDF format and explain very well what goes on there.

reply to post by hoghead cheese


Before you proclaim that you've tied it all in together, go back and read the disclaimer on the Owning the weather document.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

G'day letthereaderunderstand

There are plenty of patents out there for devices that have not been able to be made to function successfully, if indeed the devices in question can be made at all.

I know about a patent in a technology area that crosses a "teensy weensy" bit into some areas of the sort of technology that appears to be refered to in your link.

Whilst there is a patent for the device to which I refer, there are only 1 or 2 companies in the world that might be able to make it. However it would take years & years & millions & millions of dollars to make a basic unit for a test, which certainly would not be guaranteed of being successful.

In reality, the patent to which you link may be for a device that in the end is almost impossible to make.

It's a "bit like that" in these areas.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

The patent seems interesting if I'm understanding it properly (I make no claim that I do understand it properly though. I know just enough about science to make myself look stupid- maybe not "where did your eyebrows go?" stupid, but definitely "wouldn't you want to know what you're talking about before you jump into something this deep?" stupid).

It is discussed primarily as a means of affecting high altitude winds in order to affect weather patterns, but I think I see some other possibilities as well. It sounds like this technology could also theoretically be used to interrupt signals at high altitude, with possible implications for space warfare, missile defense, and possibly interference with the operation of things like HAARP.

But one more time, this is way past armchair science. This is lawn chair and beer cooler science. Somebody will probably end up correcting at least part of what I've said here.

[edit on Mon 28 Dec 2009 by The Vagabond]

I see no proof in this patent regarding visual phenomena.

I have a few questions for the proponents of these HAARP-EISCAT folks. While using these technologies, symmetry would be involved yet there is no symmetry in the spiraling THING in the air. The spiral has TWO arms and they are in a V shape. On top of that, each arm of the V is of a different size. Like something was BROKEN and UNEVEN.

Also, explain how the plume by the sea is actually not in the line of site of the EISCAT facility. Wouldn't it be shooting THROUGH a mountain to access the area where the plume of smoke originated at what is also at a lower altitude.

Last, the entire line from the plume to the center of the spiral is in a large gentle arc (which resembles a rocket to me ).. why would it all be in an arc? that makes no sense if using electronic means..

b

i read alot of crap on this site, but this is an article that makes alot of sense to me. This looks like, and based of the proof provided by the people on this find that the norway spiral was an anti balistic missle test. keep in mind that a test like this will need to conducted against a balistic missle launched probably from the other side of the planet, since its not an anti cruise missle test (this would replicate a missle launched from russia at the US) and this is why the missles trail cannot be traced to a visible launch pad, a missle in order to be balistic has to exit then reenter the atmosphere. This would also explain why there was more then one spiral, since you need obviously more then one test. if it was a comet it would be random, how many times have you saw two comets follow the same path days apart from eachother?

its definitly not something silly like a blackhole like some people think, because if it was it would either go into the black hole from the front, or into it from behind. the blackness in these videos occurs between us and the object. think of an eclypse!

There is alot of relivance to being able to have a working anti balistic missle shield. The country that can maintain the ability to conduct a nuclear barrage and at the same time be able to totally reflect a total nuclear barrage will achieve global hegmony! all attacks on that power would be suicidal and it could attack at whim without consiquence, thus global dominance that will surpass even england. This is not a US gov conspiracy, its just a review of nuclear diplomacy, you can get it in any college class, but i only mention it to point out why i would guess this is definitly a anti balistic missle test, doubled with the evidence provided thanks to the egg heads (compliment) on this thread!


anyways good find! good research! have you ever considered a PH D with research like that?

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


the costs of such a project could be explained to. US anti balistic missle programs have been the single biggest tag item in our defense budget and we have had ABM programs as a big ticket item for at least 30 years. look it up!

reply to post by the_denv


You should read more carefully. The test was never denied.

The confusion whether it did or did not create the spiral comes from the fact that Russian's saw the whole thing from the wrong angle.

[edit on 28/12/2009 by DGFenrir]

reply to post by DGFenrir


I should read more carefully?

No Sir, you should read more carefully. Typical

You seem to "get it", they said they were going to do a test and admitted to it, but they DENIED (until later on in the day) that the missile over Tromso was theirs.

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.

[edit on 28/12/2009 by the_denv]

reply to post by the_denv


And where does the Russian military say: "We did not launch a missile" ?

The closest you are going to get to them denying anything is that they did not link the spiral and their test. Probably for the same reason I stated in the post above yours.

And the missile was not over Tromso. *facepalm*

[edit on 28/12/2009 by DGFenrir]

Originally posted by DGFenrir
reply to post by the_denv

 

And where does the Russian military say: "We did not launch a missile" ?

The closest you are going to get to them denying anything is that they did not link the spiral and their test. Probably for the same reason I stated in the post above yours.

And the missile was not over Tromso. *facepalm*

[edit on 28/12/2009 by DGFenrir]

Dude, the evidence is in many sites that they denied it, and in the original thread/s and this thread a few posts back I said I was generalizing when I said it was Norway or Tromso. It was in open water, I know that.

Why can't you understand that they denied it, then they owned up to it? It was a main part of the original thread, it was a reason there was so many posts.


Dailymail:

The mystery of the blue light display that lit up Norway's sky on Wednesday morning appeared to have been solved yesterday, after Russia admitted to a missile test in the area, having initially denied it.

There is lots of evidence.

[edit on 28/12/2009 by the_denv]

reply to post by the_denv


On what sites? Where exactly did they deny the test?? They just did not link the missile to the spiral and that's it.
You seem to interpret the did not link part in some newspaper story as denied the missile test.

That's not evidence. That's proof of lazy journalism.

Where is the source of that denial?

[edit on 28/12/2009 by DGFenrir]

Before you proclaim that you've tied it all in together, go back and read the disclaimer on the Owning the weather document.

I haven't tied anything together, but I know the difference between speculation, forecasting , future "idea" patents and actual work. Actual work is you know, like real....

I know people like a mix of fantasy but this link e7.eiscat.se...
provides more than enough information to understand what EISCAT is currently doing in 2009, that is if you take the time and read all the PDF's.

EISCAT is not a military installation but it works the same way as haarp, so the data is very insightful. Many of the researchers have even work at both facilities.

Here is the military executive summary from 1990 for haarp applications
www.wired.com...


My point is that I always see these far out links posted here when there is very new relevant data about HF heaters all over the web that discuss actual working applications, that is stuff they are literally doing right now, and a lot of it is very fringe science.

For me its far more interesting talking about what is working than some future casting papers.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by wtfhuh]

reply to post by the_denv


Not this again. Russia denied the failure of the Bulava missile because the whole missile has been a massive problem for Russia, both financially, militarily, and prestigiously. They wanted to limit the damage the failure would cause. They then realised it was pointless, as the internet spread images and video of the failure throughout the world, and the Russians recanted their position, admitting to the failure. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.

Every single analyst who has witnessed the event has said, categorically, that it either could be a missile, or that it definitely was a missile. There is no dissent amongst experts. The only dissent is from armchair paranoiacs on ATS.

I think the idea fits very well. In my opinion, it was a missile launch. the visual evidence is overwhelming. But since no missile launch in history looked like that, I think it's safe to say the there may have been a bit more to it than just that. What was Star Wars? Not the movie, the project Reagan was pushing. Could have been along the lines of this patent. One thing is for sure, it's a secret, so we will be led astray and kept in the dark as long as possible. Unless some research can provide the answers. Great job OP.

reply to post by DGFenrir


You are highly ignorant, can you not read? Can you not click on the links? Your smiley faces and immature insults are not welcome.

Seriously, what the hell is going on? Why are you and a few others not understanding what I am saying? Your misinterpreting me time and time again.

I know the Russians did a missile test, but they STILL denied it at the start, then admitted it. Lazy journalism? Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by the_denv

 

Not this again. Russia denied the failure of the Bulava missile because the whole missile has been a massive problem for Russia, both financially, militarily, and prestigiously. They wanted to limit the damage the failure would cause. They then realised it was pointless, as the internet spread images and video of the failure throughout the world, and the Russians recanted their position, admitting to the failure. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.

Every single analyst who has witnessed the event has said, categorically, that it either could be a missile, or that it definitely was a missile. There is no dissent amongst experts. The only dissent is from armchair paranoiacs on ATS.

Not what again?
I am agreeing it was a missile, why oh why (lol) am I constantly being misinterpreted?

Its getting irritating. We are agreeing it was a missile, all I am saying is that when it first happened the Russians denied it had anything to do with them. There are several links stating that they denied it at first, then admitted it.

Jezzz.

EDIT: Here is one link (once again):
Dailymail Source

The mystery of the blue light display that lit up Norway's sky on Wednesday morning appeared to have been solved yesterday, after Russia admitted to a missile test in the area, having initially denied it.

[edit on 28/12/2009 by the_denv]

reply to post by network dude


It's a new type of missile. We're going to see different types of failures we've not seen before. They fly at different altitudes, using different motors and different fuels, and are built differently. Yes, we've not seen a spiral just like this one before, but the physics of creating one aren't far-fetched at all. The missile explanation fits what we saw perfectly. So far there is no reason to think anything more exotic happened.

reply to post by the_denv


Excellent! I'm sorry for misrepresenting you, I really am. Russia's denial of the missile is a non-topic, as denials of failures (especially in ICBMs) are to be expected. They've since admitted it was one of their's, so I guess that cancels out.