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

page: 7
63
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
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.


Happy days Dave


Glad we are on the same page, I thought I was going insane lol.

[edit on 28/12/2009 by the_denv]




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by the_denv
 


You have provided links to various news media sites which mostly copy each others stories (lazy journalism). This often leads to incorrect stories.

Immature insults? Where?

I'm still waiting for a link to an official denial.


Originally posted by the_denv


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.



What is the source of that denial???

[edit on 28/12/2009 by DGFenrir]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   


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.


This is not true, in the original ATS 130+ page Norway spiral thread there are several links to missile failure spirals.

The failure of the Bulava missile is not exactly a secret, straight from the horses mouth DEC 24, 2009,
www.itar-tass.com...

The Dmitry Donskoi nuclear-powered submarine that launched the missile
www.itar-tass.com...

Norway spiral simulations-- remember its a 3 stage rocket
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

The Chinese spiral
www.youtube.com...

One of supposed reasons you are not hearing a lot about it is because the Bulava missile is fast becoming a multi billion dollar embarrassment
www.physorg.com...

It makes sense that they would not want to admit to such failure because not only has it been a money sink but more importantly sets back their military capabilities many years. ( thats bad).

I not saying this is true, I am still very skeptical of the missile, but that is the info they are using.

All official missile reports have actual come from news agency's, as you have said I cannot find a single reference to it on an actual government site.



[edit on 28-12-2009 by wtfhuh]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by DGFenrir
 


Well, the original news post that I read on the day of the incident was from Foxnews.com I now understand what you mean by lazy journalism. maybe this original news source (Fox) will help:

FoxNews.com (Source)


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.


It was a failure, they admitted that but as you can see from another news source R.D.M. denied it at first.

Another Dailymail source:


But last night Russia denied it had been been conducting missile tests in the area.





[edit on 28/12/2009 by the_denv]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by the_denv
 


Me too



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Lets laughs together, no one knew the answer

including yourself.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by wtfhuh
All official missile reports have actual come from news agency's, as you have said I cannot find a single reference to it on an actual government site.


That is entirely correct. All this denial and not linked info is coming from news agencies. I'm not saying that they are all incorrect. Most of them simply copy stories from others and often end up writing incorrect stories.
IIRC then the first story that had an official answer simply said that they did not link the spiral to their missile test. Russians saw the whole event from a different angle so I udnerstand why they didn't link the spiral to the missile, they did not see the spiral.

reply to post by the_denv
 


How can they deny something that they gave advanced notice for? Hint: Navtex.
To be more specific then by lazy journalism I meant that Dailymail probably misinterpreted Russa Today's story of the defence ministry not linking the two incidents.



I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone. I just want my questions answered.
I also asked some questions a few pages back but noone has answered them yet. Unless I get those questions answered I can't consider the current theory being plausible.

Peace.

[edit on 28/12/2009 by DGFenrir]

[edit on 28/12/2009 by DGFenrir]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Well I honestly think that a billion dollar military failure is not something they would want to come out and admit considering the importance of nuclear submarine missiles as part of strategic warfare.

I'm not saying its true its just a viable reason.

On a side not here are some really cool photos of an abandoned(1996) Russian nuclear sub base.
planetoddity.com...

[edit on 28-12-2009 by wtfhuh]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by wtfhuh
Well I honestly think that a billion dollar military failure is not something they would want to come out and admit considering the importance of nuclear submarine missiles as part of strategic warfare.

I'm not saying its true its just a viable reason.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by wtfhuh]


In the case of Bulava it's very viable.
Accodring to the rumours it's resistant to missile defence shields etc.
So I understand why they would deny this thing failing.
But I would still like to see an official denial of the test.
RT was one of the first on the case and they only got the defence ministry not to link the two incidents.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
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.



That is fine and all, but since we are on a conspiracy site, and this may be the most exciting single thing, conspiracy wise, that occurred in 2009, I think we owe it ourselves and everyone else to not be too quick to just accept that there is nothing to see here. Until there are a few more of the same thing and clear proof of it being nothing more than a real cool looking missile failure, the case in my book, remains open.

If we went around blindly agreeing that since someone who sounded official said it was nothing to worry about, this would be www.hgtv.com or some such site.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Actually if you'd read the hundreds of threads about the Norway spiral you'd know that the evil skeptics don't believe it to be a missile just because some official sounding guy told them so.


Could actually say something similar about some of those who support theories like the one proposed in with thread. They probably don't understand what patent is all about but they still agree with it because it supports a non-missile theory.
Conclusion is that they believe it because some conspiracious sounding dude told them.

[edit on 28/12/2009 by DGFenrir]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by DGFenrir
 


actually, if you look at the tone of some of the older posters here,(maybe not old in age, but been her a while) you will see that they don't latch on to a particular theory and claim it to be true or false, they just sift through the information and interject some ideas when they see fit. the world is not black and white, and we won't know the 100% truth about a lot of things for along time. A smart person would make no claims of superior knowledge one way or the other on this subject in my humble opinion. I still am not sure JFK was killed by only one guy.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Bspiracy
 


how come when people like myself ask questions PERTINENT to the thread, the people who should be answering instead go on with a silly discussion regarding who said/she said/he said..

Regardless if they changed their position or not, ANSWER MY VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS.
please... with sugar on top... AND a cherry


I replied to myself to link you to the questions that deserve answering.

b



[edit on 28-12-2009 by Bspiracy]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
As I wrote in another thread about this case, I believe it was a missile test.

It looked very similar to the several previous videos of spiraling rockets/missiles that were the subjects of previous threads.

I believe the visual differences can be accounted for via the poor contrast resolution in the poor quality videos of this event.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Hey guys just wanted to say thank you to everyone for posting and starting some good conversation. Sorry I hadn't been back here to comment. Wasn't available yesterday, but again just wanted to say thanks to everyone...On to read...

Peace



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   


how come when people like myself ask questions PERTINENT to the thread, the people who should be answering instead go on with a silly discussion regarding who said/she said/he said.



Its a simple reason and reaction you find a lot around here. Posters link just about anything and think thats reason enough to believe. You were correct in saying the patent has nothing to do with visual phenomena so you will not find anyone to back that patent up with relevant data.

People just don't do the research or bother to think about basic science and often jump to conclusions based on beliefs, such is life.

As the OP himself admits he just "came" across that link browsing the net. Did he fully read and understand the patent?
Did he create any credible link between the patent and the spiral or anything visual?(umm no).
Did he do any actual research into CURRENT visual HF effects? (unlikely).

I have done a fair amount of research on the other hand on VISUAL HF heaters.
What I had initially thought was just an ionospheric effect which they call "HF pumped airglow" is changing.

Initially they could produce visual effects only with the help of very dense ions typically found very high up (past 150km). This was done by a steady beam or pulse effect.

These study's are not carved in stone so they discover new stuff all the time. For instance Pulsing the HF at Haarp into an already present natural aurora has noticeable lasting effects when they expected temporary effects. They are now trying to figure out why, such is science.

With Regards to EISCAT, it seems to so far only produce artificial airglow ( fuzzy aurora) visible only to sensitive equipment. They have so far, from what I read, not been as successful as haarp or other HF sites because of location and the differences in Trosmo /Northern Norway's upper atmosphere. It complicated to explain this fully ( its a lot of science based on earths angles, solar wind, ion density, magnetosphere, etc, etc,) but they are trying to improve the calibration and techniques of EISCAT to get better visual results. I hate that to be my job it seems rather complex.

Now the interesting bit comes recently from the USAF with a hint that the Russians already know about this. Its the fact that you can now produce visual effects at much lower levels using a much stronger power source. This is very interesting!

Also it has been shown recently that HF heaters CAN produce symmetrical circular "shapes". As you'd expect they are trying to figure this out too, since it came as a nice surprise. There is an image of the HF "bullseye" in the documents I linked a few posts back. This is also very very interesting!

Note : this bulleye is NOT visible to the naked eye.

Read the PDF's I linked and you will learn a lot more about the real applications haarp/eiscat.



[edit on 28-12-2009 by wtfhuh]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 

I'm just curious how did you come across this patent in the first place?
You used google patent search? What are the keywords?

The patent seems very old. It may have something to do with Tesla's.


I just did a video on chemtrails over my house here in san diego. I was looking over the patents of HAARP and saw it.

You guys should look up HAARP patents....they explain a lot of mystery phenomena....very interesting stuff..

Peace



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by wtfhuh
Honestly that patent is old news.

What needs to be explained is how EISCAT or HAARP can produce VISUAL phenomena.
People keep pointing to this or that but there is NO proof that any of these facilities can,

A) Produce VISUAL effects under 200km ( ionosphere, aurora)
B) Produce VISUAL effects that are visible to human eyes
C) Produce VISUAL effects that have symmetry or some sort of patter/order

Iv'e done extensive research, until someone produces proof if a VISUAL effect that can be created by a heater facility I'll remain on the bench.


The same way the Aurora does naturally.....radiation (energized particles) and all of this is described in the patent....think "big" microwave oven.

Peace



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by lookingup4it
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]


What makes you think they generate the energy at the time of use at the same time they are releasing it? Could it not be stored in the same fashion that a camera charges it's flash?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   


hat makes you think they generate the energy at the time of use at the same time they are releasing it? Could it not be stored in the same fashion that a camera charges it's flash?


NO

This is really really off and underpins a very basic understanding on how these facilities or electronics in general work. Please read up on what HF heaters can actually do.





new topics
top topics
 
63
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join