It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But last night Russia denied it had been been conducting missile tests in the area.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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?