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.


Proof EISCAT did not cause the Norway Spiral?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:03 AM
Yes I know, not another spiral thread but hear me out, this will be short and sweet.

We'll start with a quote from THIS thread:

Originally posted by tauristercus
Seems like EISCAT (and other facilities around the world are very heavily involved in the creation and manipulation of high altitude artificial plasma - created by heating regions of the atmosphere with focused, beamed energy, then manipulating the resultant plasma with high-intensity radio waves.

From an experiment conducted by EISCAT (Tromso) on 16 February, 1996

"Triggering of local substorm activation by powerful HF radio waves"

"It should be pointed out that a most remarkable optical phenomenon was observed during the two heating cycles 21:20 - 21:24 UT and 21:30 - 21:34 UT. A development of local spiral-like forms in the auroral arc near Tromso ..."

"Furthermore, the brightening and subsequent break-up of an auroral arc at 21:33:50 UT took place above Tromso.


Did the above description ring bells for anyone ? Seen anything similar lately ?

From an abstract dated 13 July, 2004 and involving numerous institutes including
EISCAT, Ramfjordmoen, N 9027, Norway

"Heater-induced phenomena in a coupled ionosphere–magnetosphere system"

"Other results have shown the modification of a natural auroral arc and local spiral-like formation. It is thought that a local heater-driven current system is formed."

The key word here is HEATING.

Here is a chart showing power consumption and activation of the facilities heater, UHF and VHF antennas:

Thanks to Imagir for providing this image.

Original can be found here:

What is of note here is that the VHF and UHF antennas were activated around the same time as the spiral but the heater was not.

Now at first I thought, ok maybe the two antennas could still be able to create this spiral so I went and re-read the above mentioned thread as well as the Tequilla sunrise thread and discovered that the whole crux of the theory is based on HEATING.

You can't heat something without the heater being turned on!

[edit on 27/12/09 by Chadwickus]

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:09 AM

hope this shuts up those loonies... but it won't...which is sad

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:31 AM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Good on ya', Chad.
Yeah, we discussed this quite a bit in the Tequila thread. But I don't think anyone actually went so far as to prove that the heaters weren't turned on.
We just assumed they weren't because they didn't ever report that they were turning them on.

Yeah, that should put the issue to bed. But it won't.
As you know, the focus will now be shifted to patented technology that produces similar effects, in theory, as the HAARP and EISCAT facilities.

You've seen the thread.

But anyhow, it will be the same arguments, just shifting the location of the source.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 12:29 PM
Same info here, with extra comments about possible meaning:

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Thanks for your work, but as others have said, this won't stop the loonies from ignoring the rational explanation. They'll say the data was faked to cover up the new heating experiment (probably something to do with Obama) or something else without any actual evidence backing it up.

You've kept a much clearer head than I through these colourful discussions, and I must thank you for that. I get rather upset when I see people acting with such flagrant disregard for logic and reason. It's a slap in the face for all of those who have suffered to bring us science.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 01:45 PM
What does it take to mark some threads HOAX around here seriously

. . . .

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Thanks for the information!

I have been saying that there should be evidence of operation if EISCAT was involved.

You will never convince some of those posting on this forum though.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:57 PM
Nice try but this was mentioned on one of the first threads about the event but everyone ignored it.

The believer has three choices now:
A) Deny, ignore the data.
B) Say that it is fake.
C) Accept the data.. but wait! That means he has to believe an official soure! So we are back to A.

Don't take any of the above personally.

[edit on 27/12/2009 by DGFenrir]

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 04:05 PM
Then what was it? I just can't believe it was a missile, it seems too much of a reach..
I'm not exactly a mathematician so I don't know what to believe but David Wilcock claims it's mathematically proven it couldn't have been a missile.. could anyone refute that information?

[edit on 27-12-2009 by TheLaughingGod]

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by TheLaughingGod

Yeah, sure - it requires no in-depth mathematical evaluation, just a brief understanding of how ICBMs work, where they work, and Newton's laws of motion.

ICBMs travel outside the atmosphere (with bits of time in the atmosphere at both ends, to launch and eventually strike their target). The Russians reported a problem with the third stage of the missile, which is started at about 150km high (the atmosphere ends at approximately 100km). That means the failure happened in space. If you look at the photos that show the horizon and the spiral, you can see that the blue central spiral travels down to the horizon, where it becomes white and whispy when back-lit by the sun. It's blue high up because it contains aluminium oxide, which is blue, and it's whispy down low because the wind and atmosphere are messing it up. The white spiral is the third stage motor (used to speed the warhead up to ridiculously high speeds to stop it being intercepted, and to ensure it penetrates far enough into its target to do maximum damage), Any body that throws out matter from any point on it not exactly behind it and not exactly pointing towards its centre of gravity, will start to rotate. That's why every missile or rocket you've ever seen vents its exhaust from directly beneath it, directly away from the direction of travel. A failure of the third stage that ended with the rocket doing anything but venting its exhaust directly beneath it would cause a spiral. And as the rocket was in space at this point, the spiral would be as perfect as possible. The glow we see in the exhaust plumes is due to the rocket being so high that it is still being illuminated by the sun, even though the ground is in darkness. Here's a video of what a fuel dump in space looks like. Please excuse the quality of the video:

You can see that the fuel does indeed glow. The spiral is so perfect because there is no wind or air to mess with it - only gravity slowly accelerating it towards the earth (where it would burn up in the atmosphere).

David Wilcock is a film maker. He is not a rocket scientist, or an astronomer, or a meteorologist (all people qualified to talk about what this phenomenon was). All rocket scientists, astronomers, and meteorologists who have been asked what the Norway phenomenon was all agree that it was a Russian ICBM failing in its third stage.

I implore you to not leap to conclusions about HAARP and EISCAT and David Wilcock being accurate. Listen to the experts - we trust them enough to cure diseases and to give us computers and the internet and so on. Surely we can trust them to tell us what a funny blue light in the sky is. Many folks on ATS will gladly turn to hypocrisy and ignore the rigour by which these people conduct their work, as soon as the rigour points in the direction of the mundane.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by davesidious

Thanks for the great explanation, it does make sense I guess, however I'm still not 100% sure(on either of the explanations), the spirals just seemed too perfect and there were so many layers..
Also it's strange that Russia first denied having anything to do with it and then took responsibility, also why would they be shooting missiles over Finnish, Swedish and Norweigan airspace(or was it outside the coast of Norway?), why was our governments not outraged if that was the case?
Why couldn't I see it in the northern part of Sweden if it really was that high up?
It's fishy too that this happened on the day Obama was visiting Norway, not very tactful of Russia.

ahh well, like with most conspiracies I'll have to file this into the "who the h*ll knows" part of my brain.
I would rather stay ignorant than leaping to any conclusion even if it seems highly probable... I'm not well enough read to sort this out for myself and right now I don't have the energy or ambition either.

Most often I'm on the believer side of things but I really do appreciate the skeptics keeping people in line, without you guys this would be a loony bin, balance is where it's at.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:37 PM
reply to post by TheLaughingGod

It all happened in Russia's airspace or maybe even above the ocean.
Russia never denied the missile test.
And Obama wasn't in Norway when it happened.

[edit on 27/12/2009 by DGFenrir]

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by JayinAR

Sadly I think you're right.

But we can only do so much to help deny ignorance.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:19 PM
The only thing that leads me to believe it wasn't a missile in light of the evidence presented in this thread was why it was ONLY visible (or at least only reported and recorded) in Norway.

Certainly someone in Sweden or Russia would've seen it. At least seen the blue smoke trail...?

Another thing is why would Russia be testing a rocket that has had multiple previous failures over Norway right before the Nobel prizes were handed out when a multitude of foreign dignitaries were there. That's just like saying "Hey look at our lack of military capability!"

I don't get it, something about it really does not add up to me.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 08:55 PM
Chadwickus, good OP. Well written. Nice job. S+F


Can we, as fellow ATSers please stop refering to our fellow members with derogatory names, like "loonies" and "FARRTs" and the like?
Disagreement is one thing.
Name calling is childish and against Terms and Conditions.

Just saying.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 10:39 PM
Hey Chadwick,

You are right.. the heater wasn't on. But in my tequilasunsrise thread I never said that the theory relied on the heater being on. I wrote the Opening Post in the weee hours of the morning. It gets a lot more in depth from there. First of all, I can say that EISCAT/HAARP type technology and others are definitely capable of producing what was seen in Norway.

Here is just one little thing saying that there have been unexpected optical events that occurred form using EISCAT:

"The EISCAT high-frequency (HF) transmitter facility at Ramfjord, Norway, has been used to accelerate F-region electrons sufficiently to excite the oxygen atoms and nitrogen molecules, resulting in optical emissions at 630, 557.7 and 427.8 nm. During O-mode transmissions at 5.423 MHz, using 630 MW effective radiated power, in the hours after sunset on 12 November 2001 several new observations were made, including: (1) The first high-latitude observation of an HF induced optical emission at 427.8 nm and (2) Optical rings being formed at HF on followed by their collapse into a central blob. Both discoveries remain unexplained with current theories."

Might not describe it exactly.. but proves that they are capable of creating optical rings... and back when this was published 5 years ago..t hey didnt even understand why it happened.

I could go on.. but there is no point discussing it again here.

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by danman23

Well I'm seeing a problem here, which is the frequency range you're quoting.

The data is discussing HF (High frequency) from a different experiment, whereas EISCAT was using VHF (very high frequency) and UHF (ultra high frequency) on the day of the spiral.

I believe Phage pointed all this out in your thread.

[edit on 27/12/09 by Chadwickus]

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:04 AM
you know it would not take much web code to make it show that the heater was not on . . . .

Just because the little green light on my camcorder does not turn on, does not mean that it is not on.

just sayin'

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:12 AM
reply to post by Chadwickus

Well, this is just as much conjecture as someone saying that it wasn't a EM warming device. So, who am I supposed to believe???

Just so you know, there's no way that it could have been a missile. That's been proven by hard scientific evidence that was put fourth by a skeptic.

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:14 AM

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by Chadwickus

Well, this is just as much conjecture as someone saying that it wasn't a EM warming device. So, who am I supposed to believe???

Just so you know, there's no way that it could have been a missile. That's been proven by hard scientific evidence that was put fourth by a skeptic.

If I may ask, do you have a link?


new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in