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.

 

Proof EISCAT did not cause the Norway Spiral?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by timewalker
 


Fine. When you disagree with all the experts on a matter, and trust your own gut instinct, you are by the very definition of the word being irrational.




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 
Many irrational people have been right. My guts get me far. I am not claiming to be right. Nor to have proof. Just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Let me clear on why I don't believe the official story. It has been very carefully worded. Russia has not actually said the spiral was caused by the missile.


When the rocket motor spun out of control, it

likely
created the heavenly spiral of white light near where the missile was launched from a submarine in the White Sea. The Russian defense ministry confirmed to the Itar-Tass news agency that a Bulava ballistic missile test had failed.



"This cloud was very spectacular, and when we looked at the videos people submitted to the media, we quickly concluded that it looked like a rocket or missile out of control, thus the spiraling effect," Paal Brekke, a senior advisor at the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo, told SPACE.com. "I think this is the first time we have seen such a display from a launch failure."


Space.com


Russia did not confirm that its test launch was behind the lights but it appears increasingly likely.


Daily Mail UK


Barents Observer , a Norwegian news site, reported that an anonymous Russian military source said it was failed launch of a Bulava missile from a submarine in the White Sea Wednesday morning.


MyFoxBoston

Lots of holes. We can only speculate. This includes EVERYONE...

[edit on 28-12-2009 by timewalker]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Bachfin
 


Yes, I am denying ignorance.

That picture is a long exposure of the failed rocket, it is not indicative of what it looks like.

This is what it looks like:



I've also shown the chart from EISCAT themselves that shows no heating was performed on the day of the spiral.

So who is denying ignorance here?





And here is one that shows the spiral perfectly, that is not time exposed.




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by timewalker
 


It wasn't. It was over the Arctic sea. It was visible from Norway because ICBMs travel through space for most of their journey, which means they're visible from very far away. The missile never flew over a populated area for the reasons you just said.

Don't "know" it was something "more important" without any evidence. And, I know for a fact, that you don't have any evidence for that. Deny ignorance, please?


You have been proven wrong using real world mathematics



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


I am very intrigued by the assertion made that the spiral was spinning much too fast for it to possibly be a rocket.

I don't know math very well, nor physics. I personally believe this to be the one detail that depends entirely on what my final conclusion will be as to whether this was a missile or not. (I honestly believed it was a missile at first. That's saying a lot considering I'm one of the "idiot" "loonies" that always "ignorantly" denies the official story. But I see evidence so far that gives credence to both sides of the story).



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by '___'omino
 


HOAX implies that someone purposefully faked an incident or misrepresented or altered information in order to get people to believe it to be true.

I do not think either side of the argument can be labeled as hoax and that's why a lot of threads don't get labeled as hoax because they don't fall into that category.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by '___'omino
 


HOAX implies that someone purposefully faked an incident or misrepresented or altered information in order to get people to believe it to be true.

I do not think either side of the argument can be labeled as hoax and that's why a lot of threads don't get labeled as hoax because they don't fall into that category.


Its safe to say that irrationality blew in very fast and 'made up' some answers. It is misrepresented, the information is faked, just so people believe its not a rocket.
HOAX stands.
Just like the 'no planers' are a bunch of hoax artists
just like the people who create fake big foots are hoax artists
just like david wilcock (master hoax artist)



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by '___'omino

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by '___'omino
 


HOAX implies that someone purposefully faked an incident or misrepresented or altered information in order to get people to believe it to be true.

I do not think either side of the argument can be labeled as hoax and that's why a lot of threads don't get labeled as hoax because they don't fall into that category.


Its safe to say that irrationality blew in very fast and 'made up' some answers. It is misrepresented, the information is faked, just so people believe its not a rocket.
HOAX stands.
Just like the 'no planers' are a bunch of hoax artists
just like the people who create fake big foots are hoax artists
just like david wilcock (master hoax artist)


So the spiral in the sky was fake?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
It seem the maths on proving the spiral wasn't a rocket was wrong:


I have been notified that the photo in my paper was Taken from "Skjervoy" not "Tromsø." I will investigate and edit my paper accordingly. Thank you all. *


Will be interesting to see what the correction tells us.\




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Yeah. I wonder what it will show. The pics were taken 55 miles from Tromsø. The math was correct, but he had one of the numbers wrong, which throws off the whole equation lol

[edit on 12/29/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Bachfin
 


Go read the threads I linked to at the start, hell just re-read the OP again.

The whole premise of the EISCAT theory is the heating of particles.

If you show me that the VHF and UHF antennas can do this and I'll gladly admit that I am wrong but as it stands right now, there was no heating performed on that day.

No heating means no similarities to the theory presented in the other threads.




I beg to differ.
Every new HF, VHF, or LF high powered radio transmission
is an experiment unless it is a duplicate of a previous experiment
intended to accomplish a task.
Do we know the objective of the VHF transmission from Norway the morning of the spiral?
Atmospheric conditions are normally in flux especially during the morning and evening hours.
There is no proof the heaters were not on, just a chart that says they should not have been on.
There is no proof that there were not heaters from some other facility or source turned on.
There is no proof that a nearby missile flying through the atmosphere can not act as a heater.
There is no proof that a high powered VHF transmission during an ionospheric electron density
change or reversal can or cannot cause the spiral effect that is the hart of the thread.
To rule out completely the possibility of a tandem missile/transmission
event with the facts presented is beyond ignorance.
No rudeness intended.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Heres some temperature data of the day in question too



439.0 6324 -32.9 -39.9 50 0.27 178 16 304.0 304.9 304.0
407.0 6850 -37.3 -44.3 48 0.18 200 19 304.9 305.6 305.0
400.0 6970 -38.3 -45.3 48 0.17 200 19 305.1 305.8 305.2
384.0 7250 -40.7 -47.7 47 0.13 201 23 305.6 306.1 305.6
361.0 7669 -43.9 -46.9 72 0.16 202 28 306.7 307.3 306.7
339.0 8089 -47.5 -51.1 66 0.10 203 33 307.4 307.8 307.4
300.0 8890 -52.5 -57.5 55 0.05 205 43 311.2 311.5 311.2
278.0 9378 -55.9 -60.9 53 0.04 205 44 313.2 313.3 313.2
274.0 9470 -56.2 -61.4 52 0.04 205 45 314.0 314.2 314.0
250.0 10050 -58.3 -64.3 46 0.03 205 39 319.3 319.4 319.3
241.0 10278 -60.1 -66.1 45 0.02 205 39 319.9 320.0 319.9
237.0 10383 -59.4 -67.5 34 0.02 205 39 322.5 322.6 322.5
216.0 10963 -55.5 -75.5 7 0.01 222 27 337.2 337.2 337.2
212.0 11081 -56.1 -78.1 5 0.00 226 24 338.1 338.1 338.1
207.0 11232 -55.6 -79.2 4 0.00 230 21 341.2 341.2 341.2
200.0 11450 -54.9 -80.9 3 0.00 230 21 345.7 345.7 345.7
191.0 11746 -54.2 -82.7 2 0.00 220 21 351.4 351.4 351.4
176.0 12271 -52.9 -85.9 1 0.00 250 16 361.8 361.8 361.8
165.0 12687 -53.5 -86.5 1 0.00 245 19 367.6 367.6 367.6
151.0 13257 -54.2 -87.2 1 0.00 285 17 375.7 375.7 375.7
150.0 13300 -54.3 -87.3 1 0.00 285 16 376.3 376.3 376.3
138.0 13831 -55.0 -87.8 1 0.00 255 14 384.2 384.2 384.2
134.0 14018 -55.2 -87.9 1 0.00 245 16 387.1 387.1 387.1
121.0 14667 -56.0 -88.5 1 0.00 270 19 397.0 397.0 397.0
100.0 15880 -57.5 -89.5 1 0.00 285 14 416.4 416.4 416.4
83.0 17055 -58.5 -90.0 1 0.00 290 14 437.0 437.0 437.0
70.0 18130 -59.5 -90.5 1 0.00 275 19 456.8 456.8 456.8
57.0 19406 -61.2 -91.6 1 0.00 300 23 480.5 480.5 480.5
51.0 20097 -62.1 -92.2 1 0.00 290 25 493.8 493.8 493.8
50.0 20220 -62.3 -92.3 1 0.00 295 25 496.2 496.3 496.2
45.9 20748 -62.1 -92.1 1 0.00 307 23 509.0 509.0 509.0
42.0 21289 -63.8 -93.5 1 0.00 320 21 518.0 518.0 518.0
34.0 22577 -67.7 -96.8 1 0.00 310 27 539.8 539.8 539.8


Third column is temperature.

I dont actually see that the atmosphere has heated at all, in fact last time I checked -67 degrees was quite cold

Hope that helps



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

I beg to differ.
Every new HF, VHF, or LF high powered radio transmission
is an experiment unless it is a duplicate of a previous experiment
intended to accomplish a task.
Do we know the objective of the VHF transmission from Norway the morning of the spiral?


I believe someone emailed the scientists at EISCAT and posted the reply in the original thread by Hellmutt.

They confirmed that they did have the UHF and VHF antenna on at the time of the spiral, there's only so much, these transmitters can do though, if it really was EISCAT, why has this spiral only been seen once?



Atmospheric conditions are normally in flux especially during the morning and evening hours.


Oz would better answer that but I believe that early mornings would be the most calm and consistent.



There is no proof the heaters were not on, just a chart that says they should not have been on.


As mentioned above, EISCAT confirmed that only the UHF and VHF arrays were switched on, the chart back that claim up.

Funny, you're happy to accept EISCAT sources that may prove that it wasn't a rocket, yet when a ESCIAT source is used to possibly disprove, EISCAT's involvement, you say it's not proof.

Double standards much?



There is no proof that there were not heaters from some other facility or source turned on.


Is there proof of another facility close enough to effect that part of the sky, don't forget these antennas only have an azimuth of 15-30 degrees, that's quite a small part of the sky.



There is no proof that a nearby missile flying through the atmosphere can not act as a heater.


The atmospheric readings of the area that Oz posted above show no signs of obvious heating, plus the effects of a rocket on the atmosphere would be well documented don't you think?
Any sources showing that a rocket can do what the EISCAT heater is supposed to do?



There is no proof that a high powered VHF transmission during an ionospheric electron density
change or reversal can or cannot cause the spiral effect that is the hart of the thread.


And as I've said, show me that VHF or UHF can heat the atmosphere like the heater and I will happily concede the point.



To rule out completely the possibility of a tandem missile/transmission
event with the facts presented is beyond ignorance.
No rudeness intended.


No where have I completely ruled out anything, notice the big question mark in the title?



[edit on 31/12/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I am not an expert on radio transmission today but I was once upon a time. Pre- transistor.
I helped phase in solid state.
I was pissed one day when on a skill level test I was asked a question.
"What layer of the atmosphere is an ordinary radio wave refracted from"?
I knew that HF could be rebounded and skipped, VHF could be refracted or bent and UHF would transmit straight out beyond the solar system in a straight line.(pretty much).
I couldn't answer the question because I couldn't figure out which one was ordinary???
There is only a HZ (1 cycle) difference between the high and low end of the spectrums.

One thing I did learn was that the use of the atmosphere was paramount when it came to radio.
Man has been trying to monopolize on the atmosphere since day one.
There is a lot going on up there (naturally) so that means there is a lot to play with.
What the officials and politicians tell you or is leaked to you can only be the tip of the ice berg.
Many members have reminded us of the Manhattan project, when it comes to the covert operations.
With the experience, technology and especially the FUNDING of the last 60 or 70 years
I assure you there is little doubt in my mind that the phenomena in question could be produced
by RADIO.
There remains, although you and many others give good argument for it to be a missile, a few damming question to that persuasion.
1-- How could a rocket make a spiral that LARGE. I guess the diameter at around 400 miles if the location of the spiral is where the rocket was supposed to be. There has never been such a large man made spiral display before. Ever.
2-- Another unanswered question. Why is the blue beam tracking from right to left.
Which is more of a south to north direction. That is not the intended flight path of the missile in question.
3-- Why does the spiral change direction when it turns white at it's max altitude?
This would have to be 3rd stage or higher. The blue trace shows no indication of change (stage two).
If a rocket as claimed, the center of the white spiral should be the point where the rocket becomes rouge.
But it is only now that the spiral would indicate (if a rocket) a proper flight path of west to east.
That's enough for now. Let me congratulate you for your decent demeanor and attempts to discuss this neat subject without the use of derogatory remarks. A big reason for respect. I hope I will be able to eventually express myself in a likewise manner. Maybe a resolution
Happy New Year EVERYONE!!!!!



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
If it is EISCAT, it seems strange that they have only activated the system this one single time during it's entire existance, unless I'm missing something and these spirals happen in the area all the time! I would have thought someone would have noticed by now!

There is of course also the fact that antennas cannot create big vapour spirals in the sky but that kind of quick fire common sense is beyond many around here.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

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!




Hey... The theory was not based on the heater being.. on.. It was not on... it was in the description for the experiemnet but they did not use it.. cause they didnt need to. But if you read all of my posts on there you will see that it comes down to sounding rockets... at the bottom of the continued OP you sill see that I was too tired to go into detail but from the start I knew there was a rocket involved. I really don't want to get into it again. Buuuuttt... if you read all of my posts you would get an idea of what was going on. I think EISCAT was only used to analyze the sky after the rocket experiment that sprayed aluminum into the air.... watch the video on rocketrange.no to get an idea.. Delta 2 experiment. In those experiments.. they spray the stuff in the air.. and then 10 min later they analyze it with radar. You'd have to read pretty much all my posts to catch it all I think. Watch that video though.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


And the missile theory has been demonstrated right by two different accounts:

Here

and

here.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesidious
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.


personally this is the worst attempt at an explanation. That video looks nothing like the Norway spiral. Im not saying it has to look the same but i didnt see any layers. maybe I'm just blind.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join