Blue Spiral of Norway is an Einstein Rosen Bridge

Now I do not know where I have been for the past month but I recently got aquainted with this subject that just fascinates me. This blue spiral that happen in December 2009 in Norway. I have never been this much impressed with a video in my life.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This very well thought out post, gives us almost certain confirmation that this was in fact no missile test. And PLEASE do not tell me you see a missile in there. There is no such missile that spreads out blue like that. And as stated in this unrelated source:

www.examiner.com... ss-destruction

HAARP and the Norwegian spiral light

According to Mr. Wilcock, the Dec. 9, 09 Norway spiral light is similar to other spiral lights in Russia in 2006, and in China (first seen in April 2009) that may be attributed to the HAARP technology.

And I have to agree. Since there is another HAARP like device near that location. Something called EISCAT. I have searched a bit for other interesting sources of information that could confirm this in some other way. Here is something interesting:

justgetthere.us...

By Henrik Palmgren

about 20 Kilometers South of Tromsø in Norway where the "Norway Spiral" or the Blue Spiral was seen back in December 2009. It's been said that the "spiral test" or "experiment" caused all kinds of side effects. At the EISCAT in Tromsø they also have an Ionospheric Heater facility with a Frequency Coverage of 4 to 8 MHz. In contrast, HAARP in Gakona, Alaska has a Frequency Coverage of 2.8 - 10 MHz. You could say that EISCAT is the HAARP of Scandinavia.

Having seen many haarp images, the second one on this page seems fairly familiar

www.eiscat.se:8080...

And considering the coordinates featured here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can somebody calculate approximate distance?


Ohh and EISCAT exists, as much as HAARP, for all you non-believers. Found this on the pimpin turtle….

pimpinturtle.com...

In August 2002, the Russian parliament issued a press release on the American ionosphere heater, HAARP. The release that was written by the international affairs and defense committees and signed by 90 deputies,was presented to then President Vladimir Putin. The statement claimed:

"The U.S. is creating new integral geophysical weapons that may influence the near-Earth medium with high-frequency radio waves ... The significance of this qualitative leap could be compared to the transition from coldsteel to firearms, or from conventional weapons to nuclear weapons. This new type of weapons differs from previous types in that the near-Earth medium becomes at once an object of direct influence and its component."

I bid you all good day!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pwned.

From the Chocolate Wheelchair LP.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Cadbury]

reply to post by Cadbury

Finding it very tough to come up with more than one line , just to say......well.....nice one!!

Einstein-Rosen Pilau Rice.

reply to post by KpxMarMoTT


I've posted more than a month ago on another thread about this and came up with informationt that it was the Russian version or European (more likely) version of HAARP. I even put up documentation showing that it was being used to excite a layer of the atmosphere. It seems they where trying to do it in order to control weather. People say that this doesn't exists, but the OP of one of the posts had a patent for HAARP and I came up with information from the Airforce using excitations of the upper atmosphere to use weather as a weapon and more research using the HAARP stations. That wasn't a rocket everybody just use your nogging. An out of control or in control rocket that essentially goes faster than the speed of sound goes at a 45 degree angle in a tight spiral in blue exhaust. Then at a certain height it decides to go out of the tight spiral and then make a large one starting from the outside and rolling inward. And after that no explosion or nothing, just a black spot opening up in the sky quickly.

reply to post by KpxMarMoTT


You are so wrong it's terrible. The blue spiral is the exact same colour as sapphire, because solid rocket fuel produces aluminium oxide (sapphire) as an exhaust. If you look at the photos, and trace the blue spiral down to the horizon, you can clearly see it's a white exhaust as it passes the illuminated sun.

The only reason to think it's not a missile is not due to evidence, but to ignorance.

davesidious

The only reason to think it's not a missile is not due to evidence, but to ignorance.

Yes, Ignorance. Please sir deny my ignorance, and please let me know how , ohh how, did rocket fuel (or saphire) cause a visible , light free wormhole or arpeture.

And since this is rocket fuel that we are talking about, shouldn't it be moving with the current of the wind? I am certain that something as evident as wind would be taken into account. Wind currents my friend differ from ground level. Even when a jumbo jet, leave trails in the sky, you can clearly see it taking different forms. But this one does not move upwards or downwards, and causes something of a cone. And if it were rocket fuel trails, then how come is the trail at least 50 KM wide and in expansion until it meets the event horizon of that ummm Missile phenomenon?

Please Davesidious, deny me of "my ingnorance" and explain where the rocket is ? And post it here so everyone can see where "The rocket" is!

reply to post by KpxMarMoTT


Because it's not a bloody wormhole or aperture. The blue spiral was rocket exhaust, and the white spiral might be either the maneuvering liquid fuel bus, or some sort of problem with the fuel in the third stage.

THERE IS NO WIND IN SPACE. For the love of GOD please just read some of the analyses that have been performed. ICBMs spend very, very little time in the atmosphere. The spiral has been calculated to be firmly in space, where there is no wind.

Please read these two links:

Enterprise Mission analysis

Another independent analysis

So, there's your ignorance. You don't even know where the spiral was, or how ICBMs work. You clearly also don't know about Newtonian laws of motion, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. You assume that because you don't know how it could be a missile, that it wasn't a missile. The possibility that you are being ignorant doesn't even enter your mind. Arrogance.

Okay so if I get you correctly (and I don’t obviously because your always over threads to post bunk on my theories, but that’s ok) you are saying that the rocket itself went to heck when it did not correctly hit the second stage or third stage. This would mean that the smoke would probably look something like this:

www.gizmodo.fr...

But there is no such derailing of the smoke. When we launch any type of rocket or space shuttle in the sky, the smoke would be a cone in the opposite direction. Meaning that the smoke would start like bigger cone from the bottom, and then go smaller as it goes up. As your sight and the object appears to move further from your location.

Line of sight suggest that even if it were be getting bigger, It would not show that much. Apart if your rocket had now started shooting it’s flame in 180 degrees around the exhaust + in all directions. Imagine it going ballistic in an uncontrolled spin manner, I cannot imagine the trail going for more then 10 KM’s. And the flashing white light suggests that the event is 50 KM. But this object creates a steady spiral for at least 30 seconds and creates a second set of spirals that encompasses black. And takes more then a 100 KM wide. Do you have any idea how big that is? Remember the space shuttle Challenger exploding? Let’s use that as a comparison. It was carrying twice as much fuel as an ICBM missile all at once. And this out of logic itself. 3 tanks all superimposed on themselves. Now that packs a humongous blast possibility.

en.wikipedia.org...

At 14 KM’s high the whole thing exploded. The Pods are 46.9 meters high by 8.4 meters of diameter. Look closely at the video. There is not 180 KM of smoke there… Might be about my ego trippin you know….

So yeah the cristal blue smoke bunks my theory…. Well that doesn’t work either. Simply because of size. That simple really. Hey look at the video. Show me point of separation and the trajectory…. When nightime, and firing a missile, any moving object is visible. There is no such moving object for 30 second. And if the SUPPOSED rocket was in fact the point of origin of all the light, then most certainly it would have eventually exploded, not imploded as seen in the following video :


www.dailymail.co.uk...

You can clearly see that the smoke cloud is huge. Supporting what the calculus guy on the other thread had estimated, that the cloud at a radius of over 180 KM’s near the event horizon of this spiral. And at that point the spiral has 50 KM wide. Now Correct me if im wrong, but how does a 200 Meter object make a trail of over 180 KM’s with a total height of 453 KM of altitude for 30 seconds and then consume itself to implode in black smoke….

Now that’s what I call arrogance, looking at an upper atmosphere phenomenon and calling it a missile that implodes hum hum sorry implodes over 180 Kms…. Yeah sure shill

reply to post by KpxMarMoTT


I read through the O.P. and I understand that you don't believe it was a missile test but something caused by HAARP.

Where did you get Einstein/Rosen bridge from?

Do you know what that is?

reply to post by Edews


Hi KpxMarMoTT, whilst my esteemed and articulate fellow member summed up nicely with their post that I am replying to I feel perhaps if I indicate some of the origins of this thread you may understand that it was indeed a missile.

The original poster of that thread auristercus hoped to find a cause which led to EISCAT as you do KpxMarMoTT. However, through deductive reasoning and an open mind he led to the unmistakable conclusion that it was a missile test. He did however conclude that it may not have been a failed missile test but officially disguised as one due to the complex nature of Russia's military might.

I would highly recommend reading the thread and seeing the amount of hard work already put in prior to throwing out other more fantastical ideas.

I hope this finds you well.

-m0r

reply to post by KpxMarMoTT


As m0r1arty said, all of those questions have been answered in other threads. It would help your case if you use the search button before making ridiculous assertions, and it would also help your case if you had any evidence to back up your claims before you make them. ATS has a bad enough time as it is trying to be respectable without people blurting out about "Einstein Rosen Bridge" and wormholes for no reason.

Well simply enough it looks like a wormhole, and the way there is some kind of a black hole emanating from after the implosion, I supposed it was something very simmilar to dark matter or a black hole. And since it was not having everything around it sucked in, I assumed that the other possibility would be an opening to another reality.

Supposing this was in fact a missile, could it be possible that the payload created another type of phenomenon? Even though another thread seems to explain the missile, It still does not explain to me why there is something like a black hole expanding over 100 Km. No disrespect to ATS or to other posts, but I find it to be one of the most awesome things I have ever seen and a missile doesn't quite cut it.

Ill go ahead and read the tread again.

I'll bet its not related to any kind of 'harp' thingy as nothing like this has ever been seen in alaska, not to mention that this is sort of beyond what you would expect to see from a giant Tesla coil. And cmon, its definitely not a hole created in the ether either (meaning the absence of space), if such a thing were even possible, as subscribed by wireofinformation.wordpress.com...

this is quite possibly the russian version of the apollo moon landings, meaning that its all fake, smoke and mirrors, or in this case missile smoke and massive laser light show, made to look like some kind of advanced secret technology. (and yes, all the apollo landings were faked to dupe the public into shelling out billions)

Its possible to set up lasers on the ground to project a seeming 3d image on a 2d cloud plain. But, it really doesn't look like there is a cloud plain there.

[edit on 3-2-2010 by stoneysauce]

Originally posted by KpxMarMoTT
Well simply enough it looks like a wormhole...

It does bear a striking resemblance to the fiction show Star Trek: Deep Space 9's CGI wormhole however I have never seen a genuine wormhole before and very much doubt it would appear as the musings of a team of talented fiction artists interpretations of one.

Originally posted by KpxMarMoTT
It still does not explain to me why there is something like a black hole expanding over 100 Km. No disrespect to ATS or to other posts, but I find it to be one of the most awesome things I have ever seen and a missile doesn't quite cut it.

Using Newton's basic laws of motion one can ascertain that as the fuel is being ejected from the spinning missile it travels at a constant speed and in a straight line. Since the missile is spinning this looks like a spiral ripple growing from Earth. When the fuel ran out the spiral had nothing more to feed it and the lack of spiral (or blackness of space) became apparent again.

I hope this clears it up for you.

-m0r

reply to post by KpxMarMoTT


No, "looking like" to you does not make it fact. That is fantastically arrogant. The "black" hole is just space (which, you know, is usually black) being visible after the matter that made up the spiral moving out of the way.

Every single question you've asked has been answered many times over.

It was a Russian missile. Your lack of knowledge of Russian missiles does not preclude that.

reply to post by stoneysauce


Your post started so well, and then just degraded into a typical conspiracy rant with no evidence.

The lights in the "display" were caused by sunlight. That's it. No lasers. No light show.

As for the Apollo fakery, grow up, read some books by real scientists, and learn a thing or two. Every single piece of "evidence" showing how the Apollo moon landings were faked has been blown to pieces. You are insulting the lives of the fallen astronauts, and the lives spent toiling away to further humanity, just because you'd rather play "oooh spooky conspiracy I don't trust the government huuurrrrrr". Pathetic.

Originally posted by stoneysauce
I'll bet its not related to any kind of 'harp' thingy as nothing like this has ever been seen in alaska, not to mention that this is sort of beyond what you would expect to see from a giant Tesla coil. And cmon, its definitely not a hole created in the ether either (meaning the absence of space), if such a thing were even possible,[edit on 3-2-2010 by stoneysauce]

Tesla Coils and Tesla based technology are two very distinct subjects. I hope you understand the difference. HAARP is based on Tesla's theories and there are scientists that have produced expirements with sucess. This is no longer a theory. It's science. No one governement army spends money on some antenna / Coil that has no offensive or defensive capability. Period. So no you are wrong this HAARP exists. The Same thing with the EISCAT in there in norway

Ok so even though a rocket would be the most likely explanation, it still does not explain much. Even a rocket could not create what I consider to be negative particle phenomenon that bends light of the night sky. Do you see stars at the end of the video I have linked? Even if a rocket was launched from the sea and the 3 stages of the rocket did in fact get to 300 km of altitude, it still does not explain the visual of the spiral. It only explains that this event was caused by a payload delivered by a 3 stage rocket. This in no way disproves my theory of an Einstein rosen bridge. Just because a rocket WAS involved. It is a lapse in logic to determine the end by some of its cause. It only explains who got the phenomenon up there. Still a lot of unanswered questions, here is a list:

A : Why is the phenomenon bending light in an even fashion for 30 seconds
B : If this is a failed rocket causing the phenomenon then why is it expulsing its fuels over 100 KM ?
C: If this rocket is the one expulsing lighted up fuel then why isn’t it being affected by gravity and not falling down instead of looking like a firework that pops out (facing us instead of down)
D : Why is light turning around the phenomenon at around 625 KM per second steady
( since light travels 300 000 Km per second)
E : Why is light bent towards the outwards of the phenomenon evenly for 30 seconds
F : Why the light that was bent outwards, is swallowed inwards
G: Why is there an explosion of abscense of light that extends 200 KM afterwards and covers the stars
H: And why isn’t the phenomenon getting further away from the camera as time goes, since it’s almost in orbit, it should have the inertia of the earth at that velocity.
I: Why is the crystalline smoke cone bigger the higher it gets? (and not vice versa)

Now let’s try to answer each and every one of those questions. Starting with A. Here is what wiki says :

According to the general theory of relativity, a black hole is a region of space from which nothing, including light, can escape. It is the result of the deformation of spacetime caused by a very compact mass. Around a black hole there is an undetectable surface which marks the point of no return, called an event horizon. It is called "black" because it absorbs all the light that hits it, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics.[1] Under the theory of quantum mechanics black holes possess a temperature and emit Hawking radiation
.
Despite its invisible interior, a black hole can be observed through its interaction with other matter. A black hole can be inferred by tracking the movement of a group of stars that orbit a region in space. Alternatively, when gas falls into a stellar black hole from a companion star, the gas spirals inward, heating to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of radiation that can be detected from earthbound and Earth-orbiting telescopes.

I can hear you ask me the question already: Why are you talking about black holes? And what link does it have to your Einstein-rosen bridge theory. Well simple enough I believe that since the phenomenon has changed states 3 times during the course of the video, it is not the same phenomenon from start to finish. At first it acts as though a rupture in matter, expulsing energy out of the event horizon, and after it has consumed itself, an arpreture opens swallowing in the light. The black hole itself is the only man known phenomenon to cause this to happen.

And the important part here is :” Despite its invisible interior, a black hole can be observed through its interaction with other matter.” And that is exactly what happens, an absence of light or matter is observed within the interaction of the “Missile fuel” that was propelling itself in an outwardly motion.

But there is a fail to that assumption, that a black hole, no matter how small or how big, would probably consume matter all around it. Even if it were at 300 KM from earth. There are even chances of the phenomenon ingulphing the whole planet. So to that effect it was not a black hole. Probably a disruption of space and time more possibly.
B: Rocket fuel expelled over 100 km in each direction: …. IMPOSSIBLE.

Let me prove it to you

en.wikipedia.org...

The upper stages of space launch vehicles are designed to operate at high altitude, and thus under little or no atmospheric pressure. This allows them to use lower pressure combustion chambers and still obtain near-optimum nozzle expansion ratios with nozzles of reasonable size. In many low pressure liquid rocket upper stage engines, such as the Aerojet AJ-10, propellants are pressure fed without need for complex turbomachinery.[1] Low chamber pressures also generate lower heat transfer rates, which allow ablative cooling of the combustion chambers rather than more elaborate regenerative cooling.

In laymen terms, they don’t need as much rocket fuel to get to where they are going. It’s not as powerfull as the ignition rockets that propel this thing from 0 to Mach 1. The engines are designed for out of orbit flight and re-entry. No way that that kind of fuel would be leaving an 100 km spiral even if it where spinning out of control. And at that height, the phenomenon would be far less visible and moving west to east.

(continued on next)