Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Care to prove the mathematics wrong???

Here's that link for you again Photon.

www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm

I just can't wait for you to put me in my place and show me the error in this guy's hypothesis.

I know this was directed to you, Photon ... but with your permission, I'll address this. Yes, I know I keep saying 'last reply'


I had actually read that analysis in the link you posted, many weeks ago and at the time found it to be interesting. But having just re-read it once again, it's obvious that the author based his analysis on the quantity and quality of the information that was available to him shortly after the event, which truthfully was minimal. Since he wrote that analysis, many more eye witness reports and hard photographic/video evidence has since become available.

Here's an extract from his analysis:

4. LIMITS:
It is impossible from the data available to surmise exactly how far away
the white spiral is in reality. But we can take limits and find some
interesting results nonetheless. We will assume that the center of the white
spiral is no closer than the mountain (16.91km away), since it's supposedly a malfunctioning ICBM, it would have been extremely loud and there does not seem to be any reports describing any noise. Also, since there was no eyewitness accounts of any missile part(s) being explicitly visible, this low limit assumption seems more than fair.
In the upper limit, we will assume the missile malfunctioned no further
away than directly above the White Sea (911.22km away). Once again, this seems like a vast over estimation given that the great amount of reports came from northern Norway.

As can be readily seen from the above, the author made a number of assumptions that in hindsight proved to be inaccurate e.g.

It is impossible from the data available to surmise exactly how far away
the white spiral is in reality.

With the availability of many more data points, it was possible for me to derive a very ACCURATE determination of how far away the spiral event transpired. Based on this determination of mine, much more could be deduced regarding the event itself ... deductions that the author would NOT have been able to make, or if he had tried, would have resulted in very inaccurate results.

Also, the author states:

We will assume that the center of the white spiral is no closer than the mountain (16.91km away), since it's supposedly a malfunctioning ICBM, it would have been extremely loud and there does not seem to be any reports describing any noise. Also, since there was no eyewitness accounts of any missile part(s) being explicitly visible, this low limit assumption seems more than fair.

The author makes the above statement but once again, because of his absolute lack of knowledge regarding the spirals definitive distance from the various observers, ended up by making an incorrect distance assumption that coupled with his previous admission of lack of distance data, simply adds to his overall uncertainties regarding various aspects of the event and inevitably compounds the errors in his analysis.

So even though his analysis (at the time) appeared to be reasonable, it has been clearly demonstrated that his available data limitation forced him to make unwarranted assumptions. These assumptions were then used to fuel his actual mathematical calculations which consequently can now be seen (and proven) to be inaccurate.

reply to post by tauristercus


be my guest, please...

i was hoping you'd chime in regarding this analysis! It's completely flawed..

I don't expect EM to address my previous post that the author initally states that f = 1Hz, well upon further review it's more like f = .5Hz and in one video its even .25Hz! This would have a drastic effect on his final results by reducing them by half or more



[edit on 19-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Doesn't Eiscat work with the power of the Ionosphere? Isn't the Ionosphere powered by the Sun? Is the corkscrew blue light heading towards the sunrise (the very thing that powers the ionosphere?) Is Eiscat not behind a mountain behind the photographer still creating a straight line to the spiral??? Is electromagnetic radiation limited to location and space, or does long wave radiation exist everywhere? Again, I will reiterate. The spiral is located in the area that the radiation is directed.




And Photon...

What about proving this wrong?
www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm

My reply by the way was in reference to this inquiry:

It wasn't a Buluva Missile and Eiscat sits right behind that mountain.


How would account for EISCAT in this photo then?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/798fe29a5cb7.jpg[/atsimg]

This is not from Tromso by the way, this is from Skjervoy-- which would place EISCAT behind the photographer from this perspective...




[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by PhotonEffect

It should also be noted that a spiral of ejected material is not a waveform. Frequency and wavelength are irrelevant.

reply to post by Phage


Thank you Phage- I was using the terms as the author did in his analysis which seem to be incorrect as you noted..

These aren't waves at all yet he's trying to determine wavelengths --based off a picture known to be a long exposure and based off a spiral that most likely is 3D not 2D

J

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Are you purposely ignoring my posts EM

Why not address the "frequency" question I just posed to you

This is cute. They think they smell blood. Swarming like sharks. LOL. A collective effort if you will.

It takes all of them to tinker with little old me. I am honored and gladly accept the challenge.

But alas. I will be going to give my girlfriend some attention and going to bed. I'm exercising that right to still have a life. You guys get to work as you have much ground to cover, and I'll address all of you, in true form, tomorrow.

And thanks for keeping this thread alive!!!

But one more thing before I go:
To Photon with Love:
www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm

And to the others:
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
And remember guys, this study was done by: SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System ADS.
and the title to this observation is called:
triggering of local substorm activation by powerful HF Radio Waves. (Done by Scientists from Harvard.)

I love you all!!!


[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Ive asked you twice already to explain the so called frequency that your analysis has come up with--

Quit being so squirrely

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Care to prove the mathematics wrong???

Here's that link for you again Photon.

www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm

I just can't wait for you to put me in my place and show me the error in this guy's hypothesis.

I know this was directed to you, Photon ... but with your permission, I'll address this. Yes, I know I keep saying 'last reply'

I had actually read that analysis in the link you posted, many weeks ago and at the time found it to be interesting. But having just re-read it once again, it's obvious that the author based his analysis on the quantity and quality of the information that was available to him shortly after the event, which truthfully was minimal. Since he wrote that analysis, many more eye witness reports and hard photographic/video evidence has since become available.

Here's an extract from his analysis:

4. LIMITS:
It is impossible from the data available to surmise exactly how far away
the white spiral is in reality. But we can take limits and find some
interesting results nonetheless. We will assume that the center of the white
spiral is no closer than the mountain (16.91km away), since it's supposedly a malfunctioning ICBM, it would have been extremely loud and there does not seem to be any reports describing any noise. Also, since there was no eyewitness accounts of any missile part(s) being explicitly visible, this low limit assumption seems more than fair.
In the upper limit, we will assume the missile malfunctioned no further
away than directly above the White Sea (911.22km away). Once again, this seems like a vast over estimation given that the great amount of reports came from northern Norway.

As can be readily seen from the above, the author made a number of assumptions that in hindsight proved to be inaccurate e.g.

It is impossible from the data available to surmise exactly how far away
the white spiral is in reality.

With the availability of many more data points, it was possible for me to derive a very ACCURATE determination of how far away the spiral event transpired. Based on this determination of mine, much more could be deduced regarding the event itself ... deductions that the author would NOT have been able to make, or if he had tried, would have resulted in very inaccurate results.

Also, the author states:

We will assume that the center of the white spiral is no closer than the mountain (16.91km away), since it's supposedly a malfunctioning ICBM, it would have been extremely loud and there does not seem to be any reports describing any noise. Also, since there was no eyewitness accounts of any missile part(s) being explicitly visible, this low limit assumption seems more than fair.

The author makes the above statement but once again, because of his absolute lack of knowledge regarding the spirals definitive distance from the various observers, ended up by making an incorrect distance assumption that coupled with his previous admission of lack of distance data, simply adds to his overall uncertainties regarding various aspects of the event and inevitably compounds the errors in his analysis.

So even though his analysis (at the time) appeared to be reasonable, it has been clearly demonstrated that his available data limitation forced him to make unwarranted assumptions. These assumptions were then used to fuel his actual mathematical calculations which consequently can now be seen (and proven) to be inaccurate.

I had to respond to this last one before I went to bed. It was just so juicy.

After reading your post 3 times, I actually came to the conclusion that you have no concept of what you're talking about. You said nothing in almost a full page of jargon while using large words and baby drivel. You don't have to impress me if you can't prove the math wrong, which, I saw nothing whatsoever provided that you studied or did any work against his analysis. But, at least you tried, that was more than Photon was offering up.

Hence the 3 threads with three different outcomes, and no adequate conclusion. Except to say...it wasn't a Buluva missile failure in its third stage, and you think that you know the location of the spiral.

Again. Thank you for doing the math on THAT ONE. I'm glad you went through the headache of all of that time and effort, so that both of us could come to the same conclusion. The only difference is this. I did it with common sense.

But, I don't want to down you for all of your trouble. It was well put together and it proved what many of us had been saying all along. There was one thing though...your work was quite the mirror image of someone else's work who was working towards the opposite goal and who provided that evidence before you. I won't go as far as to accuse you of misconduct, but, much of the information was identical in nature, method, and the mathematics were quite similar. How can I truly take you as a credible contributor or scientist if A, your experiment has no consistency? (3 different threads...3 different results) Part of the process of proving laboratory studies is their incident ratio of repeatability. So far, your numbers or experiment within your threads have not yielded accurate and consistent results. Therefore the findings that you have lack credibility because they cannot be repeated and the results change repetitively. That means that your numbers, math, or analysis is flawed and you need a different hypothesis. I hope you understand that this is part of the scientific method and your attempt would not pass in the astringent world of science. Secondly, your studies greatly resembled the works of another member of ATS, and in the academic field, there would have been severe consequences and huge reprimands. Now youngster...

you might want to look at this again:
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Okay, this time I really have to go. My girlfriend is getting impatient, and I've been doing this all day between studying. Enjoy. Again...I spread good cheer to you while loving and appreciating you all.


[edit on 20-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Well then, you also missed the entire thread that had been started using the very same paper 2 months ago...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and i did it the hard way lol found the same source as he has

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


I knew it, I had this same thought after reading what they claimed it was. The reason I started thinking it ha to do with what you are saying is that the Russians wanted to do something on this order as a solution to global warming and there is this other Russian experiment to explore the idea that a missle could explode a astroid headed to earth. I thought it had to do with one of these. It would make sense tho to launch a missle to see if in fact it could hit a target, I know it was not done for no reason at all and it was not just a failure it had a reason. Maybe it was a missle interceptor test that they were testing. I think your claim has a lot more sense.

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

Well then, you also missed the entire thread that had been started using the very same paper 2 months ago...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and i did it the hard way lol found the same source as he has

As I have since stated a number of times, that original thread of mine (a couple of months ago) has been readily admitted by myself to be seriously flawed in its conclusions. I was guilty of jumping on the 'new' Norway Spiral event too quickly and conducting an analysis based on a very bare minimum of available data. In essence I did what the author of 'On the Norway Spirals and their Physically Impossible “Ripple” Propagation' (eagerly subscribed to by EvolvedMinistry a few posts above) had done and made far too many assumptions based on far too little 'real data'. I then compounded my error by insisting on 'force fitting' EISCAT as the OBVIOUS explanation.

Since then, much more data has become available and based upon this data, it became apparent that my previous stance on EISCAT was seriously flawed.
Having realized this, I endeavored to do a much more detailed and valid analysis of what transpired that morning ... resulting in my series of 3 threads. Unless something completely unexpected or unusual is revealed to alter or invalidate my conclusions, I will continue to stand by my analysis.

After all, isn't that what the scientific methodology demands ? If new data is made available, you have the choice of either modifying your deductions and conclusions ... or you completely throw out your previous assumptions and conclusions and start from scratch if the new data warrants it.

Because the new data warranted it, I chose to throw the EISCAT solution away completely as being entirely untenable and without substantiation.

[edit on 20/2/10 by tauristercus]

This is getting pathetic. The linked paper, as Phage pointed out, is describing perturbations in already-existing aurora, not brand-new visual phenomena. Also, from the photos of the event, it's painfully obvious that the blue spiral extends down to over the horizon, where it is clearly cloud-like in composition. Its colour, and cloudy nature when in the atmosphere, are entirely consistent with a rocket's exhaust. And, funnily enough, totally inconsistent with anything caused by pumping a GW of EM radiation into the ionosphere.

Also, to repeat for the thousandth time, Russia denied the missile failure because the Bulava project has been very embarrassing for Russia, as Russia is supposed to be the world leader in ICBM technology, and this missile is supposed to be the counter to the proposed missile defence shield. It's no mystery.

But, I guess I'm some sort of disinfo agent.

So, kiddies, carry on with your "EISCAT fried my gramma" nonsense, and continue to confuse "conjecture" with "evidence". It's a shame, as ATS is really suffering because too many people want to believe, instead of wanting to know.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Why haven't you provided any of your own work to substantiate what the HArvard study was. Why haven't you explained to the ATS community how EISCAT could actually create a rotating spiral with a blue corkscrew and a missile plume over the vicinity of the White Sea??

Where are your maths and your scientific explanations to corroborate your assertions?? Any photographic evidence you could offer us?? Anything other than a link that you spammed 20 times in this thread

So Because that harvard study mentions buzz words like "spiral forms" and "ionosphere" and "EISCAT" and "Tromso", suddenly this was the cause of the event on Dec 9th??

You haven't even tried explaining what that paper means or did I miss it

Have you seen Holes In Heaven HAARP ? www.youtube.com...
this documentary has said by the operator's and designer's themselves
of what haarp can do and able to do and what it might able to do

HAARP can claim that it can control their energy, like a hand waving in any direction

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

arxiv.org...

what happened in February 16th 1996 could be a perfected version December 9th 2009

i will try to find more ! especially the event of febuary 16 of 1996 - EISCAT

looking for images ! the one that ive found is a top down view from space of heating the ionosphere


another look
www.andrewgough.co.uk...
www.irf.se...
www.andrewgough.com...

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Wolfenz]

There is absolutely no way an errant missle could create such a perfect spiral phenomenon... Totally insane to think otherwise. It was EISCAT, beyond any doubt.

reply to post by Romans 10:9


The problem is : it was a >physical phenomenom< : not just an Aurora (natural light displays in the sky), even created by a technology.

To get this phenomenom you need cinetic energy (or a lot of pulsed energy ).

So in my opinion it was a physical object : but don't get me wrong : I recognize I don't know everything.

reply to post by davesidious


Really??? You honestly believe that a failed missle could have made such a perfectly symmetrical spiral? Please... At first I really thought it was a UFO anamoly... My thoughts have changed after seeing things clearly. I find it odd that the western media shows BS blurry images, whereas the Russian media shows the phenomenon very plainly and clearly. Once you see things in a clear manner, it is obvious from positioning that this is something "shot" up from the ground.

for the last time

they are trying to make 3 DIMENSIONAL HOLOGRAPHICS

if you know anything about waves and wave packets etc you know they need two spirals to do such a thing, just like 3d tv. except in the sky.

and just to let you know why I believe this, I HAVE SEEN IT. it wasn't 3d but it was DEFFINATLY holographics. and it was god damned scary.

peace.

reply to post by KKinsane2009


Fair enough. I have to admit that holographics is a possibility. However, holograms are much more advanced than what we saw that night. I have seen some very real looking holograms... This wasn't like any of the ones I have seen. Is it a possibility? Sure. But, I believe something else is going on here.

reply to post by wonkamaniac


I'm just amazed that even when you've all been shown that there's a verified, proven and plotted trajectory and altitude for the spiral event ... and it's 800+ kms AWAY from EISCAT and smack bang in the middle of Russian territory, the White Sea ... and yet you're all clinging like drowning men to a lifeboat which in your case is EISCAT.

Can someone explain to me how EISCAT managed to affect the ionosphere ABOVE the White Sea ... then tell me how EISCAT controlled the trajectory of the spiral so it moved even further AWAY from EISCAT's location and deeper into Russian controlled airspace ?

Look, I know that EISCAT is your pet theory ... but I've just asked 2 very simple yet important questions that at least one EISCAT fan should be able to answer right now.



[edit on 20/2/10 by tauristercus]