Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

reply to post by Wolfenz


Prove it? Sure. The independent analyses of the photos shows that the spiral was clearly in space. The ICBM that is claimed to have made it travels in space. Of course it can travel for more than 12 minutes through thousands upon thousands of miles of space.

You're not getting this whole "evidence" thing, are you? The ICBM theory is backed by evidence - from the testimony of rocket scientists, to the warning given by, and subsequent admission of, Russia. It is incumbent on YOU to show actual real evidence (and not conjecture) that each and every piece of that supporting evidence is incorrect. The ball is squarely in your court.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". My claim, and that of the experts, is not extraordinary. Your claim, and the claims of other "enthusiasts" are very extraordinary.

So, put up or shut up.

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by Wolfenz
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

well well lookie here at this site that also explains that what i have thought of right at the begining taur* did you get your pics and calculations ? from this site ?

www.enterprisemission.com...

Wolfenz ... let me caution you to think VERY, VERY CAREFULLY before you post your response to this question of mine:

ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF PLAGIARISM IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE ATS COMMUNITY ?

no not at all but the pics are allot a like on the site caution ? are you threatening me ? did you look at the site i have posted ? the pictures and calculations are very close to yours is it not >? or are they yours ? im not saying im asking you ! a yes or no or a litte answer will do
did i say that you copied no i did not !

So now you back peddle on the accusation of plagiarism by saying you phrased your accusations as questions instead of directly accusing me to my face.

Seems to me that being unable to refute my analysis, you decide to attack me personally and try to discredit my work with thinly veiled accusations such as this:

well well lookie here at this site that also explains that what i have thought of right at the begining

And what did you mean by "what I have thought of right at the beginning" ?
Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out ... you're saying that all along you thought my work was not my own and instead, a copy of, and therefore stolen from someone else ... in other words, plagiarized !

I therefore will be expecting one of the following from you immediately:

Either an expose showing in detail EXACTLY what you claim in my work is NOT original and show EXACTLY what parts of the other researchers work that I have used and claimed to be mine.

OR

An immediate apology indicating CLEARLY that your earlier statement regarding the non-originality of my work was incorrect and mistaken.

Irrespective, I may still use my ATS right to lodge a formal complaint against you to ATS management.

reply to post by davesidious


That was a very interesting simulation but I was wondering if you had any idea what the purpose or reasoning behind that grid-like globe that was revealed at the conclusion of the dissipation phase ? Just seemed a very strange/interesting artifact to have appear ... perhaps the author of the simulation was hinting at something ?

But just in jest ... that final grid-like globe looked TO ME just like the Death Star from the Star Wars movie

Originally posted by mrwiffler
Davesidious, how can you ignore the 300km diameter spiral? That's a fairly unique phenomena that I haven't seen an explanation for yet, even from the conservative scientific community. Sure there was a missile involved. That seems obvious but it doesn't account for the entire event.

You need to see the experiments involving electrically charged aerosols. They don't talk about spirals but the image below shows that the aerosol experiments were remarkably similar to the spiral event in certain aspects:

(Check out the thread by zorgon: www.abovetopsecret.com...)

Mrwiffler, There's 'always' a possibility that your scenario could in fact be the correct one and well done for bringing this to our attention.

However, there are phases of the actual event that I can't see your aerosol simulation explaining.

Take a look at this image in which I've indicated some key components of the spiral event. You have to bear in mind that the spiral event was NOT entirely about the main spiral structure ... there were other components that have to be taken into account and explained for the whole picture to become clear to us.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/117a39cd72e0.jpg[/atsimg]

Some important questions that need to be explained:

We need a physical explanation of what the 'bubble envelope' at (B) purpose is, how it was created and maintained (it expanded throughout the event) and what its relationship to the main spiral at (C) and the blue spiral at (D) was.

We need a physical explanation of the blue spiral at (D), how it was created and maintained and why it remained 'attached' to the main spiral at (C) throughout the entire event.

We also need an explanation for why the blue spiral and the bubble envelope BOTH have their points of origin EXACTLY where the missile exhaust plume terminates (A) ... you can't deny that the relationship between the 3 is clearly and unambiguously a real one.

We need a physical explanation as to why the bubble envelope begins at a certain very localized point (A) but then expands into a pear shaped structure.

We need a physical explanation as to why the main spiral at (C) NEVER extends OUTSIDE the boundaries of the bubble envelope (B) ... the relationship between the 2 of them is again obvious, but why does that relationship exist ?

And those are just a few of the really obvious questions that need asking and answering ... but DO NOT for one moment think that the EISCAT proponents will jump in and answer them ... having a few Harvard documents shoved in your face with corresponding cries of "Voila !!" simply doesn't cut the mustard.


You know what I would REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY like to have done ???

I would like EM, Wolfenz and Donny either individually or collectively, actually try to do an honest to God bit of ACTUAL analysis instead of waving documentation around in the air ... get their hands 'dirty' so to speak.

So you 3 guys ... are you up to the challenge ... are you even CAPABLE of doing the challenge ?

Simply use the above image and limit your analysis to point (A) ... use your knowledge of EISCAT and its 'capabilities' to come up with a satisfactory explanation/scenario as to how EISCAT would have generated the exhaust plume, the beginning of the bubble envelope and the beginning of the blue spiral. Also in your analysis, use EISCAT to explain the method by which the ionosphere was altered by EISCAT resulting in the formation of those 3 distinct events ALL occurring at the same spot.

And again, to refresh your memories, those 3 unique events ALL originated at the 120 km altitude mark ... within the E-layer ... not the F-layer that EISCAT is primarily designed to interact with.

I know I'm really wasting my breath because one or other of you 3 will simply come back with a "why should we waste our time doing that when you can read the documentation".

reply to post by tauristercus


Actually my friend I have asked you to explain the bubble many times in previous posts. You have not explained how it could occur via any rocket, armed and well or failed.
And here is why I asked.
If the stability of the upper atmosphere portion of the event stayed coherently spiral,( assumed by your camp) being because of the lack of atmosphere.(space)
So if , big if---- How could a blue missile exhaust stay intact with the whole package???
All neatly wrapped in this big ole bubble??? The spinning of the earth and atmosphere would put an end to the bubble effect and the blue exhaust spiral way before the upper part of the phenomenon.
Why do you not know this?

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Actually my friend I have asked you to explain the bubble many times in previous posts. You have not explained how it could occur via any rocket, armed and well or failed.
And here is why I asked.
If the stability of the upper atmosphere portion of the event stayed coherently spiral,( assumed by your camp) being because of the lack of atmosphere.(space)
So if , big if---- How could a blue missile exhaust stay intact with the whole package???
All neatly wrapped in this big ole bubble??? The spinning of the earth and atmosphere would put an end to the bubble effect and the blue exhaust spiral way before the upper part of the phenomenon.
Why do you not know this?

Actually I have many times admitted that despite the obvious existence of the bubble envelope, blue spiral and main spiral components, I have NO definitive explanation for their manufacture ... you and your 'camp' claim that EISCAT has well publicized documentation (that you keep waving around) that EISCAT has the technology, is able to manipulate the ionosphere to produce spirals and DID indulge in such manipulation on that December morning.
Based on this vehement belief you have, WHY is it such a problem for you to come right out and explain in black and white just HOW did EISCAT achieve this wondrous feat of atmospheric manipulation ?
You haven't even explained something as simple as WHY did EISCAT perform this manipulation over a foreign nations territory and airspace, as opposed to over Norwegian territory ? So simple a question yet the silence is deafening.

Now, I have said numerous times that I DO NOT know the exact mechanism of the spiral event creation BUT what I DO know, and have PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt (as has davesidious and others), is that the event is indisputably and undeniably and backed by HARD EVIDENCE, linked to the Bulava missile test conducted at that VERY moment in time as the spiral appeared.

We may not be able to explain the spiral creation mechanism, but by God we can certainly, and have DONE so, proved the Russian missile link beyond ANY doubt whatsoever.

So, to summarize ...

We (myself, davesidious, et al) have a DEFINITIVE and CONFIRMABLE explanation for
(a) how the spiral event was initiated
(b) how it got to that location
(c) why it was in that particular location
(d) why the event trajectory was completely over Russian territory and aimed at the Kamchatka Peninsula missile range
(e) why there's an obvious missile exhaust plume CLEARLY attached to the spiral event
but
(f) no confirmed explanation for the creation mechanism.

You (EM, Wolfenz, et al) have NO DEFINITIVE and NO CONFIRMABLE explanation for
(a) how the spiral event was initiated
(b) how it got to that location
(c) why it was in that particular location
(d) why the event trajectory was completely over Russian territory and aimed at the Kamchatka Peninsula missile range
(e) why there's an obvious missile exhaust plume CLEARLY attached to the spiral event
(f) no confirmed explanation for the creation mechanism.

Seems my 'camp' is 5 explanations up on your camp !


Ok, your chance now for rebuttal ... take your time in addressing the above points and come up with explanations that DO NOT involve reading a document ... in other words ... ANALYZE THE EXISTING DATA created on the morning in question as we did !!!

reply to post by tauristercus


This can all be answered by Wolf's and my almost simultaneous posts.
Collaboration can answer all of the above. Almos anyway. lol

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by tauristercus

 

This can all be answered by Wolf's and my almost simultaneous posts.
Collaboration can answer all of the above. Almos anyway. lol

Errrr .... what ??????
Did I somehow miss the significant portion of your reply which included your rebuttal ... or a link to where your rebuttal may be found ?

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


I swear I'm trying to stay away from here but I keep getting drawn back like a bug to a zapper..

EM you said to Tauris- and pardon me for jumping back into the fray here:

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

- I distinctly had a feeling you would reject the information despite who the information was provided by...Harvard.

Ah yes, Harvard.... and again no one here is rejecting the study as far as I can tell- they're rejecting your claim of what the study actually was showing...

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
All of these links that I have provided are credible and well researched. I'm not sure what else you need to see.

This may be true but the challenge you're faced with now is actually showing that you've interpreted the Harvard study correctly as it was intended to be understood. I'm not so sure that you've been able to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that you comprehend what was in the study...

So just because it says stuff like "spiral like geometry" shouldn't automatically equate that to the cause of what was seen from Norway. It also doesn't mean that EISCAT can create huge visible, rotating spirals over the skies of Russia-

You're a self proclaimed non-expert in this field, so isn't there a chance that you've misinterpreted the results of this Harvard study, even just a little?

What if you asked the department involved in conducting the experiments, whether you're correct in your assessment as it pertains to the Norway Spiral; do you think they'd say yes? If so, then shouldn't you be able to explain to everyone why that is? This I imagine would demonstrate your competence in this field and may lend credence to what you and your sidekicks are claiming.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
Everything else has been based off of personal calculation and conjecture, which, for all intensive purposes could be flawed and skewed towards preconceived notions of expected findings.

Shouldn't this also include the (mis)interpretations of Harvard experiments involving substorm activation by powerful HF radio waves?

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
It seems people are purposefully creating theories and trying to match the evidence with those preconceived ideas, as opposed to doing the research and then coming up with the conclusion out of the objectivity that the research should allow.

[takes deep breath].... Does this by chance also include those people who have invented theories that have been born out of (mis)interpretations of Harvard experiments involving substorm activation by powerful HF radio waves which have been matched to fit their preconceived ideas about EISCAT causing the spiral seen from Norway? [/exhales]

Until I see some real evidence done by PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS, besides personal graphs and charts which appear to be created out of the need to be correct, I think its safe to say that if HARVARD observed spiral-like geometry coming from HAARP and Eiscat in 1996, its probably still safe to say that these geometric shapes can still be made today with upgrades in technologies.

So let me ask this again- What about the HARVARD astrophysicist who specifically addressed this and said this spiral event was nothing more than the result of a failed rocket?

Remember, I brought him up 2 pages ago but you ignored it. His name is Jonathan Mc Dowell. He even made his claim before the Russians came out and said it was a failed Bulava-- So just by looking at it he was able to tell what it was from-- notice he did not mention EISCAT, at all...
www.newscientist.com...

He writes his own column in Sky and Telescope and has his own monthly newsletter dealing with space launches.. He certainly seems to have a keen interest in this field.

Here's his website:
hea-www.harvard.edu...

So EM, or Donny or Wolf-are any of you in a position to refute what this man's assessment was regarding the spiral?

Will any of you email him (address is on his homepage) and ask him about that study you've stumbled upon to see if your interpretations of it are in fact correct?

Surely he'll understand some of what's in that study better than any of us, right?

Or are you all just going to keep pretending like you know what you're talking about?

[edit on 24-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]

reply to post by PhotonEffect

I swear I'm trying to stay away from here but I keep getting drawn back like a bug to a zapper..

I know that feeling EXACTLY !!!!!

I've even stated a number of my posts ago that I was done with this ... to use the term very loosely ... 'debate' !

And yet here I am also continuing to bash my head against a brick wall trying to knock some semblance of sense in to them.

Also notice (I've lost track of) the number of times I've asked (almost pleaded) with them to answer SPECIFIC questions and all I get in response is the 'run around' and hit across the head with their Harvard documents, which appears to be their sole piece of substantiating evidence. Almost starting to feel like a stupid dog that refuses to learn a new trick and keeps getting whacked with the (Harvard) paper !

I have to agree completely with your observation that they may have 'looked' at that document but I have to ask myself how much of it did they actually 'understand' ?

Why, oh why, won't one of them simply stand up to the plate and answer the questions posed to them in my posts ?
Actually, that's a very silly question on my part ... we, of course, know why they refuse to respond to those questions ... because Harvard haven't supplied them with any answers !

I've also received virtually no response from the EISCAT camp in relation to a quote that I displayed in a previous post and that was obtained directly from their own source material that they worship so highly and according to them, greatly substantiates their stand.

Here it is again ...

... and it is clear that active ionospheric heating cannot duplicate what happens naturally, even within the small affected region directly over the facility.

I'll assume (until corrected) that in this statement, they're referring to reproducing an aurora type of effect ... and failing miserably ... and admitting it.

So if their technology can't even reproduce a natural event, and on a much smaller scale than does nature, then why the heck should we even remotely believe that that very same technology can produce something as incredibly complex and long lasting as the spiral event ?
Answer: We do NOT believe it can.

But again, as with all other questions posed to them ... it will be ignored or side-stepped ... or more than likely, we'll be slapped yet again with the Harvard document !

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Photon, Ill be more than happy to contact him. It will be my pleasure. I actually cannot wait. Now, when he decides not to refute the information that you have proposed, what will happen then?

Its fine by me regardless since I am happy to find the truth. But, I guarantee you, after he has read the findings of his own alumni, and if he chooses to retract his statement, what will you do? Will you stick with the same old routine, or will you change your attitude?

My guess is that no matter what, you will stick to your beliefs regardless. So, I AM GOING TO DO WHAT YOU SUGGESTED, but, in the end, I think your opinion will still stay the same. And that's alright. You're perfectly welcome to your beliefs. I won't expect anything different.

reply to post by tauristercus


The only information that we have that this occurred over Russian Territory is the information that you have provided. Yet, all of the information in the media states that the spiral happened in Norway, not Russia. Do you find that peculiar?

All links say...Norway Spiral, not Russian Spiral. Is that not a problem here?

And since you're going along with the "official story," shouldn't your information reflect that?

reply to post by tauristercus


Tauristercus...we are all alike. Whether you want to believe that or not. We are all trying to find the truth. We have different methods, but our intent is the same.

Always remember that.

this is not me verses you. This is US verses the government. Someone is lying and its neither you or I.

Please keep that in mind.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I will tell you the same thing that I told Tauristecus.

Someone is lying, and its neither you or I.

Russia denied this information initially. It is neither you or I. No matter what, Russia denied this claim in the onset, which makes me rather skeptical. You have presented good information, however, there are a few things that still leave me in question. Regardless.

Now, whenever there is a denied claim to something that actually happened, I have some questions...period. And from what I know of Eiscat and HAARP, I begin to make inquiries. These inquiries have been substantiated, not matter what information that you may bring forward.

You, Phage and Tauristercus are intelligent people. So, I look at this information, but, if it doesn't add up, something else is amiss.

And that is all I have to say.

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Actually my friend I have asked you to explain the bubble many times in previous posts. You have not explained how it could occur via any rocket, armed and well or failed.
And here is why I asked.
If the stability of the upper atmosphere portion of the event stayed coherently spiral,( assumed by your camp) being because of the lack of atmosphere.(space)
So if , big if---- How could a blue missile exhaust stay intact with the whole package???
All neatly wrapped in this big ole bubble??? The spinning of the earth and atmosphere would put an end to the bubble effect and the blue exhaust spiral way before the upper part of the phenomenon.
Why do you not know this?

Actually I have many times admitted that despite the obvious existence of the bubble envelope, blue spiral and main spiral components, I have NO definitive explanation for their manufacture ... you and your 'camp' claim that EISCAT has well publicized documentation (that you keep waving around) that EISCAT has the technology, is able to manipulate the ionosphere to produce spirals and DID indulge in such manipulation on that December morning.
Based on this vehement belief you have, WHY is it such a problem for you to come right out and explain in black and white just HOW did EISCAT achieve this wondrous feat of atmospheric manipulation ?
You haven't even explained something as simple as WHY did EISCAT perform this manipulation over a foreign nations territory and airspace, as opposed to over Norwegian territory ? So simple a question yet the silence is deafening.

Now, I have said numerous times that I DO NOT know the exact mechanism of the spiral event creation BUT what I DO know, and have PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt (as has davesidious and others), is that the event is indisputably and undeniably and backed by HARD EVIDENCE, linked to the Bulava missile test conducted at that VERY moment in time as the spiral appeared.

We may not be able to explain the spiral creation mechanism, but by God we can certainly, and have DONE so, proved the Russian missile link beyond ANY doubt whatsoever.

So, to summarize ...

We (myself, davesidious, et al) have a DEFINITIVE and CONFIRMABLE explanation for
(a) how the spiral event was initiated
(b) how it got to that location
(c) why it was in that particular location
(d) why the event trajectory was completely over Russian territory and aimed at the Kamchatka Peninsula missile range
(e) why there's an obvious missile exhaust plume CLEARLY attached to the spiral event
but
(f) no confirmed explanation for the creation mechanism.

You (EM, Wolfenz, et al) have NO DEFINITIVE and NO CONFIRMABLE explanation for
(a) how the spiral event was initiated
(b) how it got to that location
(c) why it was in that particular location
(d) why the event trajectory was completely over Russian territory and aimed at the Kamchatka Peninsula missile range
(e) why there's an obvious missile exhaust plume CLEARLY attached to the spiral event
(f) no confirmed explanation for the creation mechanism.

Seems my 'camp' is 5 explanations up on your camp !


Ok, your chance now for rebuttal ... take your time in addressing the above points and come up with explanations that DO NOT involve reading a document ... in other words ... ANALYZE THE EXISTING DATA created on the morning in question as we did !!!

Actually, I have explained this several times. you just weren't listening.

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by tauristercus

 

All links say...Norway Spiral, not Russian Spiral. Is that not a problem here?

And since you're going along with the "official story," shouldn't your information reflect that?

Well, thats certainly a convenient bit of fact twisting to suit your viewpoint.
The ONLY reason that it was 'called' the Norway Spiral is because the majority of the observations were made by people in Norway ... but that in no way means that's where it actually occurred.

You want 'official' ... you got it !

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 ...

www.dailymail.co.uk...< br />

A spectacular spiral light show in the sky above Norway on Wednesday was caused by a Russian missile that failed just after launch, according to Russia's defense ministry.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

UPDATE (Dec. 10): Russia has finally admitted a missile accident with the Bulava ICBM.

www.universetoday.com...

But then, in an abrupt public reversal, the Russian Defense Ministry suddenly claimed that this was, indeed, "a Russian rocket launch ...."

www.colinandrews.net...

Russia says it was the result of a failed test launch for its troubled Bulava missile program. In a statement, the Russian Defense Ministry said it fired a Bulava from a submarine in the White Sea near the Norwegian coast Wednesday morning.

pakalert.wordpress.com...

And so on ... and so on .. and so on ... ad nauseum.

Hopefully you can understand what the above means.
So much then for your insistence that my 'information' does NOT reflect the 'official' story.

The only information that we have that this occurred over Russian Territory is the information that you have provided. Yet, all of the information in the media states that the spiral happened in Norway, not Russia. Do you find that peculiar?

What I find peculiar is your incredibly illogical and delusional fixation on twisting verifiable facts to bolster your unsupportable EISCAT hypothesis.

Just above I have provided numerous 'official' admittances by Russia that their Bulava missile was linked to the spiral event. The last time I looked, Russian missile tests ALWAYS take place over Russian territory ... perhaps you can supply me with evidence to the contrary ?

But even better yet, I can supply YOU with undeniable and unquestionable PROOF that the spiral event took place in it's entirety OVER Russian territory ... and the proof is the many widely geographically spaced photo's of the event that people took.

Here's a summary of the various viewpoints when plotted ACCURATELY and taking their viewing direction into account.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd74cfb4ecb7.jpg[/atsimg]

As you can clearly see, the intersections of all those varied and different viewing directions intersect not just closely, or loosely or approximately OVER the White Sea area, but they intersect PERFECTLY and with ACCURACY ... and where is the White Sea located ? right in the middle of Russian occupied territory.

But I suppose you're going to now say that my methodology is suspect or that I didn't calculate directions accurately ... or whatever ... just to try and invalidate what is so painfully obvious.

But wait, I'm not done yet ...

It's one thing to say that the event happened over the White Sea, but let me present even more DEFINITIVE and UNDENIABLE proof that the event happened over the White Sea and within Russian territory.

When a missile is launched, it follows a pre-calculated trajectory to its destination. This trajectory occurs along, and follows, whats known as a Great Circle path ... here's a definition, just so you're clear on what I'm telling you.

The great circle, also known as the Riemannian circle, is the path with the smallest curvature, and hence, an arc (or an orthodrome) of a great circle is the shortest path between two points on the surface. The distance between any two points on a sphere is therefore known as the great-circle distance. The great-circle route is the shortest path between two points across the surface of a sphere.

And to hammer it home .. this is from NATO:

For long-range missiles, the ground track is almost the "great circle", i.e., the shortest distance on the globe between the launch point and the target.

www.nato-pa.int...

Ok, here's another image showing the OBVIOUS trajectory that the spiral event followed during it's existance ... again, this trajectory is a PROVEN one and NOT open to denial.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd856ecd05cc.jpg[/atsimg]

Ok, so I've PROVED we have a DEFINITIVE location over the White Sea ... I've also PROVED that we have a DEFINITIVE trajectory path ... so lets put them together and see whats at the other end of this trajectory ... just might be something interesting !

Remember, the trajectory is perfectly aligned along a Great Circle ... and this is NOT open to denial.

So whats at the end of this trajectory/great circle ?

Nothing less than where the majority of Russian missile test flights end up ... smack in the middle of the Kamchatka Peninsula test range ... something like 5000+ kms away from the White Sea.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/94f3978faf4c.jpg[/atsimg]


I'm hoping you've been paying attention and realize what I just did ... and perfectly peer reproducible by anyone who wishes to take the time and effort to do so ... nothing hidden, nothing mysterious and NO underhandedness.

I took the photos that were taken at various geographic locations ... I then used directional information obtained from those photos ... I then triangulated those varied directional data and landed smack in the middle of the White Sea.
The various location points in the White Sea all formed (without any manipulation on my part) a perfect trajectory path.
This trajectory path (again with no manipulation) fell perfectly on to a Great Circle path ... and this Great Circle path went straight as an arrow to the Russian missile test area located within the Kamchatka Peninsula.


So if you're going to try and tell me that all of the above is nothing but one coincidence after another, then I'm going to have to say that the EISCAT camp are in full self-delusional mode.

Here's yet another in the many challenges that I have already put to you ... that somehow manage to get ignored or side-stepped.

How would you use your EISCAT information to account for the above evidence ... I'll bet you can't (and won't) do it !

You know what really pisses me off ? It's the fact that I go to all this effort to validate my stance ... I show something known as EVIDENCE ... I then consolidate this evidence into a tight knit argument just so that you can see I'm not simply blowing hot air up your collective arses.

Do I get the same consideration from Team EISCAT ??
LIKE HELL I DO !!



[edit on 25/2/10 by tauristercus]Mod edit: colour tag corrected.

[edit on 25/2/2010 by ArMaP]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Nice work EM.

I figured I would add some information given by the Russians prior to the event which concerned a possible launch in the White Sea.

I have noted the hours of operation in the next image along with all the coordinates given by the Russians as areas that the launch might be occurring from (the coordinates given by the Russians are listed in a screen capture from the Frisnit website (top of image) and are denoted by the yellow tacs):

At the bottom of the above image is a screencapture from the EISCAT website regarding what equipment was scheduled to be on that night. It states that the Heater was not going to be on, but that information conflicts with other information that was available (see below) and which indicated that the heater would indeed be in use. *Had one looked no further than the schedule, they would have never noticed that the heater was to be used.... :

(...somebody spelled 'occurrence' incorrectly... )




*Once again, thanks for sharing your research with us. You and your mates have done an excellent job.



[edit on 25-2-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Thank you Exuberant1. I'm glad that you also have figured out that there could only be one explanation. Also, thank you for your contribution and information.

Hit me up anytime!!!

[edit on 25-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Hey Exuby
Nice to see you here. And posting that heater info is dazzling!
I hope the missile crew reads that part. Alas they most likely will ignore it.
For some reason their gullibility towards official lies out weighs there gullibility towards reason and free thinking.
the best Donny