Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

reply to post by Wolfenz

if you notice i put a link of a picture from a previous post in this thread that look sorta like the norway spiral just horizontal greenish nicely formed but not so tight and has a man stands in a yellow winter snow gear pointing to it !
i also posted a picture of an artifical auroa spiral creation right above the site of EISCAT ( note look were the picture came from) but a more spread out finger painting spiral it has either the uhv or vhf or is it the radar in it the picture ( night setting )

I must be going blind ... sorry, but I've looked back at your previous posts and can't seem to find those 2 pictures even though I'm sure they're there somewhere.

Could you please repost them again ? Thanks ...

reply to post by tauristercus

Why ? because of the location where the observers were looking ALL intersected in the White Sea ... and because EACH ONE of those locations in the White Sea lined up PERFECTLY along a trajectory ... and because the trajectory itself aligned perfectly along a great circle route.

Yes, and you also pointed out that it is impossible to view the spiral head on, like it was seen from all sites, if it was following that trajectory while spinning around it's axis, or two axes.

And I agree, it is impossible.

This evidence seems to be ignored, even by yourself?

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by tauristercus

 

... and you also pointed out that it is impossible to view the spiral head on, like it was seen from all sites, if it was following that trajectory while spinning around it's axis, or two axes.

And I agree, it is impossible.

This evidence seems to be ignored, even by yourself?

No, you misunderstood me.

Being able to view the main spiral head on was NEVER in dispute and every one of the location data points that I used to triangulate and determine the event location in the White Sea could see the spiral that way.

What I did STATE (as a result of my analysis) is that it was IMPOSSIBLE for such a spiral to be created by a mechanical failure such as leaking propellant as was the primary conjecture by most missile hypothesis adherents.
The main spiral (and additional effects) were definitely created by some mechanism that was related to the missile test BUT not because of a 3rd stage failure.

The final conclusion based on the available evidence from that morning is that
(1) A Russian missile was involved
(2) The location of the event was over the White Sea and entirely within Russian territory
(3) The spiral event was conclusively shown to be associated with the missile
(4) The spiral event was NOT the result of missile failure

[edit on 26/2/10 by tauristercus]

reply to post by tauristercus


Ok, so how is it possible to view the spiral head on when it is viewed from the side following a trajectory from right to left from those angles?

If it was spinning along this trajectory, wouldn't it look more how a corkcrew would look from the side?

And yes, you came to the conclusion that it couldn't have been the result of a missile failure, but you don't seem to want to point that out to the people that still say that the spiral was just a missile failure.

They praise you for the parts of your research that show that there was a missile involved, and I agree there was a missile.

They completely ignore the parts of your research that show that the spiral couldn't have been caused by a missile failure.

And you just say nothing.

You had your own theory about what caused it, why don't you put more effort into promoting that, instead fighting another theory that doesn't involve missile failure?

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by tauristercus

 

Ok, so how is it possible to view the spiral head on when it is viewed from the side following a trajectory from right to left from those angles?

I think that unfortunately, either I haven't been as clear in those threads that I devoted to the analysis or perhaps you misunderstood my conclusions

The main reason for the amount of time and effort I've invested in my analysis based on the available evidence was to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the spiral event was LINKED conclusively to the Russian test firing of a Bulava missile on that morning. The corollary to having conclusively proved that a missile was involved was that EISCAT could NOT have been involved.
Either it was a Russian missile, or it was EISCAT ... and I've proved conclusively that the spiral was the result of that Bulava test.

And yes, you came to the conclusion that it couldn't have been the result of a missile failure, but you don't seem to want to point that out to the people that still say that the spiral was just a missile failure.

I'm sorry but I have no idea how you managed to come to that conclusion.
All through my threads I have STRONGLY pointed out my belief (based on available data, analysis and conclusion) that even though the Bulava missile WAS involved, that I most certainly DO NOT believe that the spiral event was the result of a simple failure of the 3rd stage.
I have mentioned many times that in MY opinion, the Bulava was launched with some new and advanced technological payload that was actively tested that morning. It was that payload that was responsible in some manner for the creation of the spiral event ... how ? unfortunately there is no additional evidence to give us any indication.
But when data analysis rules out ANY and ALL possibility of a mechanical failure having created the spiral event, we are therefore LOGICALLY left with only one viable alternative ... that the spiral structure was a DELIBERATE creation which in turn dictates that some kind of new and novel technology was involved.

They praise you for the parts of your research that show that there was a missile involved, and I agree there was a missile.

They completely ignore the parts of your research that show that the spiral couldn't have been caused by a missile failure.

And you just say nothing.

You had your own theory about what caused it, why don't you put more effort into promoting that, instead fighting another theory that doesn't involve missile failure?

As i mentioned above, I most certainly HAVE put plenty of effort into popularizing my belief that the spiral event was a DELIBERATE creation and that I have taken every opportunity to provide convincing evidence as to why the spiral could NOT have been unintentional or accidental.

reply to post by tauristercus

I think that unfortunately, either I haven't been as clear in those threads that I devoted to the analysis or perhaps you misunderstood my conclusions

That is not an answer to my question.(I know this is kinda redundant, since we agree, but still)

he corollary to having conclusively proved that a missile was involved was that EISCAT could NOT have been involved. Either it was a Russian missile, or it was EISCAT ... and I've proved conclusively that the spiral was the result of that Bulava test.

What? That's pretty definate. The one doesn't rule out the other. They could be connected, no reason to discard the theory.

You definately did not prove it was the result of a Bulava test.

I'm sorry but I have no idea how you managed to come to that conclusion. All through my threads I have STRONGLY pointed out my belief (based on available data, analysis and conclusion) that even though the Bulava missile WAS involved, that I most certainly DO NOT believe that the spiral event was the result of a simple failure of the 3rd stage.

Yes, you've definately pointed it out in your threads, but you never mentioned it after that, and I see that a lot of posters that are also against this EISCAT theory, are still stating as fact that it was a missile failure.

Yet you don't point that out to them, you seem more interested in debunking another theory.

But you've clearly layed out your conclusions in your last two posts.

It would be nice that if Dave or P comes in, and starts stating as fact that a missile failure was responsible, you stand up and say- hello, this is my research, it disproves that it was a missile failure- that way I don't have to repost and qoute your posts, and plug your thread in order to get that into thick skulls.








[edit on 26-2-2010 by Point of No Return]

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by tauristercus

 

I think that unfortunately, either I haven't been as clear in those threads that I devoted to the analysis or perhaps you misunderstood my conclusions

That is not an answer to my question.(I know this is kinda redundant, since we agree, but still)

Ok, you're asking why the main spiral could be seen head on from an observers point of view even though the trajectory of the event (and by association, the missile) was from the observers right to left, essentially across their field of view as in the following:

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

As is all too obvious, the spiral is seen full on but the clearly defined trajectory is right to left.

The reason as far as I can determine is because whatever the underlying mechanism that created the spiral, it could NOT have been accidental or unintentional, as I have attempted to show in the following:


Lets assume that it was a double propellant leak as the main version of the event would have us believe, then a rotation of the missile around it's main axis would result in a spiral being produced that would be viewed edge-on ONLY.
The assumption here being that the missile remained in correct flight attitude and was not tumbling ... in other words, it remained stable even though it was leaking propellant badly.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/98bc084a2682.jpg[/atsimg]


On the other hand, if the missile was leaking propellant and had ALSO become flight unstable ... in other words, it was tumbling along at least one additional axis ... then the combined resultant vectors of forward motion, spin stabilization rotation along the main missile axis plus unstable sideways thrust caused by leaking propellants points would not have resulted in a stable attitude OR a stable full on facing spiral ... as shown here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6048ca664526.jpg[/atsimg]

You definately did not prove it was the result of a Bulava test.

Actually yes, I have proved exactly that.
You overlook the very visible and clearly defined trajectory that links EVERY visible phase of the spiral event ... all the way from the exhaust plume sighting through to the final dissipation event, 100's of kilometers distant from the exhaust plume location.
Also, I have conclusively demonstrated that the trajectory is a PERFECT FIT on to a Great Circle route that leads DIRECTLY to the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula range that is the final destination for the majority of Russian missile test.

All the above points are clearly commensurate with, are indicative of and clearly associated with missile behaviour.
On the other hand, there is ZERO supporting or corroborating evidence whatsoever that EISCAT has the capability or indeed, the necessity to simulate such a missile trajectory over Russian territory.
I've already mentioned in a previous post that if EISCAT were tracking the missile along that same trajectory and manipulating the ionosphere in the immediate vicinity of the missile, then this indicates a deliberate attempt at interference with the missile test and would could be interpreted as deliberate and unwarranted interference with Russian miltary hardware and viewed as a potential "Act of War".

If you have such data or evidence that EISCAT could simulate perfectly such a trajectory, then please make it available to me.

So given the 2 options by which to account for the obvious trajectory, missile or EISCAT ... my money (and the data/evidence) is clearly on the missile.

It would be nice that if Dave or P comes in, and starts stating as fact that a missile failure was responsible, you stand up and say- hello, this is my research, it disproves that it was a missile failure- that way I don't have to repost and qoute your posts, and plug your thread in order to get that into thick skulls.

Sometimes I think those same 'thick skulls' must be made from solid concrete !

reply to post by tauristercus

As is all too obvious, the spiral is seen full on but the clearly defined trajectory is right to left.

It is also obvious that although the spiral clearly moves across the air, it is always seen in 2d, so that still leaves the question open.

You overlook the very visible and clearly defined trajectory that links EVERY visible phase of the spiral event ... all the way from the exhaust plume sighting through to the final dissipation event, 100's of kilometers distant from the exhaust plume location.

I overlook nothing. I'm not disputing that.

I'm just saying that you have proven that the spiral event took place in the missile's trajectory.

There is no undisputable proof the Bulava caused it. It is however, imo, a viable explanation.

On the other hand, there is ZERO supporting or corroborating evidence whatsoever that EISCAT has the capability or indeed, the necessity to simulate such a missile trajectory over Russian territory.

Not quite zero. I've already posted the part of the HAARP patent that claims that missile defense is one of the potential applications of this sort of technology.

That was over twenty years ago. I think it is safe to say that they would pursue that option.

I've already mentioned in a previous post that if EISCAT were tracking the missile along that same trajectory and manipulating the ionosphere in the immediate vicinity of the missile, then this indicates a deliberate attempt at interference with the missile test and would could be interpreted as deliberate and unwarranted interference with Russian miltary hardware and viewed as a potential "Act of War".

Yes it could, I don't think Russia will declare war right away if their opponent can zap their missiles out of the sky.

If you have such data or evidence that EISCAT could simulate perfectly such a trajectory, then please make it available to me.

I haven't. Do you have such data or evidence that a Bulava missile can create such a spiral?

So given the 2 options by which to account for the obvious trajectory, missile or EISCAT ... my money (and the data/evidence) is clearly on the missile.

That's not a bad bet.

But if EISCAT was deployed against the missile, it would've followed the missile's trajectory perhaps.

Sometimes I think those same 'thick skulls' must be made from solid concrete !

I don't know how to interprete this, but will you engage in discussion with those that still claim missile failure?

That seems more of a priority than debunking the other non-official explanation.

reply to post by Point of No Return


The patent says it is for disrupting communication with missiles, which isn't really going to help to protect against ICBMs, as they are designed to operate without communication (for when whoever's controlling it gets nuked by the other side). Also a patent doesn't necessarily mean it's capable of doing what's claimed in the patent.

And yes, the Bulava could easily make that spiral. From what the Russians have released about the Bulava, an the capabilities of other highly-maneuverable MIRV-bearing ICBMs, they are loaded with fuel, including liquid fuel in the third stage, it's safe to say it most likely had a liquid fuel source. At this point, all it takes to cause a spiral is a lateral vent of that fuel, be it intentional (for the increased maneuverability the Russians boast, or the new included countermeasures), or accidental (failure of fuel lines due to excessive G forces at launch and initial boost, rupture), Newton's first law ("In the absence of a net force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed."), a spiral will be created. Due to the lack of atmosphere, the spiral will be nearly flawless. Due to the rear-illumination by the sun, the spiral will glow. In fact, the only things that could stop the spiral at that point are:

* the missile fully rupturing, imparting enough force to spin the missile around a different axis
* the venting material running out (which is what stopped the one in question)
* the missile re-entering the atmosphere
* the missile exploding (which would be impossible unless the spiral was ignited somehow)

EISCAT's antenna are incapable of affecting the ionosphere at more than a few tens of degrees from the vertical, due to the antennas being fixed, and the beam has to be steered electrically, if that's possible at all. The position of the spiral has been placed at hundreds of kilometers away from the EISCAT site.

Missile failure doesn't rely on exotic conspiracies, fantastic new science, or the interpretation of vague ancillary documentation. Unfortunately, the EISCAT theory currently does. Don't get me wrong - my geeky side would love it to be something incredible like a missile shield or some kind of offensive weapon, but to me at least, the evidence for that is simply not there. Yes, something weird was viewed near the missile, and yes, some early documents pertaining to harm mention missile communication interference, but that simply doesn't imply that EISCAT, a different facility, somehow has the capability of creating an actual visible phenomenon hundreds of miles away from it. To think so requires a considerable leap of faith.

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

if you notice i put a link of a picture from a previous post in this thread that look sorta like the norway spiral just horizontal greenish nicely formed but not so tight and has a man stands in a yellow winter snow gear pointing to it !
i also posted a picture of an artifical auroa spiral creation right above the site of EISCAT ( note look were the picture came from) but a more spread out finger painting spiral it has either the uhv or vhf or is it the radar in it the picture ( night setting )

I must be going blind ... sorry, but I've looked back at your previous posts and can't seem to find those 2 pictures even though I'm sure they're there somewhere.

Could you please repost them again ? Thanks ...

sorry taur i have not found out to post the whole picture yet

just the link to it i wish i could ( i need to know how ) i would raise some head along time ago


ok here they are


this one here has the man in winter yellow gear pointing




this one here is right above eiscat itself!


this one vertical almost strait line near the famous cathedral at tromso norway


this one is the vertical spiral ! it raise my eybrows ! for shure


home.online.no..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


another that will turn some heads Aurora Spiral artificial





the sources home.online.no...
home.online.no...
www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk...


here the heaters HAARP 48 ARRAYS



HAARP 180 ARRAYS
www.haarp.alaska.edu..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


EISCAT and the 3 grids of arrays


how much power do these facility's have now >? way above the 1 gigawatt ?

reply to post by Wolfenz


Awesome! A picture is worth a thousand words.
You have just found a way around the character count. Great job Wolf.
Awesome!! I know my antennas and that's some transmission power network.

reply to post by Wolfenz


The most basic of research would have yielded you this link if you'd even bothered to look for it. It seems strange how you argue about what EISCAT can do, when you don't even know what it's capable of. It's almost as if you've made up your mind it's teh evil scientists, and won't let evidence dissuade you.

Okay, I think the last 10 pages or so has been all of us butting heads and doing senseless battle. Actually, the entire thread has been this way. Each of us knows the others' theories, and, quite well I must say. At this point, we all need to try to find alternate explanations to add in the hypothesis pile.

I am going to see what other theories that are out there and see if any of them make sense. Eiscat is my number one theory. Eiscat coupled with new technology is my next one. I need to see if there's anything else. And we should all do the same.

Tauristercus, we know your theory...see if you can find something that exists outside of that. Because, although we have entertained each others' theories, we have been stuck in neutral for awhile.

Photon, Dave, and others...see if you can find some additional one's as well and we will reconvene shortly.

True scientists, or observers will look at ALL of the research. So, I think that's what we should do.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


I've looked at all the evidence. Most people have. All theories are not equal. The other theories out there all rely on leaps of faith. The ICBM theory is the only one that deals entirely with knowns, and documented knowns at that. The EISCAT theory, for example, requires loads of leaps of faith, connecting assumed dots, in order to make sense.

Heck, the fact you think we need other theories belies your lack of understanding of what evidence is, and how it has to tie together in order to be of any use.

Don't think they're the same.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by davesidious]

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
Okay, I think the last 10 pages or so has been all of us butting heads . ...

Speaking of...

Let's Please address the subject matter, and steer clear of the personal sniping and petty off topic comments.

TIA

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by Wolfenz

 

The most basic of research would have yielded you this link if you'd even bothered to look for it. It seems strange how you argue about what EISCAT can do, when you don't even know what it's capable of. It's almost as if you've made up your mind it's teh evil scientists, and won't let evidence dissuade you.

Antenna
Four 30×40 m steerable parabolic cylinders
32 m steerable parabolic dish
32 m steerable parabolic dish
32 m steerable parabolic dish
42 m fixed and 32 m steerable parabolic dishes
Three arrays of dipole antennas


Dave
Here is some of the data from your link. Since you posted it- you must be able to tell us exactly what these STEERABLE PARABOLIC cylinders do. I would like to hear all about it.
Thanks donny

reply to post by Donny 4 million


They are the radar stations, something completely different from the ionsopheric heater, which is their only equipment concerned with plasma experiments.

That is explained on that very same site.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


I do not see any evidence of a rocket. period.

I do see some crazy sci-fi ray making a 2D swirl in the sky... with a blue ray..

but i do not see any launch pic's.. anything falling after the spiral.. nothing.

Also, I have never seen any type of exhaust cause that display..

yet, it seems people are fighting tooth & nail to prove said rocket had something to do with the event..

you'd think it would be easy to prove such a thing.. its supposedly a rocket not a ufo..

Originally posted by Wolfenz

this one here has the man in winter yellow gear pointing

Fantastic picture and I saw this in that thread you mentioned.

this one here is right above eiscat itself!

I understand why you're excited about that, but the sole purpose for EISCAT being in that location is for closer observation and study of that very phenomena and what causes it.

another that will turn some heads Aurora Spiral artificial

Why are you saying artificial? I went to the site and didn't read anywhere that these were "artificial"--

I'm confused by your posting of those images because its just Aurora- are you saying that these were manipulated by EISCAT into spiral form?

Watch this video about EISCAT- especially pay attention from about the 2min mark and 9min mark on-- learn about it-

You might actually enjoy it too

www.eiscat3d.se...

reply to post by reeferman


You do see evidence of a rocket, you just don't recognise it as such.

Firstly, in the photos, the blue spiral can be seen to travel down to the horizon, where it forms a nice white column of smoke from over the horizon. How the spiral looks in space (illuminated by the sun - blue), and how it looks in the atmosphere (against a lit sky - white, cloudy) shows rather obviously that it is the only thing known to man to do just that - solid rocket exhaust, which in most ICBMs, contains a decent amount of aluminium oxide, or "Sapphire".

* The swirl as depicted in the photos can be represented in 3D as well as 2D. Obviously as computer screens and photos are in 2D, that's how you actually see it. The blue spiral, however, looks clearly to be in 3D.

* Of course you don't see launch pics - it was launched from a Russian nuclear submarine in the white sea, with a hefty exclusion zone around it, for safety and secrecy reasons. You'd not see anything failing after the spiral, as the spiral was hundreds of kilometers across, and the missile would be far less than 1 pixel x 1 pixel in any of the images we've seen of the phenomenon, rendering it totally, 100% invisible.

* You don't have to have seen something before to know what it is. Here is a video of a Russian cargo rocket being launched:



Skip to 1:38 and you can see the exhaust as it passes from the last whisps of the atmosphere into the much-more-rarefied near-vacuum of space. You'll see that the exhaust is coming out perfectly stably, and blue. At 2:20 you can see the rocket from directly behind. Imagine if that rocket was spinning, and you can see how a spiral can form.

The evidence for it being a rocket has been covered to death on this site. Everything fits. There are no mysteries. The physics for what we saw have been explained.

Here's a nice simulation showing how a rocket can produce exactly what we saw: