Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

page: 8
64
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Personally I saw this coming years ago ... and I can't tell you how happy it makes me today.




posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
responsible.

Jumping to conclusions based on scanty evidence and research ... traps for young players !

[edit on 19/2/10 by tauristercus]

[edit on 19/2/10 by tauristercus]


The day I see an amateur call the work from Harvard Scientists scanty and young, is the very day I also see hell freeze over, and its quite cold in this room.

You might want to check your ego there Tauristercus because I watched you bumble 3 different threads that showed three different conclusions, and often, you changed your conclusions to fit popular views. All of your information, charts, graphs, diagrams, and failed mathematics brought you to the conclusion that you had no idea of what caused the spiral, and additionally, had no idea of what you were talking about. We are no closer to the truth about the spiral due to your work than we were the day before the spiral even existed.

Instead of running off with your inflated ego there, you might want to actually read the link that could provide you additional information towards the truth.

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...


[edit on 19-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Do you believe that electromagnetic radiation can be confined to only one area? I'm not sure how your line of reasoning can prove or disprove Eiscat. RF frequencies can go wherever they are directed. Plain and simple.


No, unfortunately it's not 'plain and simple' as far as I'm concerned.

I have shown, explained and PROVED how the spiral event moved across the observers field of view. And I have shown, explained and PROVED where the spiral event was located.
You on the other hand, have offered nothing similar in return as an alternative explanation to those two very pertinent points.

Again, I'll ask the question once more:


How did EISCAT achieve this feat ? Anyone willing to take a stab at providing substantiating evidence of such a capability ?


Oh, just occurred to me ... I may have missed it in the plethora of posts, but did you happen at any point, to mention where the spiral event took place in relation to EISCAT? how about it's altitude ? why did it follow the trajectory that it did as opposed to going in a totally different direction ?



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 




... failed mathematics ...


At this point I have to ask ... no, I have to INSIST on behalf of all those ATS'ers that followed my mathematical deliberations and agreed with them ... for you to now DEMONSTRATE EXACTLY where my mathematics 'failed'.

You made that accusation publically here on this forum ... I now expect you to man-up and explain your accusation in front of your peers.

On the other hand, you can also man-up and offer a public apology.

Either will be acceptable.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 




... failed mathematics ...


At this point I have to ask ... no, I have to INSIST on behalf of all those ATS'ers that followed my mathematical deliberations and agreed with them ... for you to now DEMONSTRATE EXACTLY where my mathematics 'failed'.

You made that accusation publically here on this forum ... I now expect you to man-up and explain your accusation in front of your peers.

On the other hand, you can also man-up and offer a public apology.

Either will be acceptable.

Here is the reason for the failure of your mathematics...

You came up with no conclusions as a result of your diagrams, charts, or anything else other than to say...It probably wasn't a Buluva Missile failure in its 3rd stage. Thanks, but, I didn't need mathematics for me to believe that hypothesis. It showed nothing other than the detail of where YOU say that the spiral originated. Congrats...you proved the origin of the spiral. For that, your mathematics are flawless.

Next question.

Now, what was that about manning up?

[edit on 19-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 



thank you so much in showing what i found ! i found more ! if you want to take a ride to the eiscat site it self! in their the web site it self search just type spiral ! just search through and youll find it as i did on the harverd site happy days indeed

thank you for reading this thread you all members!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

Well done for you, you proved that the spiral moved. And I contend thatthe spiral moved according to the direction that it was directed. Amazing isn't it??? Congratulations, you've made history. Was your work good enough to qualify you to scoff at the hard work of Harvard Scientists??? Nope. Not by a long shot, otherwise you'd be the one at Harvard.

And as far as I'm concerned, that work still has gone a long way into providing nothing. Zero. 3 different conclusions all manifested by the work of one confused guy. You did enough work to throw off the original scent a long time ago, and I'm restoring it. How do you expect anyone to come to any solid conclusion with 3 threads differing so much that no one can trust your analysis??? Seriously. How am I to take that hard work of yours to heart when you can't even convince yourself?

And that my friend, is how your mathematics failed.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfenz
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 



thank you so much in showing what i found ! i found more ! if you want to take a ride to the eiscat site it self! in their the web site it self search just type spiral ! just search through and youll find it as i did on the harverd site happy days indeed

thank you for reading this thread you all members!


All credit goes to you on this one my friend. Thank you for your input.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
This thread should not exist.

The member who provided you with the link already properly posted it in the existing thread titled TEQUILAsunrise - AKA Norway Spiral - Proof it was a scientific experiment.. This was the original thread about EISCAT and it's heaters as a possible cause for the spiral and has been thoroughly discussed.

Is it necessary to start new threads on this if its not your original work or a new idea?


sure it is ! i have sent this to evolved ministry before i posted that on that thread as it was the most looked at thread about this event at the time!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


T-
Do you think you could field this question?
If there was a missile that caused the phenomenon-----
Do you think it actually flew around in 400 mile diameter circles all the way to the target?
And that freekin fast? 20 seconds. What about the reported failure? (3rd stage) Long way to go so fast for a gimp rocket wouldn't ya say?
Thanks Donny



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by tauristercus
 



Oh, just occurred to me ... I may have missed it in the plethora of posts, but did you happen at any point, to mention where the spiral event took place in relation to EISCAT? how about it's altitude ? why did it follow the trajectory that it did as opposed to going in a totally different direction ?


Why would I provide that information. That's irrelevant to me. That's extra work for none of the value associated, as you found out with the dubious conclusions that you came up with.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 




... failed mathematics ...


At this point I have to ask ... no, I have to INSIST on behalf of all those ATS'ers that followed my mathematical deliberations and agreed with them ... for you to now DEMONSTRATE EXACTLY where my mathematics 'failed'.

You made that accusation publically here on this forum ... I now expect you to man-up and explain your accusation in front of your peers.

On the other hand, you can also man-up and offer a public apology.

Either will be acceptable.

Here is the reason for the failure of your mathematics...

You came up with no conclusions as a result of your diagrams, charts, or anything else other than to say...It probably wasn't a Buluva Missile failure in its 3rd stage. Thanks, but, I didn't need mathematics for me to believe that hypothesis. It showed nothing other than the detail of where YOU say that the spiral originated. Congrats...you proved the origin of the spiral. For that, your mathematics are flawless.

Next question.

Now, what was that about manning up?

[edit on 19-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



Hmmmmm .... I've re-read your response 3 times in case I was being particularly thick and missed your response to my legitimate request for you to PROVE my mathematics had 'failed' and were in error.

But all I see is you daintily side-stepping what was a very obvious request from me.

Show me (and everyone else) where the error in my mathematical calculations are ... do so and cover yourself in glory as a result and have the satisfaction of showing me up as a fraudster.

If such details aren't forthcoming in your very NEXT post to me ... it'll be fairly obvious to EVERYONE that you really have NOTHING ... and as such, I'll accept your apology by default.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by Chonx
Interesting find but my problem would be this:


A development of local spiral-like forms in the auroral arc near Tromso occurred after the heater was turned on.


The phenomenon in December was a definate spiral, almost perfect. Not spiral-like. To me this hints that they are talking about much less pronounced effects.

I might be wrong so we'll see what other members come up with.

Good find though.


[edit on 19-2-2010 by Chonx]





Oh...also, I wanted to note that since this happened in 1996, it would be apparent that they've probably honed the ability, since then, to create a perfect spiral as seen recently in Norway. The spirals that they witnessed then were probably the baby stages of understanding the technology. Now that they've spent time perfecting it...boom, Norway 2009...Perfect spiral.


its more likely and i agree ! 13 years to perfect it



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 




... failed mathematics ...


At this point I have to ask ... no, I have to INSIST on behalf of all those ATS'ers that followed my mathematical deliberations and agreed with them ... for you to now DEMONSTRATE EXACTLY where my mathematics 'failed'.

You made that accusation publically here on this forum ... I now expect you to man-up and explain your accusation in front of your peers.

On the other hand, you can also man-up and offer a public apology.

Either will be acceptable.

Here is the reason for the failure of your mathematics...

You came up with no conclusions as a result of your diagrams, charts, or anything else other than to say...It probably wasn't a Buluva Missile failure in its 3rd stage. Thanks, but, I didn't need mathematics for me to believe that hypothesis. It showed nothing other than the detail of where YOU say that the spiral originated. Congrats...you proved the origin of the spiral. For that, your mathematics are flawless.

Next question.

Now, what was that about manning up?

[edit on 19-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



Hmmmmm .... I've re-read your response 3 times in case I was being particularly thick and missed your response to my legitimate request for you to PROVE my mathematics had 'failed' and were in error.

But all I see is you daintily side-stepping what was a very obvious request from me.

Show me (and everyone else) where the error in my mathematical calculations are ... do so and cover yourself in glory as a result and have the satisfaction of showing me up as a fraudster.

If such details aren't forthcoming in your very NEXT post to me ... it'll be fairly obvious to EVERYONE that you really have NOTHING ... and as such, I'll accept your apology by default.


Your conclusions are the result of your failed math my friend. Again, congrats on telling us the location of the spiral, but, that was pretty evident from the multiple camera angles that were used to find your figures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, that's how you did it...RIGHT???

And what was your conclusion again??? Oh yeah...it wasn't a Buluva missile in its 3rd stage of failure that caused the spiral. Thanks for the collaborating information. And, thanks for doing the math. Many thanks!!!

[edit on 19-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by tauristercus
 



Oh, just occurred to me ... I may have missed it in the plethora of posts, but did you happen at any point, to mention where the spiral event took place in relation to EISCAT? how about it's altitude ? why did it follow the trajectory that it did as opposed to going in a totally different direction ?


Why would I provide that information. That's irrelevant to me. That's extra work for none of the value associated, as you found out with the dubious conclusions that you came up with.


Irrelevant ??? WTF ???

You're basically saying "hey, look ... I'm stating categorically that EISCAT was the responsible party but I'm absolutely incapable of explaining even the most obvious aspects of what was seen by so many people ... but let's not worry about such trivia, just TRUST me that EISCAT did it".

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy ... can't supply satisfactory answers so let's simply ignore it, shall we ?



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by tauristercus
 



Oh, just occurred to me ... I may have missed it in the plethora of posts, but did you happen at any point, to mention where the spiral event took place in relation to EISCAT? how about it's altitude ? why did it follow the trajectory that it did as opposed to going in a totally different direction ?


Why would I provide that information. That's irrelevant to me. That's extra work for none of the value associated, as you found out with the dubious conclusions that you came up with.


Irrelevant ??? WTF ???

You're basically saying "hey, look ... I'm stating categorically that EISCAT was the responsible party but I'm absolutely incapable of explaining even the most obvious aspects of what was seen by so many people ... but let's not worry about such trivia, just TRUST me that EISCAT did it".

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy ... can't supply satisfactory answers so let's simply ignore it, shall we ?


Nope, I think what is sloppy is doing all the math and still coming up with a result that is inconclusive. Don't you??? Or better yet...sloppy is doing all of the math and still coming up with the same conclusions that a guy like myself did with common sense. It wasn't a Buluva missile.

Which means, you are no closer to the truth than the rest of us.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romans 10:9
Just in case yall missed it...use the search function in this link and search 'ionospheric heaters'

www.sciencedirect.com... a3b1319506f8c0ef7324dd

There's alot of info to pour over.
The only thing i question is whether or not these 'spiral formations' are optical or not.


the link that i have posted and evolved minstery posted of what i sent him say's its optical.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


Dude- you're taking other peoples posts and starting threads with them.

Did you not look at the link I provided??? Wolfenz already posted it in the proper thread dealing with EISCAT and its heaters! Before you!

Whats the matter with you


again ive send him the link before i posted on that thread in question



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


1. Please don't call me stupid.

2. With that logic we could blame the Dalai Lama for 9/11 just because there isn't anything that says this isn't so.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


Youre trolling for stars and flags as evidenced by every thread you start, yelling at people to star and flag it..

This was already posted by Wolfenz-- at least be a standup guy and direct people to the original thread where the link was already posted...



its not trolling if i posted after ive sent him the link

and i gave him permission to as we have the same way of thinking about the norway spiral event that IF it was a missile it wasn't done by the missile alone( if there was one at all ) it was controlled by EISCAT

and please look at the thread the time stamp as it was done earlyer that day

[edit on 20-2-2010 by Wolfenz]





top topics
 
64
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join