Norway Spiral created by Eiscat (New Evidence)

page: 9
64
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

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

Originally posted by serbsta
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.


You're not stupid. And I appreciate all comments.




posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

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.




No detailed analysis of my mathematical calculations ... therefore your apology is accepted



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 you figures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, that's how you did it...RIGHT???


Hmmmm ... so my mathematical calculations 'failed' according to you ... and yet in the same breath you agreed my analysis, deductions and conclusions regarding the location and trajectory of the spiral were correct.

So how does 'failed' maths provide a CORRECT answer ?

Look, I'm tired of all this crap from you .... let me make it VERY simple for you.

What detailed analysis can YOU provide regarding the physical properties of the spiral event i.e. distance from EISCAT, altitude above EISCAT, trajectory of the spiral, speed of the spiral event, explanation for the envelope effect, etc, etc ... and answers to these to be based on YOUR research, analysis and deductions based on publically available data regarding the capabilities of the EISCAT facility.
Until you can answer such questions, all you're doing is brow beating us with nothing more than your personal belief ... based on minimal reasoning.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   




You are just sooooo right, PhotonEffect ... and yes, talk about incredibly frustrating when dealing with people such as him that seem to have no idea of the concept of logicality.

Anyway, I've just posted my last response to him ... just can't spare anymore of my time on his irrationality.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
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...



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

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.




No detailed analysis of my mathematical calculations ... therefore your apology is accepted



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 you figures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, that's how you did it...RIGHT???


Hmmmm ... so my mathematical calculations 'failed' according to you ... and yet in the same breath you agreed my analysis, deductions and conclusions regarding the location and trajectory of the spiral were correct.

So how does 'failed' maths provide a CORRECT answer ?

Look, I'm tired of all this crap from you .... let me make it VERY simple for you.

What detailed analysis can YOU provide regarding the physical properties of the spiral event i.e. distance from EISCAT, altitude above EISCAT, trajectory of the spiral, speed of the spiral event, explanation for the envelope effect, etc, etc ... and answers to these to be based on YOUR research, analysis and deductions based on publically available data regarding the capabilities of the EISCAT facility.
Until you can answer such questions, all you're doing is brow beating us with nothing more than your personal belief ... based on minimal reasoning.


And lets not even get into how much of your information was a mirrored image from another poster. How much of that did you borrow??? Need I bring that information to light of how similar your research was to another who came before you??? Or should I be a gentleman and allow that to drop.

Thanks for your reply.


[edit on 19-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by tauristercus
 


It's maddening dealing with him isnt it...

Trust me this same side stepping he's doing with you hid did with me when I pointed out that that other analysis he was spamming in your threads was flawed... he has nothing-- no substance to his arguments or hypothesis what so ever--

He's completely ignorant and the more sense you try to talk the more nonsense you get back...

If he had a clue he'd realize that EISCAT was not the source of the spirals... If he so blind and ignorant he'd realize where Skjervoy was and that the source of the spiral as seen from those pictures originates from a completely different direction then where EISCAT actually is-- therefore completely nullifying his entire hypothesis

And of course he has no explanation for the clear cut missile plume in almost all of the photos of this event...

Its utterly amazing


You are just sooooo right, PhotonEffect ... and yes, talk about incredibly frustrating when dealing with people such as him that seem to have no idea of the concept of logicality.

Anyway, I've just posted my last response to him ... just can't spare anymore of my time on his irrationality.


Gee, no one said that either of you had to deal with me...did they? And this post that you're replying to came from a guy who couldn't break down the mathematics of why this link was supposedly "inaccurate."

www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm

Would you care to???

So...again. I humbly congratulate you on all of your HARD work that informed us of the location of the spiral. Flawless. Thanks for that...you're awesome. Now, what caused it???



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Excellent evidence , S&F


Been reading a lot of different scientific descriptions of the processes used for ionospheric heating, and finding them all over the internet, and they all pretty much corroborate the same things referred to in the documentation you post here. This, in my opinion is as convincing as it will ever get. The science behind the various technologies being used is probably still in it's infancy as opposed to what I believe is possible for them. The scary part is the actual people in control of the more secret and much more powerful versions of these devices and what they have already done with it, and what they want to do with it. You can probably safely bet that they will use them for selfish, covert aims and most likely already have.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
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



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by tauristercus
 


It's maddening dealing with him isnt it...

Trust me this same side stepping he's doing with you hid did with me when I pointed out that that other analysis he was spamming in your threads was flawed... he has nothing-- no substance to his arguments or hypothesis what so ever--

He's completely ignorant and the more sense you try to talk the more nonsense you get back...

If he had a clue he'd realize that EISCAT was not the source of the spirals... If he so blind and ignorant he'd realize where Skjervoy was and that the source of the spiral as seen from those pictures originates from a completely different direction then where EISCAT actually is-- therefore completely nullifying his entire hypothesis

And of course he has no explanation for the clear cut missile plume in almost all of the photos of this event...

Its utterly amazing


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.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 




And lets not even get into how much of your information was a mirrored image from another poster. How much of that did you borrow??? Need I bring that information to light of how similar your research was to another who came before you??? Or should I be a gentleman and allow that to drop.

Thanks for your reply.


Siggghhhh .... you managed to 'force' one more reply from me ... but definitely this is my LAST ONE to you.

So ... you're now descending into making additional accusations regarding the quality of my work ... this time you're out and out accusing me of plagiarism in front of the entire ATS community !

Yes, please go right ahead and bring such information to the light of day ... and in doing so, in all fairness and to prove your accusation, please supply solid evidence to back up your insulting and completely unwarranted slurs.

Also be informed that a similar claim of plagiarism was made recently by another ATS member who eventually rescinded his accusations and made a public apology to me in this forum. I accepted.

And furthermore, be aware that on this very subject of 'alleged' plagiarism, I made a formal complaint to the forum moderators.

Should I now make a 2nd formal complaint against YOU and your unfounded accusations ?



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by ucalien
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


I can't handle anymore with this massive disinfo about the Norway Spiral. That was not a HAARP EMP. HAARP antenas CAN'T DO those perfect figures. The point isn't that the EISCAT farm is part of HAARP, the point is that those image in the sky was a HOLOGRAM, most likely a Blue Beam Project. Not a HAARP test. People STOP bullsh*tting around.


Such nasty language. If you can't handle the info, its best that you go to a thread where the info suits you better.

Studies made by Harvard indicate that spiral like images were seen. So again, who do I believe...You who can't accept what is blatantly in front of your eyes, or Harvard which is a reputable research facility and one of the best colleges in the country?

I think I know which source I'll pick.
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...



also on the harverd site it says optical ! another word for visual and how you might ask ! simple plasma i would think or something that has charged up the ionosphere so to say mr/ms ucalien that to prefect that spiral an object also was in the mix other that EISCAT



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 

And Tauristercus...

I thank you for all of your hard work. Again, it informs many of us of what we already knew and provides great collaborative information to this thread. It wasn't a Buluva Missile and Eiscat sits right behind that mountain.

As far as I'm concerned with this information...

www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm

and this information...
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

1+1 is definitely adding up to EISCAT = 2



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry

Originally posted by ucalien
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


I can't handle anymore with this massive disinfo about the Norway Spiral. That was not a HAARP EMP. HAARP antenas CAN'T DO those perfect figures. The point isn't that the EISCAT farm is part of HAARP, the point is that those image in the sky was a HOLOGRAM, most likely a Blue Beam Project. Not a HAARP test. People STOP bullsh*tting around.


Such nasty language. If you can't handle the info, its best that you go to a thread where the info suits you better.

Studies made by Harvard indicate that spiral like images were seen. So again, who do I believe...You who can't accept what is blatantly in front of your eyes, or Harvard which is a reputable research facility and one of the best colleges in the country?

I think I know which source I'll pick.
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...



also on the harverd site it says optical ! another word for visual and how you might ask ! simple plasma i would think or something that has charged up the ionosphere so to say mr/ms ucalien that to prefect that spiral an object also was in the mix other that EISCAT

Nicely done. I'm going to re-read and try to find other information. Much of my time today has been spent merely responding to everyone.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
 


Did you actually check his work out for yourself? I mean did you really get in there and go through his work to see how he arrived at his values...

My guess is no. But I did.

And right off the bat his first assumption was that after having watched many videos of the event he determined the frequency of rotation (of the spiral) to be 1hz (or 1 rotation per second), Well I looked into this further and he overestimated that by twice what it actually was.... It's more like .5hz ( or .5 rotation/second)... and guess what happens to his final results when you plug that .5 into his formulas...

edit to add-- and thats just the beginning of whats wrong with that analysis

[edit on 19-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 

Optical does not mean visible to the naked eye (that would be "visual"), it means having to do with light.


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


A spiral like (not a spiral) distortion of the aurora (already in progress) near Tromso was recorded by the all sky imager. The all sky imager is a light intensifying device (night vision). This was not an isolated spiral hundreds of kilometers away from Tromso. There is no indication that it was visible to the naked eye. There is no reason to believe that EISCAT could have or did produce the spiral on December 9.




[edit on 2/19/2010 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I have seen so many theories now on this "Spiral", I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever know for sure what caused it.

What I think is most important in the whole discussion of the so called "Spiral" is what it's actually for?

What would a Spiral like that actually be for? What can it do? what is it part of? If it was a Missile, then what was the missile for? If it's Eiscat, what is it for?If it was Haarp, what's it for?

Creating the Spiral is one thing but what is it in aid of? That's what I want know. Is it an Experiment that will harm the Earth or Humanity?

Is It A Warning of somehing Bigger to come or was it just an accident from an Experiment?



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by tauristercus
 

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


How would account for EISCAT in this photo then?



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



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I really wonder if anyone even scrolled down on the original study...

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

...To see that this document was provided by: European Space Agency and provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data System???

So, I literally saw Tauristercus type that the research provided by these labs from Harvard and released by Nasa, were put together unprofessionally, called it sloppy, and youthful. Now, I'm paraphrasing here and probably making it sound better than it is (I apologize if I spelled that wrong)

Actually, I'll just put it up there:
Here's what Tauristercus said:

Are you indirectly claiming with this thread that the Norwegians deliberately created an atmospheric event directly over the White Sea and consequently, directly over Russian sovereign territory and airspace ? I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain the Russian government would take a very dim view of such activities by a foreign nation.

Incidentally and in my "younger, less experienced days", I too believed that EISCAT was responsible. But this belief was based entirely on insufficient research on my part ... it was only after I had done the hard work, associated research and had accumulated sufficient data, that it became all too painfully obvious that I had reached an erroneous conclusion and that EISCAT/HAARP, etc could NOT have been responsible.

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


I am in utter awe.

Nonetheless. This research provided by Wolfenz is more than convincing to me that Eiscat/HAARP was fully behind the Norway Spiral. This was evidence that they had observed in 1996, and I think that the findings speak for themselves.

Also, here is another link that blows the missile theory sky high.
www....(nolink)/?myygii2emfm

If they observed Spiral-Like activity with elements of "Brightening," as they stated in the findings in 1996, imagine how they may have honed this technology and made improvements since then??? Its now 2010. It sounds like they may have perfected their craft at this point.



[edit on 19-2-2010 by EvolvedMinistry]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Wolfenz
 

Optical does not mean visible to the naked eye (that would be "visual"), it means having to do with light.


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


A distortion of the aurora (already in progress) near Tromso was recorded by the all sky imager. The all sky imager is a light intensifying device (night vision). This was not an isolated spiral hundreds of kilometers away from Tromso. There is no indication that it was visible to the naked eye. There is no reason to believe that EISCAT could have or did produce the spiral on December 9.




In all fairness , there is also no reason to believe it wasn't EISCAT.
Optics in physics is about studying the physical properties of light, and a real interesting thing about light is that it is visible to the human eye. Another interesting thing about ionosphere heating is that it transmits energy through a medium, and often when putting energy through something with resistance is it can produce heat and light, and under the right conditions, maybe even spirals.

cheers





new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join