Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event

continued ....

7) Both correct for curvature of Earth also with similar language (and this was not such an obvious thing for some people, Kevin Martin's analysis did not account for this):

Yours:
“…..take into account the curvature of the Earth, which considering the distance between the observers and the White Sea locations derived earlier, will become significant.”

Mine:
“We now account for the effects of the Earth's curvature, which becomes very significant over these large distances of sight.”

8) Both produce very similar Tables as linked below and identified by the aforementioned letters:

Yours:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0d6c463c7a9.jpg[/atsimg]

Mine:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd3456f68cc9.jpg[/atsimg]

9) Finally your Image 34, a profile view showing the curvature of the Earth from Skjervoy, line-of-sites, the blue beam, the trajectory of the spirals, and the space shuttle – all elements of my Figure #37. The choice of the shuttle was NOT a “no-brainer” for me, the international space station was my first choice as it orbits at about 345 km. The shuttle was just easier to trace in CAD.

As you point out, your essay goes on to analyze the missile trajectory etc., where mine stops. At the time when I wrote the paper, I had no strong opinion on either a missile or HAARP origin, and just wanted to see where this thing was and how big it was, and stated that in the paper as well. Thus my analysis was totally unbiased, as I didn’t really care where it ended up, I just let the points fall where they may, and included a very conservative estimate on error. Hoagland recognized that my paper was unbiased, and I think that’s why he wanted to use it, as I was not out to prove anything.

As far as plagiarism goes, I would leave that up to the readers to make there own judgments, as they are more unbiased, assuming anyone wants to actually read my paper now! I do know for sure, in an academic setting (say grad school) if we had both turned these as research papers to the same professor; he/she would have serious questions on the obvious similarities. Whether these would breach the threshold of plagiarism, I do not know, but definitely would bring up a question of ethics, with one or both of us likely receiving Fs or suspension.

And what is with these foreboding statements:

“Be warned also that if your written accusations had taken place in the "real world"……..you would most certainly be staring directly at a libel suit.”

Are you threatening me? I think there may be forum rules about making threats on persons? I have made no such threats towards you and certainly would not threaten anybody on a forum here or anywhere. I have simply expressed justifiable anger that has been clearly outlined above.

Yeah me too.

Just wanted to state one more thing. Here we all are nearly 2 months after the fact and we are still at ground zero. This is a total enigma, that I don't think any one can answer for sure. Info dis info abound. This tells me that there is much more to this than meets the eye. We have had science, academia, laymen, weapons experts, NASA engineers, and everything in between. Still no one is satisfied. So can we just agree this one will go down in the weirdness history books? Till next time..................................................

Originally posted by tspell


So is this really plagiarism? Plagiarism.org states that the following are considered plagiarism (partial list):

1) “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own”

Your idea alone ? somehow I find that hard to believe. Do you honestly think that no one else could even possibly have similar ideas regarding the analysis of the event in question ? Especially when EVERY researcher would have to work from the very same limited sample of raw data.

Your words ?
So, you have examples of my verbatim use of anything you may have written ?

2) “to use (another's production) without crediting the source”

What exactly is it that I have used of yours ? Have I at any point "lifted" any work that you produced and inserted it into my own ?
As for source ... the basis of your research and mine were the publically available photos made available on line and attributed to the original observers.

3) “to commit literary theft”

Literary theft ????? I'm not even sure how to respond to that insulting accusation.
Perhaps you'd care to make an estimate of the amount of "literary theft" that has occurred in your opinion and that I stand accused off? How much ... 5%, 10%, 50% ... perhaps a complete 100% ??

4) “to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source”

"New and original" ? ... wrong.
You and I both approached an identical problem using similar methodolgies but in NO WAY were you or I creating an original idea or product as others have also used similar approaches.

Example: 14 Dec, 2009 - Youtube www.youtube.com...
In this video, Kevin Martin a meteorologist from the Southern California Weather Authority employed a similar analytical strategy whereby he used GE to estimate direction and location ... he used primarily the Skjervoy photos in his analysis ... he also chose to use the same peak from these photos to obtain angular altitude estimates ... and guess what ? he also used trigonometry to estimate altitudes corresponding to the event.

In fact, I watched his video back in december and I could definitely say it helped me determine the choice of analysis I would employ.

So, your claim to a NEW or ORIGINAL idea or methodology ? Hardly !
But according to your logic, perhaps Kevin Martin should in turn be accusing YOU of plagiarizing his methodology and/or his idea, considering he also used trigonometry and the Skjervoy photos primarily to arrive at his conclusions.

5) “copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not”

Let me repeat my response in (3) above:
Perhaps you'd care to make an estimate of the amount of "literary theft" that has occurred in your opinion and that I stand accused off? How much ... 5%, 10%, 50% ... perhaps a complete 100% ??

As for your claim that the majority of my work is a direct result of yours ... ridiculous. Seems to me that a sizeable proportion of my work doesn't appear ANYWHERE in yours.

Looking at both of these works, any similarity in one item by itself may not seem significant, but as a whole many items amass a much more compelling argument that one work clearly follows the same path of the other:

1) Both start with the realization that the pictures by Jan-Petter Jørgensen were from Skjervoy and not Tromsø (I know, so what, big deal).

Hardly surprising considering this revelation can be found in many online locations and has been commented on by many other researchers. The realization that I had made that very error in a previous thread (that proceeded your work, by the way and indicates that I was already researching the event almost as soon as it happened) was the impetus that had me re-analyze my earlier research and conclusions and resulted in this current analysis of mine.

2) Both then proceed with the identical 5 pictures by Jan-Petter Jørgensen noting the growth and movement (again big deal).

And why would that be ? Could it possibly be because they were the clearest and most detailed photos available at the time and would yield the greatest amount of data ?
Again, you and I are not the only ones using those images ... see Kevin Martin's analysis.

3) Both proceed with the superposition of only the first three of these series of photos. Now this is interesting why would you chose only 3? – I used 3 because at the time I only had those 3 images and was not even aware of the other two, otherwise I would have logically used all 5 of them, this makes much more since.

Well, there you have it ... with such indisputable logic, I plead guilty as charged ... yeah, sure !!

So why did I only select those particular images ? For a very simple reason ... when I used Photoshop to overlay the images, the 1st 3 images were still easily recognizable when merged into a single overlayed image ... but when I tried to overlay additional images of the event as it neared completion, it was almost impossible to see them in the final merged composite image. So I did not include them for no other reason then just mentioned and to maximize clarity for those that would eventually be reading my thread.

So your Image 6 is essentially identical to my Photo #6 right down to annotated red dots and spiral radii and with the same intent of showing movement of the spiral.

Errrrr ... what other method should I have used to indicate the dimensions of the spiral if not by drawing circles around the edges of the spiral ? Perhaps a square or other geometrical device would have been more appropriate, do you think ?
Showing that the entire event actually was in motion was a direct response to the many "eye-witness" accounts that claimed the spiral was stationary while other "eye-witness" accounts claimed that the spiral "marched" across the sky. Such an obvious contradiction certainly required addressing.
And as for selecting red ... guess what ... my favourite colour !
And as for using letters of the alphabet ... standard geometrical techniques. Pick a book on geometry or trigonometry ... any book ... now turn to any diagram you please ... bet they're using the letters of the alphabet A, B, C, D, E, F, etc

4) Both proceed in locating suitable images to overlay in Google terrain and vector the lay lines westerly; we use the exact same 4 locations and images, and you add an addition two.

Suitable images ? Too right ... I selected "suitable images" that would allow an easier analysis ... except that my estimated location should be more accurate due to my use of more data points than you.

5) Both then use the identical peak at the Kvanangstinder saw back mountains (out of numerous peaks) to scale the angles to the line-of-site distances to each of the center points of the spirals. Both come up with almost identical angles (2.97° vs. 2.96°) ...

Yes, you used that peak ... I used that peak ... Kevin Martin used that peak ... other researchers most likely used that peak.
Why ? because it was THE most clearly defined and locatable point out of all the images available .. and because it easily allowed the calculation of a base angle that could be used in further calculations.
Even Kevin Martin derived an angle of approx 3° !!!


I see that I'm running out of post room and couldn't be bothered continuing in a 2nd post ... and more importantly, couldn't be bothered justifying every last detail of my work to you.

So don't expect any further comments from me.

You do, after all, have the right to take your complaints to the moderators of this forum ... and I suggest that you do so.

Please return to the topic of discussion: Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event.

If you have any issues with a thread or another member, please use the alert feature found below every post.

Thank you.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


this was my theory in the previous post in this thread even before ive seen the site you have just posted. thanks for posting the site _javascript:icon('')! info of what i was trying to explain as both could well be involved missile (or something like a missile) projectile to start this spiral to make the momentum to make (Tesla Shield) or trap to harness a missile _javascript:icon('') and the list goes on for a explanation

if you look at the link of my previous post
a very clear up close of the China Spiral and if you look at the center you will see the the center will move in directions counterclockwise and clockwise at least 4 times in less than 10 sec without moving an inch or say couple feet _javascript:icon('') if i can remember and it disapates to a dark hole like norway In my Opinion i think it was a controlled Spin what do you think _javascript:icon('')

im not sure were in china this has happened


[edit on 4-2-2010 by Wolfenz]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Please return to the topic of discussion: Norway Spiral : Case reopened - the anatomy of an event.

If you have any issues with a thread or another member, please use the alert feature found below every post.

Thank you.

Shall do !
And my apologies to all ... I just got slightly hot under the collar

reply to post by tspell

Well after that statement, I have no idea what to think. Things do look quite similar here and you were the first to bring out the evidence.

I'm wondering where this thread will go now???

Originally posted by Wolfenz
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

this was my theory in the previous post in this thread even before ive seen the site you have just posted. thanks for posting the site _javascript:icon('

')! info of what i was trying to explain as both could well be involved missile (or something like a missile) projectile to start this spiral to make the momentum to make (Tesla Shield) or trap to harness a missile _javascript:icon('

') and the list goes on for a explanation

if you look at the link of my previous post
a very clear up close of the China Spiral and if you look at the center you will see the the center will move in directions counterclockwise and clockwise at least 4 times in less than 10 sec without moving an inch or say couple feet _javascript:icon('

') if i can remember and it disapates to a dark hole like norway In my Opinion i think it was a controlled Spin what do you think _javascript:icon('

')

im not sure were in china this has happened


[edit on 4-2-2010 by Wolfenz]

Well, its evident that something is quite fishy. I had my suspicions that HAARP might have had something to do with it, and I was positive that a missile alone could not have created that effect. But, the combination of the two of them leaves a pretty solid impression on me.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


HAARP is in Alaska.

An ionospheric heater is not required to create what we saw, plus the fact that the heater can only directly affect the ionosphere above it, perpendicular to the surface of the earth (and not at such an angle as the spiral was), means that unless you can show, categorically, how EISCAT has created new laws of physics concerning EM radiation interference, it's a highly far-fetched idea.

EISCAT simply doesn't have enough power to cause something so bright. It has 1 GW of effective broadcasting power, which is not enough to create anything visible, let alone visible on that scale, so far away, at such a strange angle, at such a size.

After reading your artical I tend to believe you. I still have to get the time to look at it more. But when I look at the pictures the design of the spiral looks eerieily familiar. To me this appears to be a test in wormhole travel. Weather it was a success or not I dont know.

reply to post by jmotley


It looks familiar, as it's a spiral, and spirals appear frequently in nature.

There is no evidence to suggest it looks like a wormhole, as a wormhole has never even been seen.

We have to stick to the evidence, not conjecture, if we are to understand what this is. "Wormholes" and "HAARP energy beams" are pure conjecture.

reply to post by tauristercus


G'day tauristercus

I believe your work confirms my own belief from "day 1".....

It was a missile.

I also believe any accusations to the effect you have plagiarised this work are unfounded & untrue.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

It was a truly great post.

I apologize if this has been brought up already as I haven't read through all replies.

They are getting a lot of methane outgassing both off Norway and the Arctic sea off Siberia.

Could it be that the blue color may be cyanide created by a reaction of the fuel oxidizer with the methane?

reply to post by MrWizard


I wouldn't know. I would know, however, that solid rocket propellant exhaust is often blue due to containing aluminium oxide (sapphire), which is itself blue.

could this be anything to do with bluebeam?

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry
Hi Evo,
It appears that Russia has said that the missile did go off course, then there is this analysis from a US scientist, the page also has an interesting video, (not related to the scientist). The video seems to shows a similar cone effect like I was thinking of.


www.csmonitor.com...




[edit on 5-2-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by acertainshade


There is no evidence "Project Blue Beam" even exists, let alone what it is, what it would do, how it would operate, where it would operate, etc. etc. etc.

So no, there is no evidence this is a non-existent project

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Hi Evo,
It appears that Russia has said that the missile did go off course, then there is this analysis from a US scientist, the page also has an interesting video, (not related to the scientist). The video seems to shows a similar cone effect like I was thinking of.


www.csmonitor.com...




[edit on 5-2-2010 by smurfy]

Much appreciation. Thank you smurfy

I'll weigh in with my own view.

I don't believe this was a missile test that went wrong. Why? Because the Russians initially denied this was anything to do with them. Then, about 24-48 hours later, issued a statement claiming it was a missile test that went wrong. Why would the Russians be testing a missile over Norwegian airspace less than a day before Barack Obama arrives in Norway to receive the Nobel peace prize?

This just doesn't ring true.

There are several videos on Youtube showing the same thing right around the world and on different dates;

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Now, you tell me....

I don't care about splitting hairs, or cod scientific analysis, or angles of trajectory, or bluebeam schmoobeam, or HAARP (how to deter the public from the real truth by pretending there is a top secret project that's just a load of bull!) I see what I see, captured again and again around the world, and when I rule out all of the obvious possible explanations, I am left with, and can only draw one conclusion... and it aint swamp gas. Or CCD Bakeout.