It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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???
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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
A development of local spiral-like forms in the auroral arc near Tromso occurred when the heater was turned on.
Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by tauristercus
It wasn't a Buluva Missile and Eiscat sits right behind that mountain.
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 !
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.