# Strange spiral over Norway



## Survival101 (Dec 10, 2009)

I didn't see this posted elsewhere. If it's been posted, I apologize. 


I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories but the whole "Russia screwed up a missile launch" sounds like some bullshit. If someone has more knowledge on this subject please straighten me out. 
Discuss.


----------



## orb451 (Dec 10, 2009)

Awesomely bizarre light show freaks out Norway | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Good read on why this was man made and easily explained. Even if it looks like its supernatural / extra-terrestrial in origin.


----------



## phaeded0ut (Dec 11, 2009)

The Washington Post had a decent article on this: <deleted>

Ugh, ... sorry this is the one: washingtonpost.com

Looks like the third stage had a second area/point of thrust coming out of it, giving us the two stranded spiral. 

Want to say that there was another piece out there on this that talked about how Russia couldn't scrap the Bulova SS-N-30's due to the amount of money put into this update/new missile.


----------



## skattabrain (Dec 15, 2009)

wow ... that's crazy. i dismissed this after i heard about it thinking nothing of it ... but that's very strange. some photos of it look like cgi the spiral is so perfect.


----------



## sami (Dec 15, 2009)

Anyone know where I can find nuclear wessels?



Seriously, I'd really like for someone to reproduce the spiraling. I've seen pics but this was the first video I've watched of it. It looks friggin awesome.


----------



## guitarplayerone (Dec 16, 2009)

... Deeeettthhhhkloookkkk


----------



## signalgrey (Dec 16, 2009)

kinda creepy actually im surprised the scientologists didnt get all Jim Jones on themselves. what a win that would have been.


----------



## damigu (Dec 16, 2009)

Survival101 said:


> I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories but the whole "Russia screwed up a missile launch" sounds like some bullshit. If someone has more knowledge on this subject please straighten me out.
> Discuss.



what would have sounded like less bullshit to you? aliens? black holes? secret government super weapons?

to anyone who has seen rocket launches before (whether in video or picture), it's quite obvious that's exactly what it was before the spiral.
rocket fuel dumps in space often take on a concentric circular or conical appearance (and are quite beautiful--do a google image search of "rocket fuel dump" and see for yourself) so it isn't surprising in the least that an errant rocket in a spin would create such a magnificent spiral.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Dec 16, 2009)

i´ve seen physics simulations on youtube from some astronomy site, showing exactly how it was formed. the white spiral is seen straight-on (on axis), but it´s actually moving towards the viewers who snapped the pictures. seen from the side it would just be a long white spiraling cone over a long blue spiraling cone.

it was definitely just a failed missile launch. the only reason it looked so odd was because of the viewing angle and the sunlight illuminating it from over the mountain edges. just the exact right conditions, which is a cool strike of luck.

the rocket landed in the ocean like 100 meters from a guy in a boat afterwards.


----------



## Pauly (Dec 16, 2009)

Yeah missile fail. If you watch the videos you can see the launch site, the trail, and then the spiral as the rocket's stabilizers crapped out completely. The picture just makes it look all spooky. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...y-Was-failed-Russian-Bulava-missile-test.html

Not the first time people haven't been informed properly of rocket launches. :\
Norwegian rocket incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 16, 2009)

How was there anywhere near enough energy for it to be burning that hot?


----------



## MF_Kitten (Dec 16, 2009)

it wasn't burning that hot. the key here is that the trajectory got all b0rked, and the rocket started spiralling upwards. then the side-valve opened up as well, and since it was spiraling, the vapor trails didn't just make a diagonal line from the side, it got flung out in circles. that's what caused the spiral. it's also important to note that it wouldn't look like a spiral if you hadn't seen it straight on.


----------



## klutvott (Dec 16, 2009)

"KA I HÆLVETTE E DET DÆÆR?"
It could be seen from where i live but i was sleeping. lol


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 16, 2009)

The Russians should screw up more often, methinks...


----------



## Randy (Dec 16, 2009)

:ICBM:


----------



## george galatis (Dec 16, 2009)

the use the russian think to cover the story....as always


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 16, 2009)

george galatis said:


> the use the russian think to cover the story....as always



Care to give an alternative theory? Please be sure to back it up or it won't be taken seriously.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 16, 2009)

MF_Kitten said:


> it wasn't burning that hot. the key here is that the trajectory got all b0rked, and the rocket started spiralling upwards. then the side-valve opened up as well, and since it was spiraling, the vapor trails didn't just make a diagonal line from the side, it got flung out in circles. that's what caused the spiral. it's also important to note that it wouldn't look like a spiral if you hadn't seen it straight on.



I'm just not understanding how there was such a consistency in the the visual evidence... and if it wasn't burning that hot, how did it get its blue color?


----------



## Pauly (Dec 16, 2009)

You're failing to take into account a number of things other than temperature. 

The missile would have been high up in the atmosphere thus catching the sun while it was still dark on the ground, materials in the rocket burning that would not normally be fuel, ice crystals in the air, and most importantly, this was in an area where the Aurora Borealis occurs, an atmospheric phenomenon that causes the sky to go all kinds of colours.

In relation to this, I read somewhere earlier that in the late '50s, NASA launched some rockets, which released barium particles, which glowed in different colors.

And again, the pictures are more dramatic than the videos because of the long shutter time used; they're not just point and click shots. Those pictures are probably minutes of time presented as a single image, as with night shots you need long exposure to capture as much light as possible.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 16, 2009)

Pauly said:


> You're failing to take into account a number of things other than temperature.
> 
> The missile would have been high up in the atmosphere thus catching the sun while it was still dark on the ground, materials in the rocket burning that would not normally be fuel, ice crystals in the air, and most importantly, this was in an area where the Aurora Borealis occurs, an atmospheric phenomenon that causes the sky to go all kinds of colours.
> 
> ...



This last part makes the most sense when considering the consistency in the photos. I'm going to look around for a precise explanation on the coloration and whatnot, though.


----------



## phaeded0ut (Dec 17, 2009)

MF_Kitten said:


> the rocket landed in the ocean like 100 meters from a guy in a boat afterwards.



Hope that he was ok? Not nearly as important, but hopefully his boat didn't take on too much water when the debris hit.

Also remember the angle and some reflection/refraction of the light for that beastie, too. Quite a large number of factors going on, Morten's done a great job explaining the spiral.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 18, 2009)

I just wanted to point out that there was a video up on Youtube that showed the blue spiral to be self-illuminated, and not possibly lit up from a spotlight or some external source... the video has been removed from Youtube.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that this was a rocket. Go watch several videos of rockets failing or going out of control - they don't look a single thing like this.


----------



## damigu (Dec 18, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't buy that this was a rocket. Go watch several videos of rockets failing or going out of control - they don't look a single thing like this.



as i mentioned before, go look up "rocket fuel dump" in google. the only difference between the appearance a typical dump (which looks like concentric circles when viewed face-on, and like a cone when viewed sideways) and this is that the rocket was spiraling, but otherwise it is quite obvious to anyone who regularly follows rocket launches.
i'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're not a rocket aficionado, though.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Dec 18, 2009)

it's been absolutely confirmed that it was a rocket, dude. it wasn't self-illuminated either, it was most probably illuminated by the sun that was right behind the mountain range. 

if you look into it, and see how it worked, you'll see that it's really obviously a rocket gone wrong.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 19, 2009)

..so this is a rocket?:


----------



## silentrage (Dec 19, 2009)

MF_Kitten said:


> it's been absolutely confirmed that it was a rocket, dude. it wasn't self-illuminated either, it was most probably illuminated by the sun that was right behind the mountain range.
> 
> if you look into it, and see how it worked, you'll see that it's really obviously a rocket gone wrong.



The theory they put forward I thought was reasonable, but I have my doubts about how uniform and symmetrical the vapors are.
I have never seen or heard of any gas vapor behaving in such perfectly symmetrical manner, maybe in the vacuum of space absent any thermal turbulence and gravitational effect from nearby massive bodies, which was not the case here.


----------



## damigu (Dec 19, 2009)

silentrage said:


> I have never seen or heard of any gas vapor behaving in such perfectly symmetrical manner, maybe in the vacuum of space absent any thermal turbulence and gravitational effect from nearby massive bodies, which was not the case here.



actually, it *WAS* in space. it was the 3rd stage of the rocket that failed. with modern rocket/missile technology, "3rd stage" implies--at minimum--that it is just barely past the edge of the atmosphere (if not a little further above it). which means there will be no atmospheric turbulence/dispersion of the exhausted gases.

that's why i keep referencing rocket fuel dumps for any doubting thomas out there. they occur under similar circumstances (low earth orbit) and even have a similar blue glowing color, and such symmetric patterns (circular when face-on, conical from the side).


----------



## silentrage (Dec 19, 2009)

It's normally THAT perfectly uniform? 
Color me surprised.


----------



## damigu (Dec 19, 2009)

here are a couple pictures from US centaur rocket fuel dump over africa.
they are *THAT* uniform.
as sir isaac newton first law of motion states: "in the absence of a force, an object is either at rest or moving in a straight line at constant speed."

meaning that, in the absence of atmosphere to exert pressure against the dumped/exhausted fuel, will continue to spread out in a very uniform manner--the same direction and speed that it left the rocket at (and rocket engines are designed to disperse exhaust in a very uniform manner, in order to stay on course).

the spiral is behaving the same way. the spent/vented fuel isn't actually spiraling away from the rocket--it's moving out in a straight line. much as if you started spinning around in place while holding a leaky bag of sand and someone was photographing you from above (they would photograph a spiral pattern of sand, even though each grain leaves the bag in a straight line path away from you).


----------



## silentrage (Dec 19, 2009)

Not too sure about what's going on in those pics, but they do look eerily uniform, so point taken.


----------



## damigu (Dec 19, 2009)

what's going on in those pics is standard rocket safety procedure: dump excess fuel before re-entering the atmosphere.
you don't rockets re-entering while still loaded with fuel because it could result in an explosion that would rain down toxic debris to the earth.

because the rocket continues moving forward, the "cloud" of gas appears conical behind it when viewed from the side, but more spherical when viewed directly from the front or back. it's lit up by sunlight (it's high enough in the sky that the sun is still above the horizon for it, even though it's already night down here on earth).

again, if the rocket were in a spin, then it would likely come out as a spiral like what was seen over norway.


on a related note, NASA shuttle missions dump excess water before re-entry. not for the sake of safety but for the sake of reducing weight. due to the way they dump it, it ends up looking more like a diffuse tail or cloud than a clear circle/cone. but it's still a pretty cool visual none-the-less.
there have been a number of "UFO sightings" that were the result of those water dumps.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 19, 2009)

I agree that you're absolutely right concerning the uniformity when the dump happens just outside the Earth's atmosphere, but that spiral doesn't seem to be explained by that same law of physics. A straight line, or a continuous movement outward of concentric circles, yes, but a spiral? I'm sure the first thing you want to do is not explain this over and over again, but it still doesn't seem to make sense.


----------



## damigu (Dec 19, 2009)

the spiral is merely a visual effect, but does not describe the motion of the particles.
the sprinkler picture above shows the same behavior on a smaller scale.

each water droplet is heading away from the sprinkler nozzle in a straight line path. but there is a long line of water droplets (connected to each other near the nozzle) and each one is at a different point in it's straight line path (the ones just released from the nozzle are closer to the sprinkler, the ones released longer ago are further away). the net effect is that the droplets are arranged in a visually spiral pattern, but nothing is actually moving along the spiral path of the arms.

does that help explain it better?

that's also why, when the rocket engine shuts off in the video, it seems to disappear into a growing "black hole" (as they tragically called it in the video, leading to even more confusion). as the last of the fuel particles moved out, they moved out in a straight line path away from the rocket, causing a dark circle (the "hole"), which was just normal empty/dark space, to appear in their absence.


----------



## lobee (Dec 19, 2009)




----------



## Pauly (Dec 19, 2009)

Some of the threads about this on the David Icke forum are truly depressing.

Also, nice posting damigu.


----------



## Survival101 (Dec 24, 2009)

damigu said:


> what would have sounded like less bullshit to you? aliens? black holes? secret government super weapons?
> 
> to anyone who has seen rocket launches before (whether in video or picture), it's quite obvious that's exactly what it was before the spiral.
> rocket fuel dumps in space often take on a concentric circular or conical appearance (and are quite beautiful--do a google image search of "rocket fuel dump" and see for yourself) so it isn't surprising in the least that an errant rocket in a spin would create such a magnificent spiral.



I was mostly speaking out of ignorance in the area of rocket launches and whatnot. That was why I asked someone to clear me up. From someone who isn't knowledgeable in that area it sounded like absolute bull. Now that I've read up a little and the kind people here have pointed various facts out my views have changed. Sorry, shouldn't have spoken from such a standpoint.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 24, 2009)

I've done a lot a bit of reading into this and it seems the spiral had a heat signature that in no way indicated either a failed rocket or a fuel dump of any kind.


----------



## damigu (Dec 24, 2009)

to the OP: no problem. i was just responding to your knee-jerk reaction, pointing out that the other possibilities were at least 100 times more absurd than the idea of a failed rocket launch might seem.



Adam Of Angels said:


> I've done a lot a bit of reading into this and it seems the spiral had a heat signature that in no way indicated either a failed rocket or a fuel dump of any kind.



heat signature? last i checked, there were only a handful of amateur pictures/videos taken of it.
if you want a heat signature you would need to take an IR (infrared) picture or, to get precise readings, use a spectrograph. i haven't seen any taken of it.

it sounds like you're reading sites full of BS. where self-proclaimed amateur scientists think they know everything, but they're all just guessing and making up junk. the problem is that they know enough that it actually sounds like the crap they're saying might be right (but often it isn't).

i will gladly recant that last paragraph if you can find me a single IR picture or spectrum taken of it. unless the sites that spew garbage about heat signatures have evidence like that to back up their claims, they are just that--garbage.

otherwise, you need to use your common sense and apply occam's razor: "all other things being equal, the simplest explanation that fits the data is likely most correct."
a failed rocket launch is both a pretty simple explanation (and a common event, actually) and does match all available data.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 24, 2009)

I don't have any idea why I stated that the way I did, but I meant to just throw the idea out there. I guess I'll go back and see if anybody got an IR shot of it - from the things I read, I simply assumed they HAD such a shot. I'm still not swayed one way or the other, however.

I haven't read this yet, but Wilcock just put up a new blog. I'm going to read it, but I'm posting it here first so you guys can see it too: Disclosure Endgame

I don't always agree with everything he says, but he's a really smart guy and knows his stuff well. He also doesn't speak unless he feels well informed on something, so its worth considering what he says before blowing it off. Let's see what this is about, shall we?...

The part about the spiral starts off near the bottom of the first page.






"No one in the mainstream media has pointed out this photograph. The spiral is much, much too perfect and multi-layered to support the official explanation that this is a rocket gone haywire.

It's utterly laughable to think a missile could have done this. The ionosphere is not thick enough -- not viscous enough -- to hold a spiral of exhaust this cleanly and tightly together, composed of geometrically-perfect circles, with at least 18 concentric layers hanging there in the air for 10-15 minutes."

Just an excerpt I liked.

He also pointed out this link, which I thought to be a big lightbulb: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...re-using-radio-waves-/articleshow/5086874.cms

The following being the kicker: 

"But in February last year, HAARP managed to induce a strange bull's-eye pattern in the night sky. 

Instead of the expected fuzzy, doughnut-shaped blob, surprising irregular luminescent bands radiated out from the centre of the bull's-eye, according to Todd Pedersen, a research physicist at the US Air Force Research Laboratory in Massachusetts, who leads the team that ran the experiment at HAARP. 

The team modelled how the energy sent skywards from the HAARP antenna array would trigger these odd shapes. 

They determined that the areas of the bull's-eye with strange light patterns were in regions of denser, partially ionized gas in the atmosphere, as measured by ground-based high-frequency radar used to track the ionosphere."

There's more to his story, of course. But any thoughts?

Also, I thought this was interesting:

"Curiously, at this same link I just posted to the Wright-Patterson video, I discovered that Russia Today -- the mainstream Russian media -- is now taking out Google advertisements on UFO websites to link people to their coverage of the Norway Spiral, as this screen-grab reveals:




"

5th edit: I've only made it to about a quarter way through the 2nd page but the case he makes is hugely compelling. If you're going to comment on this, at least read that much.


----------



## damigu (Dec 25, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> It's utterly laughable to think a missile could have done this. The ionosphere is not thick enough -- not viscous enough -- to hold a spiral of exhaust this cleanly and tightly together, composed of geometrically-perfect circles, with at least 18 concentric layers hanging there in the air for 10-15 minutes."



this is absolutely terrible logic! clearly the person who wrote this is incapable of considering motion outside of the atmosphere.

the whole reason the spiral maintained integrity is because there is *NOTHING* in space to alter its shape. no temperature gradients, no pressure differences, no wind, etc. exactly BECAUSE it has such low viscosity (effectively zero, at least on the short term on the order of minutes).
(the ionosphere is effectively space. it is so tenuous that its drag effects are only noticeable over a longer term than a few minutes. the ISS is in the ionosphere and it only rarely has to fire its own rocket engines to reboost itself to counter the effects of that tiny drag. and it's been up there for years!)

the writer clearly under the mistaken impression that the spiral shape is a property of the surrounding medium and not the rocket fuel itself. like if you were to put glitter in a bathtub and then pull the drain--as the water drains in the spiral pattern, the glitter would mostly fall into the spiral grooves. in that case, the spiral pattern would indicate the direction of motion. as i said in a previous post, the spiral pattern seen from the failed rocket is *not* the direction of motion, but merely a visual pattern that arose from simple straight line motion emanating from a spinning object (the video posted shows it quite clearly, too). *there is no medium in space* so what you're seeing are particles of rocket fuel PERFECTLY obeying the simplest laws of physics (newtons laws of motion).

the spiral pattern is so easily explained by the simplest laws of physics (newtons laws of motion) that it confounds me why people are still freaking out about it as if it were some impossible thing.



Adam Of Angels said:


> Instead of the expected fuzzy, doughnut-shaped blob, surprising irregular luminescent bands radiated out from the centre of the bull's-eye, according to Todd Pedersen, a research physicist at the US Air Force Research Laboratory in Massachusetts, who leads the team that ran the experiment at HAARP.



the key word in that being "irregular"--which has no bearing on these norwegian pictures since they exhibit exceptional irregularity. indicating that a completely different phenomenon is the source of the norwegian spiral.



Adam Of Angels said:


> "Curiously, at this same link I just posted to the Wright-Patterson video, I discovered that Russia Today -- the mainstream Russian media -- is now taking out Google advertisements on UFO websites to link people to their coverage of the Norway Spiral, as this screen-grab reveals:



since when is "XYZ media company is posting sensationalistic links to increase their viewership" a genuine argument for anything?

also, russian and ukrainian news coverage is about 50 times more sensationalistic than american news coverage. i thought that was common knowledge.
(EDIT: i just did a quick search of "russia today" and multiple people/companies have questioned its veracity over time, which only makes their link posting that much more questionable and useless as a citation. also, i learned that it is *NOT* a russian mainstream media, but rather a media that is mostly in english, meant for people living outside of russia who want to familiarize themselves with russian points of view.)



Adam Of Angels said:


> 5th edit: I've only made it to about a quarter way through the 2nd page but the case he makes is hugely compelling. If you're going to comment on this, at least read that much.



i found nothing compelling on the site, actually. just the typical paranoid ramblings of a UFO enthusiast. a person who insists on seeing whatever he wants to see and refuses to accept any evidence except for the few things that seemingly agree with his point of view.

unfortunately, belief in UFO visitation (at least in the types of visitation claimed by people so far) is absolutely absurd and illogical.
look into the logistics of interstellar travel and that will become immediately obvious.
consider the world political stage (and the fact that *EVERY* government would have to be working together to maintain such a cover up, how likely is that?) and fallacy of it will become immediately obvious.
contemplate what reasoning must be behind any alien race's willingness to undertake the RIDICULOUSLY ENORMOUS difficulty interstellar travel, and you will recognize immediately that doing atmospheric fly-bys and a few anal probes are most certainly not high on their list of "things to do" (you really believe they traveled for thousands, if not millions, of years just do scare a few backwoods people living in trailers?).


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 25, 2009)

What you're not considering, or at least not mentioning, is that there have been no reports (let alone photos) of this spiral from anywhere other than Norway (edit: as well as Northern Finland, apparently, which isn't far away). If this was beyond the Earth's atmosphere is would DEFINITELY be visible from parts of Russia, Sweden and Finland. This just doesn't seem to be the case, which would indicate that it was much lower and actually within the boundaries of the Earth's atmosphere. 

Check the physics work that's also posted in that link - I'm no physicist, but what's said seems fairly simple to understand. Aside from that, what's actually been disclosed about certain HAARP projects has alluded that almost exactly this sort of "phenomena" can easily be created given a field or particles to give it a visual aspect. Wilcock brought that up, and I thought that was a pretty important point.

On your points about the logistics on interstellar travel: Irrelevant. You're acting as though we have it ALL figured out and that this simply isn't possible.. I've heard all of the reasons, and they make sense given mainstream, accepted 'laws' of physics, but we don't have it ALL figured out. ..you're also claiming to have some idea as to what a particular ET race's motives would be in visiting us. Its NOT ridiculous to think that we've been lied to on a large scale.. there's just so much evidence that supports this that its not even funny.. or rather, it is sort of funny. 

If you honestly believe that ALL of the eye-witness reports, whistleblower testimonies of very prominent individuals, etc are bogus, then YOU are the one that only believes and follows what you want to see. Its just ridiculous to be THAT disrespectful. All it takes is one of those stories or testimonies to be legitimate and the rest of them become much more plausible.

(Edit: btw - that RG7 with Q-Tuners is HOT)


----------



## MF_Kitten (Dec 25, 2009)

the spiral was observed all the way to northern finland, dude. not sure what you're saying in the post at all, though.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Dec 25, 2009)

Its an alien spaceship entering slipspace thats being covered up by a false missile launch between a secret alliance between various countries, agreeing on the controlled disclosure of UFO intelligence to the public and between other nations. Come on guys its obvious.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 25, 2009)

Well, I don't think it has anything to do with ETs. Its definitely a man-made deal, I just don't think its a rocket. If you read through at least the first two pages of David Wilcock's article, you'll see that he also thinks its a man made deal. The stuff he gets into about HAARP systems pretty much explains exactly what we're seeing... the reason behind HAARP having generated the spiral is a different discussion, but that its responsible is completely plausible, it would seem. Richard Hogland was the first one to bring HAARP up concerning this spiral, and dude also happens to know his shit (not that his word alone is enough to convince me, but its much more plausible than what the media is saying).

Rather than beat the dead horse - let's see ANOTHER video like this. I want to see this phenomenon that's obviously a failed rocket, with the same degree of symmetry and everything. If this happened outside of the Earth's atmosphere, then why a spiral? Wouldn't we be seeing straight lines or continual movement in certain directions, rather than a freaking perfect spiral (yes, I understand that we'd see perfect shapes, but spirals indicate spinning)?



MF_Kitten said:


> the spiral was observed all the way to northern finland, dude. not sure what you're saying in the post at all, though.



Northern Finland is like... right there, dude.


----------



## damigu (Dec 26, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm no physicist



neither is the guy who wrote that website, i assure you. he's also no researcher, since he's citing extremely weak sources that have minimal validity on their own.

however, i *AM* a physicist (that's what i'm in school for, anyway, though it'll be a few more years before i get my PhD).



Adam Of Angels said:


> (Edit: btw - that RG7 with Q-Tuners is HOT)



thanks! i actually have a BKP painkiller in the bridge now, but the q-tuner is definitely staying in the neck position. it gets the best neck tones i've ever heard.



Adam Of Angels said:


> Rather than beat the dead horse - let's see ANOTHER video like this. I want to see this phenomenon that's obviously a failed rocket, with the same degree of symmetry and everything. If this happened outside of the Earth's atmosphere, then why a spiral? Wouldn't we be seeing straight lines or continual movement in certain directions, rather than a freaking perfect spiral (yes, I understand that we'd see perfect shapes, but spirals indicate spinning)?



i posted pictures of the fuel dumps on the other page--while they weren't spiral, they did have all of the other features you're talking about.

as for the spiral shape, again, all of the individual particles *ARE* moving in a straight line. the rocket itself *was* twirling, like a lawn sprinkler that gives a spiral pattern of water. rockets are often spin stabilized to begin with, but this was one spinning in an undesired manner due to an error. the video that someone else posted modeled the physics of it perfectly. the coloration matched that of other rocket fuel dumps perfectly. why does the explanation have to be more complex?

here is another example of a fuel dump showing extreme symmetry:





A UFO over Smithfield? Smiffie News
it really isn't hard at all to consider that it would make a spiral pattern instead if it were spinning.


----------



## neoclassical (Dec 26, 2009)

sami said:


> Anyone know where I can find nuclear wessels?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, I'd really like for someone to reproduce the spiraling. I've seen pics but this was the first video I've watched of it. It looks friggin awesome.



I hawe student fraum Ukraine. He speak like a that. Wow, what a country. Cool phenomenon though.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 27, 2009)

I invite you guys to read David Wilcock's blog that I linked up. Although I usually am quite sceptical, I'm 98% certain that what he's pointing out explains this Spiral. If the stuff on ETs and NWO propaganda turn you off, have an open mind through it in order to consider the bits about EISCAT and the related graphs that pretty much clearly show what was going on above Norway. (Note: I've found a few other people talking about EISCAT in relation to this spiral before Wilcock posted this blog, so I'm not hopping aboard the bandwagon.. I don't usually like to buy the bulk of the conspiracy stuff.. however, I'm pretty sure this stuff is real at this point)


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 27, 2009)

Double post


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 27, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I invite you guys to read David Wilcock's blog that I linked up. Although I usually am quite sceptical, I'm 98% certain that what he's pointing out explains this Spiral. If the stuff on ETs and NWO propaganda turn you off, have an open mind through it in order to consider the bits about EISCAT and the related graphs that pretty much clearly show what was going on above Norway. (Note: I've found a few other people talking about EISCAT in relation to this spiral before Wilcock posted this blog, so I'm not hopping aboard the bandwagon.. I don't usually like to buy the bulk of the conspiracy stuff.. however, I'm pretty sure this stuff is real at this point)



I had to stop reading when he compared it to the Bat Signal


----------



## sami (Dec 27, 2009)

Pauly said:


> The answer to the mystery of Norway's spiral light display: Was it a failed Russian Bulava missile test? | Mail Online



I'm convinced that it was a missile after going through all this back from page 1 of this thread. I liked the med-high qual vid before the two youtube vids.

What I wanna know is, has anyone seen a large high qual pic of this? It'd make an awesome wallpaper!


----------



## silentrage (Dec 27, 2009)

I'm still wondering why the central blue spiral seemed to be traveling at high speeds and then suddenly stops to emit the white spiral. What made it appear to stop? 
I know there's probably a video somewhere posted that shows that but I'm behing the great firewall.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 27, 2009)

silentrage said:


> I'm still wondering why the central blue spiral seemed to be traveling at high speeds and then suddenly stops to emit the white spiral. What made it appear to stop?
> I know there's probably a video somewhere posted that shows that but I'm behing the great firewall.



I'm telling you, the HAARP/EISCAT explanation completely satisfies this curiosity.

...and about the bat signal comparison - of course its ridiculous, but Wilcock is just pretty playful when it comes to explaining things. I think its pretty entertaining.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 27, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm telling you, the HAARP/EISCAT explanation completely satisfies this curiosity.
> 
> ...and about the bat signal comparison - of course its ridiculous, but Wilcock is just pretty playful when it comes to explaining things. I think its pretty entertaining.



What exactly does HAARP do, anyway? Besides be located in alaska, which is nowhere near the site of this incident and study the ionosphere?


----------



## damigu (Dec 27, 2009)

silentrage said:


> I'm still wondering why the central blue spiral seemed to be traveling at high speeds and then suddenly stops to emit the white spiral. What made it appear to stop?



it didn't just stop. look at the still picture more carefully and you can see how that "trail" begins to widen by the end. that's because the rocket was beginning to tumble/spin increasingly with time due to the failure. so it went from a very tight blue spiral to a wider one. but as it widened out, it became fainter (because the same volume of material was now spread over a wider area).

that's also why the rocket was accelerating a lot initially but then "slowed" to a more constant speed (it didn't actually slow down, it just went from high acceleration to low acceleration, which gives the impression of slowing down). because as it started tumbling, the energy from the engines went toward spinning it around instead of propelling it forward.



Metal Ken said:


> What exactly does HAARP do, anyway? Besides be located in alaska, which is nowhere near the site of this incident and study the ionosphere?



that's all it is. it's a defense research project to study the ionosphere, learn more about its characteristics, and figure out if and how it can be useful for long distance communications and surveillance purposes.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 27, 2009)

damigu said:


> that's all it is. it's a defense research project to study the ionosphere, learn more about its characteristics, and figure out if and how it can be useful for long distance communications and surveillance purposes.



Thats what im getting at. Conspiracy theorists have been saying its some kind of crazy hurricane making, commie-destroying, secret government WMD. Its not. They're really open about what they are. They study the atomsphere.


----------



## Bobo (Dec 27, 2009)

sami said:


> Anyone know where I can find nuclear wessels?



And humpback whales?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 27, 2009)

HAARP wasn't what was involved here, but a somewhat similar site called EISCAT was. Seriously, the rocket theory is stupid at this point. After it produced the blue spiral, which was perfect, while tumbling real fast, it tumbled a bit more and made a bigger spiral, which was even bigger and more perfect? I thought we were talking about zero atmospheric and gravitational effects. This is stupid.



Metal Ken said:


> Thats what im getting at. Conspiracy theorists have been saying its some kind of crazy hurricane making, commie-destroying, secret government WMD. Its not. They're really open about what they are. They study the atomsphere.



The idea is that its capable of more, or that they're toying with it to see if its capable of more. I don't really have an opinion on that one as I never took an interest in it, though. Tesla did supposedly come up with a missile defense system, however, and it was confiscated from him. That's supposed to have some ties with it somewhere.

Here's what I'm talking about in regard to what Wilcock is saying:

EISCAT looks like this: 






...is located here... (Note: Not real far from where this spiral was seen... in fact, its 'right over the mountain side')






...and it is capable of kicking up a whole Gigawatt of power.

EISCAT were open about the fact that they were going to be doing a test at the _SAME_ time this spiral was seen.

The chart of their power usage looks like this:






This thing, just like HAARP, is capable of emitting an energetic beam that spirals outward, as these graphs indicate (these are from an official US Navy Office of Naval Research website on HAARP):






^Positive and Negative field being "zapped"






^Positive field being "zapped" (Apparently, the image isn't wide enough or you'd see a constant motion outward from the center)

What's being said about these machines/systems is that they're capable of emitting these beams at any given time but unless there's a massive charge or some sort of particle field to "project" this energy onto, you won't actually see much, if anything at all. As David points out:

"The timing of the experiment was chosen for when there would a maximum amount of charged particles in the atmosphere, thanks to the 'meteor dust' from the "polar mesosphere winter echoes" (PMWE) -- thereby making the glow even brighter, since these conditions were quite literally ideal for creating any airborne projection."

Additionally, on October 4th, there was an article in the India Times (Scientists create 'artificial ionosphere' using radio waves - Science - Home - The Times of India) that says these things:

"HAARP's high-frequency radio waves can accelerate electrons in the atmosphere, increasing the energy of their collisions and creating a glow. 

The technique has previously triggered speckles of light while running at a power of almost 1 megawatt. 

But since the facility ramped up to 3.6 megawatts -- roughly three times more than a typical broadcast radio transmitter -- it has created full-scale artificial auroras that are visible to the naked eye."

...and the kicker...

"But in February last year, HAARP managed to induce a strange bull's-eye pattern in the night sky. 

Instead of the expected fuzzy, doughnut-shaped blob, surprising irregular luminescent bands radiated out from the centre of the bull's-eye, according to Todd Pedersen, a research physicist at the US Air Force Research Laboratory in Massachusetts, who leads the team that ran the experiment at HAARP. 

The team modelled how the energy sent skywards from the HAARP antenna array would trigger these odd shapes. 

They determined that the areas of the bull's-eye with strange light patterns were in regions of denser, partially ionized gas in the atmosphere, as measured by ground-based high-frequency radar used to track the ionosphere."

...and remember, EISCAT is spitting out a Gigawatt, not one or three Megawatts. Sound ridiculous now? This makes the rocket theory sound stupid.


----------



## damigu (Dec 28, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> The idea is that its capable of more, or that they're toying with it to see if its capable of more. I don't really have an opinion on that one as I never took an interest in it, though. Tesla did supposedly come up with a missile defense system, however, and it was confiscated from him. That's supposed to have some ties with it somewhere.



:::WHAP:::
(that's the sound of the immense face-palm you just induced in me)

there's no getting through to you with logic if you believe any of the dreck about tesla's supposed "super weapons" in addition to the other conspiracy crap you keep pointing to.

as for HAARP and EISCAT experiments, what everyone is neglecting to mention is that those experiments can't be aimed. so--even if they could create a regular shape like a clean and distinct spiral (which they can't--as you yourself quoted the word "irregular")--they can't create a moving artifact like the norway spiral clearly was. they can only project their energy directly above the arrays. but i'm sure wilcock and every other unscientific conspiracy nut conveniently forgot to mention that.

what i recommend is that, instead of reading websites that have no substantiation in first principles, you should take some physics and mathematics courses and learn for yourself just how ridiculous many of the notions that you're perpetuating are. again, even knowing the simplest laws of physics is enough to make it quite obvious that the rocket explanation is easily the most likely since it easily fits all of the criteria necessary to make the visible pattern.


----------



## silentrage (Dec 28, 2009)

I see, so let's see if I got this, you're saying the rocket's destablization process is exponential, so its deviation from a linear path will not become apparent until such destablization becomes explosive, almost instantly changing all of its linear velocity into centrifugal velocity, am I understanding it correctly?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 28, 2009)

damigu said:


> :::WHAP:::
> (that's the sound of the immense face-palm you just induced in me)
> 
> there's no getting through to you with logic if you believe any of the dreck about tesla's supposed "super weapons" in addition to the other conspiracy crap you keep pointing to.
> ...


 
Didn't you read what I said? I was only iterating what the common belief among conspiracy theorists is. I don't share their belief as I just don't have an opinion on it (as far as the weapon-like properties of HAARP, and the bit about Tesla are concerned).

Also, assuming that you know the scoop on HAARP or EISCAT better than somebody who studies these things and conducts experiments with them is something I don't do.

...and whether or not you can aim these experiments is pretty much irrelevant, considering where EISCAT is situated. None of the information I posted is illegitimated.



damigu said:


> :::WHAP:::
> (that's the sound of the immense face-palm you just induced in me)
> 
> there's no getting through to you with logic if you believe any of the dreck about tesla's supposed "super weapons" in addition to the other conspiracy crap you keep pointing to.


 

I'm not pointing to conspiracy BS, that's just what you're expecting from me, which is unjustified. The things I pointed out aren't exaggerations or phony. The only thing that might even come close to justifying this comment is the fact that I'm implying a false "official explanation" was made. If you think the media doesn't boldly lie on a regularly basis, I'm sorry.


----------



## damigu (Dec 29, 2009)

silentrage said:


> I see, so let's see if I got this, you're saying the rocket's destablization process is exponential, so its deviation from a linear path will not become apparent until such destablization becomes explosive, almost instantly changing all of its linear velocity into centrifugal velocity, am I understanding it correctly?



i think you understand, yes. it did seem to be exponential, but i wouldn't say "almost instantly"--the tighter "trailing" spiral did widen out a bit first. 



Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm not pointing to conspiracy BS, that's just what you're expecting from me, which is unjustified. The things I pointed out aren't exaggerations or phony. The only thing that might even come close to justifying this comment is the fact that I'm implying a false "official explanation" was made. If you think the media doesn't boldly lie on a regularly basis, I'm sorry.



when the media or official story reported doesn't match the facts, then i am suspicious.

in this case, however, the rocket story matches everything perfectly. as soon as i saw the video--even before i heard any conjecture or the official story came out--i said to myself "that looks like a rocket gone haywire". because i regularly look at launches and fuel dumps (because space flight continues to amaze and fascinate me to no end). i know what they look like, how they behave, and how they can go wrong. in this specific instance "go wrong" resulted in a more fantastic visual than usual, but nothing unexpected or easily explained.

if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Dec 31, 2009)

I completely, 100% disagree. From what I'm seeing, there's NO evidence suggesting that rockets going haywire look like this.. there just isn't. This theory DOESN'T fit everything perfectly. The faint spiral-like image you posted is so far from these images that its more than questionable. Again, the explanation that I reiterated contains a wealth of more sense. I invite more of you to take a glance at it. What I posted is not, to my knowledge, flawed, but the rocket theory holds almost no water.

This video talks about HAARP, which isn't the point of my posting it here (after all, they actually call it a HAARP facility in the video, when its called EISCAT, even if it does the same thing, basically), but my point IS that there is just no way this is a failed rocket.. that theory does not hold up when considering the behavior of this spiral - its just absurd and stupid:



This is Wilcock talking about this spiral (mind you, he didn't make this video, somebody else did, its just him talking - also, the last 4 minutes aren't from the same dialogue, although about cool stuff):



He mentions the infrared picture that WAS taken, like I had said a few pages back. This, when taken into consideration, logically lends to the idea that EISCAT's powerful abilities were used here.

Also, just as a quick note that I passed up earlier... I quoted this:



Adam of Angels said:


> "Instead of the expected fuzzy, doughnut-shaped blob, surprising irregular luminescent bands radiated out from the centre of the bull's-eye, according to Todd Pedersen, a research physicist at the US Air Force Research Laboratory in Massachusetts, who leads the team that ran the experiment at HAARP."



...and you (damigu) said this...



damigu said:


> the key word in that being "irregular"--which has no bearing on these norwegian pictures since they exhibit exceptional irregularity. indicating that a completely different phenomenon is the source of the norwegian spiral.



...which makes no sense, considering [with the addition of this Norway spiral] the quote in question points out the irregularity in both cases. So again, it only further validates the theory surrounding the EISCAT site.


----------



## damigu (Dec 31, 2009)

why is he the only person who is aware of the infrared picture he mentions? i've done a dozen searches for it and all were fruitless. i would like to see that picture and know exactly what time it was taken at so it can be matched to a specific time on the visible light image--so that it can properly be analyzed what the heat signature should or shouldn't be if it were a rocket.

and he kind of contradicts himself in the video: he says he knows of two other videos (a russian one from 2006 and a chinese one from earlier this year). unfortunately, neither of those locations have HAARP/EISCAT type arrays. which is a strong argument AGAINST this new spiral being related to those experiments if he's insistent on those other spirals being so similar.
it is interesting to note that china is *EXTREMELY* active in rocketry for the last decade due to their push for a moon landing in 2017. and they've had a lot of failed rockets.
and russia has a long history of failed rockets (they gave up on their moonshot in the 60's due to all of their prototype moon rockets blowing up on the launch pad or shortly after launch).

in typical conspiracy lunatic fashion, all of his information seems to be indirect or 3rd hand and he makes a lot of "i was talking to someone who knows a high level scientist/politician/etc" comments. i'm sorry, but i can't accept friend-of-a-friend or hearsay information as evidence without actual names to support what they do/know and who they are and why i should take their word on anything.

let me just pick on two of his sources:
1/ that dr. greer person he references? dr. steven greer claims to have been contacted by aliens and sells self-help info on how to use ESP and contact aliens. the "doctor" prefix to his name? he's a MEDICAL DOCTOR, not a scientist. so he's not the person to consider as an expert on anything that wilcock is talking about--and i find the lack of a name for dr. greer's friend to be highly suspect.
2/ pjotr garjajev and his frog-to-salamander-DNA experiment? why can i find no academic reference to it? the ONLY "information" i can find about it are on conspiracy websites. if you can find an actual published scientific article about this (or even one from a reputable news source), i will consider it. i can't even find confirmation that he's a real scientist!


basically, everything wilcock says ranges from the absurd to the insane. i am truly sorry that you can't see that.

i reiterate: why is there "just no way this is a failed rocket" when a simple lawn sprinkler can exhibit the same spiral behavior based on the same simple physics?
a spinning rocket acts just like a sprinkler does except creating the spiral out of exhaust or vented fuel instead of liquid water.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Jan 3, 2010)

oh dear god, why are people still babbling on about this? 

it was confirmed to be a failed rocket launch. it looks and acts just like a failed rocket launch seen on-axis, and it matches with the light conditions and everything.

there was a witness who saw the rocket land in the ocean not far from him and his boat

russia did the obvious denying-then-kinda-admitting-halfways thing that they always do when they mess up.

the rocket they were testing (if i remember correctly) is a rocket they´ve been working on for ages, and that has been failing all the time. the only reason they haven´t ditched it, is because they´ve been invested in by other governments, and russia doesn´t like the whole "sorry, we couldn´t do it, here´s your money back lol" thing.

what else would it be, and why don´t you think it´s a failed rocket launch? what points against it? and don´t cite conspiracy theorists and stuff.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 3, 2010)

A few pages back, I posted the theory that I agree with. Its the post with the images and GoogleMaps reference. Wilcock, Hoagland and some other guys are also convinced of this... don't say "don't cite conspiracy theorists and stuff", because as we've pointed out, anything that calls the official report a lie is by definition a conspiracy theory. 

Just because a so called "conspiracy theorist" supports something doesn't make it bogus - that's ridiculous. There's obviously a lot of total garbage out there (more so than not - including the mass media AND conspiracy babble), but its just asinine to think that every confirmed official report is nothing but pure truth.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Jan 6, 2010)

the point is, there´s no clear evidence to indicate that it was anything else than a failed rocket launch, and tons of very clear and direct evidence that it was.

i go where the evidence points, and right now it´s pretty obvious that it was a rocket launch. the physics of the whole event, inclulding the way it looked, is enough. then there´s the circumstancial evidence, with russia first denying and then admitting they launched a rocket they´ve been failing miserably at developing for ages, and pictures from previous failed rocket launches has come to surface too. they look very much the same, except they aren´t on-axis as this one was.

watching the david wilcock radio interview video there, i´m actually getting annoyed at how much crap he´s spewing out. the guy has no idea what he´s talking about. not only does he draw conclusions from looking at pictures and filling in blanks with his imagination, but he´s even wrong about tromsø being the northernmost part of norway. not that it matters, but if he just blindly states that it is, then that doesn´t help his credibility and fact-checking.

but as i said, i don´t accept cooky theories from people like this. i need solid evidence with a full theory that explains the whole thing. sure, it looks really mystical, and the spirals are oh-so-perfect, but that doesn´t mean it´s not something simple. hell, nature is full of perfect spirals, it´s an artifact of how the world works, it´s the most basic thing ever, and a rocket spinning around while blowing out gas or fuel in zero/near-zero gravity is a perfect setup to make a spiral.

just saying that just because it looks weird and the circumstances can be suspect, that doesn´t mean it´s the case. like, you showed the HAARP facility as using lots of power in that time slot, but does that mean they created it? do you know where that power went, or why the desicion was made to use that power?

i´m sure russia would´ve been more vocal about the whole thing if it were something like that, too.


----------



## Pauly (Jan 6, 2010)

You just posted a video that got shredded by damigu, ignored all his points, then just went back to an earlier argument that he and others already debunked. 

Irreducible delusion. 

You clearly WANT it to be something other than a failed rocket launch, so nothing anyone can provide you with will convince you otherwise, unless of course it appears to support an ill-defined hocus pocus explanation that fits with other ill-defined hocus pocus speculations (to call them theories wouldn't be an accurate use of the word).

If they found the remains of the rocket it'd be a plant, if you personally interviewed that guy in the boat he'd be a shill, if another rocket failed and did exactly the same thing under the same conditions it'd be a hologram or something equally ridiculous. Sigh.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 6, 2010)

You've gone overboard on the assumptions, bud. Aside from that, nobody has debunked the EISCAT theory I presented, merely ignored it, so we can nullify that claim.

..and to MF Kitten: What else would they be using a fucking Gigawatt of power on?


----------



## orb451 (Jan 6, 2010)

Adam, are you familiar with the term/phrase Occam's Razor? Are you familiar with what it means?

Here's the essence of it in of the off chance you're unfamiliar with it:

"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"

And a link for you to read as well:
Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory"

You see, you may *think* that you and the rest of the nuts on various websites are being really clever with this spiral over Norway but in fact, you and these other guys with the youtube video presentations and spectacular conclusions are losing site of THE FACTS. You do know the difference between fact and fiction right? Of course.

Here are the FACTS:

1. A light in the sky was recorded on camera over Norway
2. Russian government at first denies, THEN ADMITS that the light in the sky was caused by a rocket

Damigu and others have clearly pointed out the SCIENCE facts that make such a display probable and possible. There is no hoo-doo, no magic, no vortex to another dimension, no secret space laboratory or government black-ops cover-up going on. It's a failed rocket launch. Nothing more. Yeah it's neat looking, yeah we don't see those types of things every night, but it doesn't make what happened any more or less special. You're looking for a deeper reason or cause for it when there is none. Occam's Razor. 

Just because YOU don't believe a rocket caused it, doesn't make it so. What's more plausible, Russia denying a missile test (in perfect line with previous denials) and then admitting such a thing being the cause OR Russia gets pressure from some other "new world order" to "take the blame" for the "strange lights in the sky" so the "public" doesn't figure out what's "really going on"? 

I mean shit man, there's times and places for all sorts of whacko conspiracy theories, and this just isn't one of them. No matter how much you want it to be.

It was a failed rocket launch. Let. It. Go.


----------



## silentrage (Jan 6, 2010)

Welcome to another episode of the daily Beat The Dead Horse Show!

Today we demonstrate yet again the inability of people on both sides of the argument to comprehend the possibility that they may be wrong. 
Will we learn empathy and gain new perspectives or will we go on truckin'?

Tune in next week!


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 6, 2010)

Thank you, Silentrage... I think I'm done with this one, nothing is being absorbed on either side, so let's drop it.


----------



## damigu (Jan 6, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> You've gone overboard on the assumptions, bud. Aside from that, nobody has debunked the EISCAT theory I presented, merely ignored it, so we can nullify that claim.
> 
> ..and to MF Kitten: What else would they be using a fucking Gigawatt of power on?



then my question is this: why does the EISCAT power usage *GO DOWN* to the previous background level on the graph, correlating to the 8:30AM-8:45AM, the exact times reported for the sighting of the lights?

the most sensible answer is that the EISCAT scientists turned the power down as soon as someone reported the then-unknown lights so that possible energy (if it was an aurora or solar proton storm) wouldn't potentially cause damage to their equipment.


also, check this out:
Worldwide NAVTEX messages

NAVTEX is a system used for communicating to boats. this message originated from russia on the afternoon of 12/8, saying boats should be aware that a rocket launch would be conducted on 12/9 sometime between 2AM and 9AM.

why would russia send out a naval alert like that if it was a norwegian experiment?


----------



## MF_Kitten (Jan 6, 2010)

as i said, if any actual evidence for this being something else arises, and it´s accepted as plausible by scientists, i´ll consider it, but circumstantial evidence alone isn´t enough.

the "what else would they use a gigawatt of power on" comment is exactly what is wrong with this type of reasoning. you´re assuming that these things are connected, because you don´t see what else it could be used for. you not knowing the other options doesn´t make the one thing you can imagine factual.

and i´m not trying to push your face in it, i´m just asking you to use reasoning and logic a bit more. i was just like you before, so i know just how you´re thinking, but the fact of the matter is that it´s wrong. there´s no place for it, there´s no plausibility in it, and it´s just nonsensical.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 6, 2010)

Its doubtful that you understand my line of thinking on this, so I'll respectfully decline that. I'm once again saying that I'm not 100% convinced either way... but why not consider something because its plausible to YOU? A scientist, although informed or knowledgeable, is another person.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 17, 2010)

I've brought this thread back to the top to say that I have changed my mind - I believe the official report was correct... well, I should say that I'm leaning in that direction, but I'll still say that the images we're seeing looking NOTHING like what the official report is claiming. Its just such a bizarre appearance...


----------



## right_to_rage (Jan 17, 2010)

Adam Of Angels said:


> You've gone overboard on the assumptions, bud. Aside from that, nobody has debunked the EISCAT theory I presented, merely ignored it, so we can nullify that claim.
> 
> ..and to MF Kitten: What else would they be using a fucking Gigawatt of power on?



Your theory is supported by David Wilcock who just posted an e-book:
Disclosure Endgame: Free Ebook!

edit; my mistake Adam


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 17, 2010)

I definitely made that very clear - without sounding too much like a dick, you should read the thread first.

However, even though his theory DOES make sense, for the most part, I don't think he's right anymore.


----------

