Proof NASA Is Trying To Cover Up The Source Of The Norway Spiral!

Originally posted by Phage
Evidence:

The Russians issued marine warnings for rocket testing in the White Sea, southeast of Tromso, the day before the launch.

Russia has confirmed a missile test launch from the White Sea before dawn on the 9th.

Please, show me a link where this so called 'evidence' is located. And I don't want to see anything dated the day of or after the event because that could easily be fraudulent. So far no one has been able to prove this so go ahead! I saw one link earlier today from some crap website that had a disclaimer saying everything may not be correct, so don't even bother posting that one.

reply to post by highlyoriginal
What your pictures show, and thanks for posting, is just how different the same event can appear on any given media, picture No: 5 is interesting, the first two missile pics are the same object at almost the same time, but look at the difference in colours and why should there be a spiral present, the missile is on it's way.


[edit on 12-12-2009 by smurfy]

reply to post by highlyoriginal

The NAVTEX message was posted on December 8 at 04:54 GMT. The missle launch was on December 9 at about 06:00 GMT.
NAVTEX

If you are calling that a "crap website" there are a lot of mariners who use crap for weather and other alerts. The FRISNIT disclaimer says that the information may be incomplete. This message is not incomplete. It also says FRISNIT accepts no responsibility for erroneous reports. This is because FRISNIT does not produce the reports, it disseminates them. There is no indication that this is an erroneous report.

reply to post by Phage


Yes but did you happen to have that link on Dec. 8th? No. And since the site has that disclaimer I'm speculating that it's possible that the report was placed there after this all happened. And even if this report is true/real why is this the only one?

reply to post by highlyoriginal


Then why did Norwegian military know this in advance? I think you guys are making this a much bigger deal then it really is.

reply to post by highlyoriginal

It wasn't the only message.
00:51
00:53


Oh, and look. Maybe they're not finished.
Dec 12


[edit on 12/12/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Once again that website means nothing. A falsified report could easily be placed onto that website. And I hope they aren't done because I want another missile to fail and show that this spiral is not related to the missile at all.

I wont argue that a missile may have been shot off and failed, but if you look at the pictures I presented on the previous page, you can see that the missile (if it was even a missile) was a separate event.

And Phage did you happen to see this info I posted earlier?

23 December 2008 Failure Launch from a submerged submarine. The missile malfunctioned during firing of its third stage and
self-destructed on command.
15 July 2009 Failure Launch from a submerged submarine. The missile malfunctioned during firing of its first stage and
self-destructed.
9 December 2009 Failure Launch from a submerged submarine. The missile malfunctioned during firing of its third stage.

Source

Explain to me why the past 2 times the bulava missile was tested and failed, that it was self-destructed, and this past time it wasn't? Notice that Dec. 23, 2008 it was 3rd stage failure and it self destructed... but this time it did not.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by highlyoriginal]

I thought I would put this out there... David Wilcock weighs in on Norway Spiral.

reply to post by highlyoriginal

We don't know the failure mode but a failure does not have to be a catastrophic failure. In the case of a weapons platform a failure means that the payload was not delivered to its target(s). There is data to be collected throughout the flight. That data stream would cease with a self destruct. If the missile posed no danger or if there no chance of someone else recovering it, there would be no reason to self destruct.

reply to post by chris_stibrany

It could be the haarp project

reply to post by Phage


You really have to have an answer for everything don't you? I'm finding myself inclined to wonder why you are so quick to back everything up with nonsense all the time. You make good points in other threads, but so far in this one all you've done is looked ridiculous because you are being closed minded here. At least I'm open enough to agree there may have been a missile, but that it may be a separate event from the 'spiral.'

Just because you have something to say/prove in every post you make, does not make it true. Everything about this whole phenomenon is unclear still at this point, and yet you firmly agree with the MSM right away. Russia denied at first that they had anything to do with this, then the MSM created a story saying it was probably Russia, some were even blaming Russia 100% before they came out and said "Opps! It was us."

If you watch the video I posted on the previous page (first one) they say that they think it was Russia, but Russia "never announces anything" which makes me believe that the website you say shows proof that they announced this test is bulls***.

Think what you want, but you have no way of knowing what it is 100% either way. I am (nor have I at all) not claiming I know 100% what it is, I have no idea! But I do believe it was not a missile, at least not the spiral itself.

reply to post by smurfy


I do agree with you concerning your belief relative to the color of the spiral, but the point that I am making relies little on the color of the spiral and more on these 3 issues:

1) We are only privy to pictures of the event so EVERYTHING that an individual professes to be true concerning the spiral is speculation.

2) The evidence that Phage is presenting is correlational evidence only.
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

3) My concern is with the shape of the spiral and its consistency. While other rockets might appear to produce a slightly similar spiral shape, none have produced a shape with consistent equivalent rings in which the smoke does not dissipate similar to a contrail. For that to happen the rocket would have had to reach, at minimum, the mesosphere which is approximately 170,000 feet above sea level. What kind of rocket can produce that much thrust?

I will stand by my original statement, which is this:

The spiral rings are of unknown origin and all estimations are at best probabilities.

I would like to thank everyone on this thread for the mature responses. It is nice to have a debate with a group of individuals without having to resort to name calling.
My deepest respect to all those involved.

Originally posted by highlyoriginal
reply to post by Phage

 

Yes but did you happen to have that link on Dec. 8th? No. And since the site has that disclaimer I'm speculating that it's possible that the report was placed there after this all happened. And even if this report is true/real why is this the only one?

Holy freaking crap

Your complete disregard for the facts makes it impossible to talk to you. I don't know why you even bother phage.

highlyoriginal you are just nitpicking in an attempt to falsify the rocket theory. It is not some massive goverment cover up just a rocket launch that had a spectacular display from a certain point of view. (lots of people on this site still don't really understand how the phenomenon was started but if they read slower or more carefully they might figure it out.)

quit nitpicking! If you have an alternate theory you have to do better then this.
AND
AND AND
AND
I might add -- Before the MSM determined it was a rocket it was already suspected to be a rocket.
B E F O R E
Look at the facts and don't go on a crazy ass crusade to defile the truth.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by '___'omino]

I need to explain myself a wee bit better.

By "that much thrust" I was meaning enough thrust to both reach the mesosphere, and then produce not only the consistency of the spiral rings, but the size of the rings as well.


Does anyone know how long the spiral was visible?

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Josephus23]

sorry for the double post.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Josephus23]

reply to post by Josephus23

Yes.

The whole thing lasted just under one minute and then spiral in the sky collapsed, leaving it in a dark, circular "hole" in the night sky.

Google translation

Though we do have an eyewitness here with us.


[edit on 12/12/2009 by Phage]

This Wilcock is hilarious, I just cant stop laughing after watching the posted video.

And the guy who made it, didnt even use the correct map in the beginning of the video.

HAARP my a**. The Eiscat-facility has no way to consume such poweramounts as this Wilcock as talking about.

And how many projections leave puffy clouds afterwards?

reply to post by '___'omino


Your devolution into name calling only belittles what truth may rest within your statement.
While I may disagree with Phage and tend to take a wait and see approach similar to what I believe your are espousing, I must take a stand against the personal attacks.

Please keep the information relative to the thread.
When people feel attacked then they normally respond in kind and that will only serve to ruin this thread.

Peace to you.

So I'm still trying to decide... Is the HUGE grey spiral IN the atmosphere? or in Space, and we are looking past the atmosphere?

I would be inclined to say it is in space, because of the uniformity and perfection of the spiral. But if it is in space, and the grey is just leaked unspent fuel, why would we see it?

If it is in the atmosphere, then I think we need to keep investigating. No trail from a rocket coming into the atmosphere could do that.

And has anyone even said there was a leak?(to account for the two colors)

I am still open to the possibility that the rocket was equipped with some crazy re-entry magnetic shield, and that the effect in that lighting from that technology is what makes the atmosphere look like that.

I just have a hard time believing that its just a regular rocket, let alone a rocket at all.

Ahh I don't know. As I said before, the more important question, rocket or not, is what was the purpose.

Whatever it was, it made people look up.

Who was it that reported on the flux in the gravitational field?
It was either hoagland or wilcocks or the guy from webbot.
Where is the proof in that? If thats true then its not a rocket.
He is the one that claimed it -- Can anyone find anything?
Instead of speculation lets actually take this a step forward.