posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:57 PM
Five days ago, an unprecedented atmospheric anomaly was observed in the skies above Norway.
Initial reports as to the cause were varied but eventually mainstream opinion appeared to favour the Russian malfunctioning missile scenario.
Initially disavowing any knowledge of the cause of the effect, Russia eventually accepted responsibility and admitted that the spiral effect was a
direct result of the malfunction.
On the surface, this seems to have satisfied the majority of people and already this marvelous event is fading into memory.
But for those who aren't satisfied with such glib and superfluous "explanations" and prefer to dig deeper, I offer the following alternative
Let's do a simple analysis to see if the "malfunctioning missile" scenario can possibly be debunked ....
Looking at the following image, the nominal flight path of the Bulava missile when launched from the White Sea area would have placed it almost
immediately on a north-east trajectory, following a great circle route to it's intended impact point in the Kamchatka penninsula, approximately 5,500
And yet for the missile to be so clearly visible in the Norwegian sky, implies that the missiles guidance system must have almost immediately failed
and changed it's path to a north-westerly direction, almost a 90 degree shift in direction ... and headed instead towards Norway !
Based on the following image, it is clear that if the spiral was the result of a failed missile test and was visible from Norway, then it should also
have been clearly visible from both Sweden and Finland which both would have been within the missiles flight trajectory - yet corroborating eye
witness reports from either of these countries is almost non-existent. Virtually every report and image originates from Norway alone, implying that
the spiral display (irrespective of the source) must have occurred at a very low altitude if only visible from Norway.
Now lets determine whether I'm justified in stating that the spiral display occured at a very low altitude which is not commensurate with the
proposed mainstream conclusion that it was the result of a failed Russian Bulava missile test.
Firstly, lets take a look at the Bulava's specifications:
Not mentioned is that the Bulava has an apogee of 1,000 kms which is achieved after the successful burn of all 3 stages.
We are now being told that this particular Bulava test failed because of problems associated with the third stage burn. Now this implies that until
the 3rd stage problems, that the 1st and 2nd stages completed their burns nominally which should have lifted the Bulava to an altitude of at least 500
But here we have a major stumbling block in our acceptance that the spiral was a direct result of the missile failure.
If the spiral was mainly observed only from Norway, that implies that the missile was already off course shortly after launching and heading in a
radically wrong direction and would cross at least 3 sovereign countries of Finland, Sweden and Norway. It also implies that the missile never reached
any appreciable altitude otherwise the spiral effect would have been visible over a vast geographical area and not just Norway. The immediate question
to be asked is why the missile was allowed to complete a 1st and 2nd stage burn and not terminated immediately a deviation was noticed ... with the
potential horrendous political repercussions should it come down in one of those 3 countries, especially Norway !
It's common knowledge that all previous Bulava tests that had inflight malfunctions were immediately terminated ... and yet this one doesn't appear
to have been.
So why have Norway, Sweden and Finland remained completely silent on the entire matter instead of raising a political #-storm over Russia test firing
flawed missiles through their air space ?
Now lets take a look at whats been stated to be proof of a Russian missile launch on that day ... namely the visible exhaust trail.
In the following images, you can clearly see on the horizon what appears to be an exhaust trail and has been taken as evidence of a missile launch ...
in this case the launch of a Bulava missile on 9 December.
Now take a look at the following image that illustrates the "distance to the horizon" calculation.
For someone of average height standing at sea level, the distance to the horizon is approximately 5 kms.
Let's use the above calculation and rearrange it so that instead of determining the distance to the horizon, we use it instead to calculate the
Now, the distance from Tromso, Norway to the White Sea is approximately 800 kms. Plugging this value into the rearranged equation tells us that to be
able to see the "exhaust plume" created at the White Sea from a distance of 800 kms, that the height of the plume will need to extend an incredible
40 kms into the upper atmosphere. If that wasn't bad enough, to be able to visually see that plume, it would imply that the exhaust plume had a width
in excess of 10 kilometres !!
A height of 40 kms and a width greater than 10 kms ... all from the launch of a single missile ... thats equivalent to the exhaust plume from a
shuttle launched in Cape Canaveral being seen 800 kms away in North Carolina ... somehow I don't think so !!!!
So, as has been shown, it doesn't take much analysis to arrive at the conclusion that whatever was responsible for the spiral effect above Norway, it
could NOT have been the result of a failed Russian missile test ending in a spectacular fashion in the airspace above Norway.
Well, if a missile test could NOT have been responsible for the spiral display in the sky, what other options or possibilities would make more logical
Continued next post ...