Norway spiral - Russia accepts blame even though Norway may have been responsible ! !

Originally posted by Eye of Horus
What if...

There was a mutany on the russian sub that was supposed to have launched the missile at the west. Due to problems in its design of the guidance system or a bunch of loony war wacky end of the world fanatics, the missile with its 10 nuclear warheads was launched. The russian gov't doesn't want anyone to know that one of there most advanced subs was comprimised by said fanatics, and are trying to save face.

What if..

Norway doesn't want to acknowlege to the russian gov't that they have an operational ground based weapon system I.E. Laser, maser or some other kind of energy weapon system that actually works. And that it did work cause the resulting detonation was the energy based weapon blowing up the missile and seting off all 10 nukes. Would that not give the effect of the strange circluar formation..

what if..

Your right 100%...
And it was Norway doing a test of its new system and something went wrong...

Or something went right and they opened a vortexx to some other place. Why would someone doe this. I could give you a bunch of reasons. Course most would put me in the catagory of wacko or loon. But then this is ATS. Where even the most out landish idea could be plusible..

What if..

hmmmm..

S&F to you OP. You've done a good job at showing the facts.

And... what if we have no explaination for it?

Maybe it is something we just can explain yet. New phenomena. Yay!

reply to post by Phage


Dear Phage...

Is there a particular reason for your non response to the OP's calculations, wich make the spiral way too big to have come from a rocket?

reply to post by Point of No Return

I did respond.
I gave examples of clouds of effluent from other spacecraft appearing just as large.

Man! Great job on the thread "tauristercus"

Originally posted by A52FWY
reply to post by davesidious

 

It is possible HAARP has been successful in anti missile defense and wanted to show the President firsthand while he was there. Don't you think the Russians were putting on a show for the President too?

I like your theory, Sound VERY possible. Maybe it would explain why the Russians took the blame. Admiting that their Missile technology is Useless to the world would be a bad thing. If they just say it was a technical failire it sounds like its still good and a few kinks needs to be worked out.

If they refused to take the blame then Norway would had to disclose the HAARP facility and also admit that Russian Missiles are Useless. I dont think anybody would buy the russian stuff anymore.

Good stuff.

reply to post by Phage


Yes anecdotes.

Can you refute his calculations?

reply to post by magestyk7


So what about the repeated failures of this missle that are freely listed by the Russians?

AllisONE -
You make some interesting Points - Points that are most defiantly worth considering. Although, am having a really hard time taking you serious.

Do you drive a jacked up truck, or some highly modified Honda? /off topic, just curious.

Yes, the exhaust trail pretty much proves it was a missile launch. Case closed.

Wasn't exactly my feeling, and am not sure who you think you are to make that statement.

Well, just so you know, I am a professional image analyst, professional graphic artist, and also a photographer, and lighting specialist, including a scientist that studies physics, chemistry, electrical engineering, and on top of that I am a private investigator.

Ok, I guess you know who you think you are - but that brings up more questions. For someone to have any sort of success in any of the many different fields (love the general physics, chemistry, EE and PI tossed at the end) they would also have a refined way of speaking and demonstrating that intelligence.

You entire topic is pretty much bunk. Don't take it personal though.

The only person that is wrong here is YOU.

ERRRGGHHH why am I even debating with you people... it's already proven to be a missile.. this is like debating with "flat Earth theorists"..... never ending cycle of denial.

You don't have to be an expert to visually see the image has a slow shutter speed... but I guess you do.. since you are unable to see it.

Am not going to continue quoting, but your work is littered with examples of what am referring too above -

When am hiring employee's with resume credentials like above posted, that is usually a flag someone is not reliable, trustworthy, nor have long term goals that would match anything with stability.

Tone, Speech, and how you treat your fellow humans shows more about a person then any "intelligence" or "background".

Thus am sorry I can't take your work serious - Hopefully someone will be along that is concerned with actually helping others understand rather then putting others down/riding ego trip.

If you feel your lacking something inside and need to make up for it on the outside, may I suggest investing in a big jacked up pickup truck, or a little Honda with more aftermarket parts then OEM.

I don't have time to make neat images right now...

Obviously that's not the only thing in life you didn't/don't make time for. It is interesting though what you do have time for.


To the OP - Nice work showing another side of this Mystery and giving others more data to review and come to their own conclusions about.***

reply to post by Point of No Return

No, I am not disputing his calculations though assumptions made about altitude and distance which would affect them. I am disputing his claim that a missile could not have produced the spiral.

In space, a relatively small amount of material can expand to a relatively large volume.
www.satobs.org...
www.sodahead.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Point of No Return

 

I did respond.
I gave examples of clouds of effluent from other spacecraft appearing just as large.

Hmm. I am sorry but this does not seem likely.

Ok, let us assume the rocket was at 500km height. That would make the visual display (spiral) about roughly 600-700km in diameter according to previous calculations.

Now lets determine the area. A= (pi) R ^2

(3.14) x 350km ^2 = spiral area total of roughly 384,650 km.

So your telling me Phage, that there are previous examples of this size of event due to very high altitude release of chemicals???

The surface area of the spiral covered 384,650 km if it was 500km in the air.

Please correct my math if I did it wrong.

I am rusty with it, but I am assuming that I do the exponent before I multiply it by PI due to order of operations.

I am open to correction. And your analysis.

Then again, if your implying that the incident took place much much lower, like 20km in the air, than of course we have a far smaller event.

To put this in perspective. The land area of France is only 640,053 SQ KM.
Yet this spiral was 384,650 km in area?

This makes no freaking sense to me, sorry guys.

384,650 km ??

Also, why didn't Russia firing a nuke over Scandinavia cause a nuclear war? This is by far the most perplexing aspect of the entire issue, from my point of view. Things just do not add up.

I will await further developments.

However a suggestion for all involved, please refrain from being a jerk to other posters, as it ruins any credibility you may have.



Test missles do not have active warheads. They were not testing the bomb, but the delivery mechanism.

One thing I don´t get....

The Russians aren´t stupid. Although currently proving itself to be a lemon, the last thing the Russians want is to let any portion of a failed Bulava missle end up in the hands of a NATO country. It is, after all, supposed to be their future main-line SLBM. A commander in charge of testing one of these babys sure as hell is going to have orders never to let that missle fly over NATO territory. Now, unless there was a total sabotage of the self destruct system, that missile should have never survived past the first stage since it must have been immediately obvious the designated trajectory of the missile was not being followed.

Originally posted by sensible thought


Test missles do not have active warheads. They were not testing the bomb, but the delivery mechanism.

When a ICBM is flying your way, you have no way to know this. Thats why you test them in your own back yard, not other people's yards.

This is common sense.

So you would not know if it was a test as it screams towards you. Even if Russia said it was only a mundane test, you would still piss your pants.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Katie

 

The test on the 10th was a different type of missile and the test was a success. That is all explained in the link you posted.

[edit on 12/14/2009 by Phage]

Your right, I went back and re-read the article. Thanks for pointing that out.
To many missles being tested, yet they worry about N. Korea.

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by magestyk7

 

So what about the repeated failures of this missle that are freely listed by the Russians?

I explained that. Maybe I didnt explained it well this is what I mean.
If you tell your customers that you still working out the problems(Perfecting it) then you still gonna have customers that will buy your product in the future.

If on the other hand A country comes up and says, hey everybody Russian Missiles are USELESS we just proved it with HAARP. You think Russia is gonna have any country buying their technology? NO!
I guess Norway talked to the Russian and told them. You take the blame and say the Rocket did this and we wont tell the world you rocket became obsolete.

Make sense?

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Allisone, I am not a science student and I cannot do advanced calculations but when you say the below it's make me wonder:

"First and foremost...You forgot to calculate Earths rotation. Earth rotates towards the East, so the flight path is not straight, it is curved. So shortly after launch the Earth rotated, and that put Norway in a perfect position to view the back end of the missile. The back end is what was caught on camera in order to get the perfect spiral effect."

You talk as if the Earth can rotate without the missile rotating along with it -- as if the missile were suddenly unaffected by the Earth's gravity and acted like an independent body. If the Earth rotates, then the missile will rotate along with it.

I do not have enough knowledge to debunk your other ideas but at this time I seriously wish I did.

This does not take rocket science nor a broad intellect to realize it is no Ballistic missile test gone awire..

IF NATO, picked up any missile test in which they would have from Russia, their would be allot of chatter. I am assuming this would have been unidentified flying around or near or over Norway.. Jets would have been scrambled. It seems the lack of eye witnesses seems to be a problem. I cloak of silence has shrowded this even as far as I can tell.

In the 40's or 50's it was a weather ballon.

No matter what it was it was weird.

Yet if No one had a explaination for this event, then we would have to say we could not explain it, and then.. I mean and then, we would have something in the World the leaders of the WORLD COULD not explain... Where would that lead?

I will just add, Russia, is the logical answer since they can pass along such a event based off of their supposed technological advances in ballistics, yet the answer to this oddity is perdictably unsettling.. Especially after it was denied by them in the begining. Which again leads to my first impression would have been jets would have been scrambled and radars would be in use, and alerts would be imposed. UNLESS Norway was aware of such excercises.. If that is the case then perhaps the story will hold up. If Norway was not alarmed then statistically logic tells us it was a failed Russian missile launch, Dislaying a bissare sky line in failure.

who knows, the earth is still spinning thou, and everything is still well..

dbl post plz delete...




[edit on 14-12-2009 by Bicent76]

reply to post by muzzleflash

Ok. Now that I've bothered to check his numbers (I admit I wasn't paying attention the first time, I was sloppy), I do dispute his calculations.

The OP says that, at 500km a 1º angle yields a size of 778 km.

The tangent of 1º is .0175.
www.science-projects.com...

.0175 x 500km = 8.75km

Oopsy.




[edit on 12/14/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Ah yes your right.

That is just too small i think however.

The angle must be larger than 1 degree.

Maybe 3 or 4 degrees is a more precise angle to work with, however still speculation.

At 3 degrees we will have 26.18 km.
4degrees = 34.9 km

These numbers seem far more reasonable than the others.

So based on previous information, I will have to go with an angle of at LEAST 2.5 degrees to no more than 5 degrees. So i went with 3 and 4, the middle ground.

Good catch Phage.

reply to post by muzzleflash

We have an ATS member who saw it and described it as 2-3 times the size of a full moon. Call it 1.5º.
Not so unreasonable anymore.



[edit on 12/14/2009 by Phage]