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.

 

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

page: 18
286
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Hagbard_Celine
 

Here's what I think from another thread I started. Think this could explain anything?


Dec 10th (?) Russian launch produces spiral! Case closed.

It would appear that a new test of the Russian Bulava ICBM has produced another similar spiral. I would guess this is part of the evasion tecnology that the Bulava represents. How it would work, don't know! It would also explain the repeated failures of the missle. This is NOT my find, and should not be considered a subject covered by the Norway threads! This is a completely new tech, and may indicate a new era of ICBM technology!New Bulava test spiral
This could be a whole new balance of power. It explains the Russians reluctance to comment, and also the silence of US authorities, as it could be assumed the US is familiar with, or experimenting with it's own ICBM evasion tech.




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Yes it could explain a few things. I would just be curious as to why Russia would be testing new and experimental weapons in view of other countries? I know we just don't air our new weapons. When we test our things it's not over Mexico or Canada. With a large open range up in Russia why shoot one off near Norway? How do you explain the directions the ICBM would have to take? It may be able to explain some visual evidence but in my opinion not 100% of it

Plus as others have posted, no debris, noise, and every shot looks the same from every angle. I just feel something else is going on. Russia makes a new form of ICBM and instead of testing inside the safety of their own country load up a sub and then fire away. Something just seems to seems a bit off.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Hagbard_Celine]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Hagbard_Celine
 


The launch was not intended as a show for the Norweigans!
first of all, it was a sub launch, these take place either in the Barents or White Seas because thats where the subs are in Russian territorial waters.
The fight path is entirely ove Russia, all they way downrange to Kamatchka, clear across the continent.
Ive seen several US ICBM launches, EVERYBODY in Los Angeles can see when they fly from Vandenberg. These are very powerful rockets, they fly into space in their arc. It's spectacular to say the least.
They create quit a burn and can be seen from San Diego, over 200 miles away.
Also launches are NEVER done in secret, they are always announced in advance, as was this one. The reason being to avoid starting a nuclear war! The pics of the contrails, the location, PLUS the fact the tests were announce a year in advance as well as days ahead, with shipping warning etc. all are exactly consistent with an ICBM launch. The only difference being the spiral effect. As I said, I believe this is a result of Russian black tech. Also a weapon is not a detterent unless everyone knows about it. It all makes sense to me!



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
If the press states it, I don't believe it. I haven't had a higher math class in decades. I know nothing of cameras. With that being said, I do have a question: So where is the rocket debris? Don't they want their technology back to find out what happened?

I thought rockets travel in a horse shoe pattern...is that called a parabola? This thing looked like it was on a straight line. The YouTube videos proving it a missile don't match. The color of the "flame" is different, the trajectory is haphazard and the spirals are not perfect like the Norway one was.

Spiraling planes fall to the ground because they have no lift. If this was a spiraling rocket, it should have been falling because of gravity, right?

When the "hole" appeared, the thrust should have stopped. Can you math dudes calculate speed & rate of descent to see where debris SHOULD be?

I can't buy that Ruskies would fire a missile towards a Nobel gathering, a US President, or over three countries. Even if it was a bad launch, they would have blown it up before it got close to any other country.

I can't believe a projectile flew over a country (or 3), just disappeared, and there was no military scramble or evidence recovered. Oh, wait, there was that Boeing that flew into the Pentagon...



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense. However I also believe that a good cover story does make sense. If they said it was due to a bad reaction from SARS nobody would buy it because it doesn't make any sense. The issue I have with the ICBM story is as you said.


Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Hagbard_Celine
 
As I said, I believe this is a result of Russian black tech. Also a weapon is not a detterent unless everyone knows about it. It all makes sense to me!


When we tested the blackbird our black tech we didn't do it for the world to see or for that fact announce it. When we tested the A-bomb we didn't announce it. When we tested the new stealth fighters and bombers no announcement. Now I understand that we live in a new climate and nuclear war is always to be taken into consideration and I agree with that point. I just don't see the Russians making Black Tech and then launching it were another country can see it.

We keep our stuff secret why do the Russians launch black tech in a way that if it goes wrong it could be compromised?

As for a weapon is only as good as how many people it scares I don't exactly agree with that. We kept a lot of our weapons secret. We have an entire facility out in the desert hills north of vegas that we claim "doesn't exist" because we try to keep things secret. Some weapons yes serve best when shaken at the enemy but that doesn't make a weapon a weapon. What makes a weapon is the fact that it can kick your enemy across the board.

Going back to what the OP has to say I find his evidence to be rather sound. The math checks and the logic follows. The only thing I don't agree with is some others who have posted claiming it was due to mutual top secret agreement or something like that.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Hagbard_Celine]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hagbard_Celine
 


The SR-71 was designed for recon. It was publicly revealed. Also the Russians KNEW it was there from the begining. The stealth "fighter" was an offensive weapon, it's existance was known for years before it went public, we just didn't know what it looked like. The A bomb was ww2! Obviously secrecy was a neccesity. By the way, even in WW2, restraint in weaponry was deliberate, to prevent undue escalation. Poison gas and bio warfare could have been used, but were not for that very reason.
A HUGE political issue between the Us and Russia is the proposed missle shield. This rocket is a defensive weapon ( loosely speaking) in that is designed to be maneuverable in flight, something no other ICBM can do.If the Russians make this work, it shows the missle shield to be vulnerable, therefore obsolete. From a Russian point of view, an America invulnerable to attack invites a US first strike. Showing us that we are still open to counterstrike would be both politicly and militarily a great advantage to the Russians.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Hagbard_Celine
 


The SR-71 was designed for recon. It was publicly revealed. Also the Russians KNEW it was there from the begining. The stealth "fighter" was an offensive weapon, it's existance was known for years before it went public, we just didn't know what it looked like. The A bomb was ww2! Obviously secrecy was a neccesity.


But none of these had been publicly revealed during testing phases. We didn't say "Oh hey we are testing some secret recon and fighter stuff." we made it then after the testing had already been going on the information got out. I'm talking about testing new Black Tech as you have suggested. These things of course later in their lifespan had been revealed true but not when we were developing the things. You can't really expect me to believe we announce our Black Tech?

The term Black Tech doesn't signify tech we want people to know about. Black Ops is not stuff we put on the books Black Ops is something we keep secret at all times unless compromised then we deny deny deny deny deny.

I don't buy the idea that the Russians built a Black Tech ICBM and then launched it for the planet to see. On top of that they don't even want to recover their Black Tech secret rocket? Black Tech means secret, not HEY CHECK THIS OUT! it means shhhhhhh don't tell anybody. Plus explain and counter some of the OP's claims and numbers. The ICBM thing makes sense sure it does otherwise it would be a rather crappy cover as stated before. Sure it would be a great thing for Russia to explain that we are open to counter attack but a failed ICBM launch doesn't scream "WE GOT YA!"

If the idea was to create a ICBM that would put the US into a form of Check the more intelligent thing would be to make it, test it, THEN launch it for the world to see. Putting incompetency out for the world to see isn't my idea of playing political chess.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
WHATS THAT YOU SAY!?!?!?! SWAMP GAS!?!?!??!



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I would like to post my thoughts on this matter and the questions I have.



1. Why did Russian range control/ Missile control allow this ICBM, which had 7 out of 12 failures during testing and was fielded this year, to veer so far off course without killing it?

2. Most ICBMs hit 7/KMpS after about a 250 Second burn. In 50 seconds they are screaming at 3.5/KMps and reach no more than 850KM. How can something going 3 klicks a sec "sit" in the sky or hang around for "minutes"?

There are two ways this could be explained.

A. Russian missile command releases the video of the test, they always record their launches you know. Especially with their new baby the Bulava.

B. NATO,or whoever was watching the screen when the DSP heatsat flashed, confirms a launch.


I wish I could see a video of this event and not pictures but we work with what we got.


[edit on 15-12-2009 by TheEndofEvolution]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
If they do have a nuclear missle that takes orbit then redirects and supersonicly returns. You would also have a chance of them turning a single missle into a Tunguska event. What missle would compare to a Tunguska event. The bombing of the moon would be the same type of weapon idea. Makes you wonder if now that more countries are entering space race are Russia and US now entering Ronald Reagans dream of space weaponry.
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
there was a smoke trail leading from the surface up to the missile event... So it's been debunked as something Normal, not Abnormal...

If there was no smoke trail leading up to the event, and the event just appeared to appear out of no where with nothing leading anyone to believe this was a missile malfunction, then the theories would be valid...

Since THERE WAS A TRAIL LEADING UP TO THE EVENT IT'S BEEN DEBUNKED...

Speculation about this being some kind of Wormhole, or dimensional gate are just ridiculous at this point...



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brainiac
Speculation about this being some kind of Wormhole, or dimensional gate are just ridiculous at this point...



I'd agree with that. I don't believe it was some kind of wormhole or dimensional gate. However I disagree that a smoke trail = ICBM and thus debunks the OP.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I see it in reverse the object came from space broke a sonic barrier and self destructed debris fell to earth.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I believe it was man-made, but I do not believe it was a malfunctioned missile. Your telling me a missile goes almost 800K in the wrong direction over a neighboring country and they don't pull the plug before it gets there?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEndofEvolution
I believe it was man-made, but I do not believe it was a malfunctioned missile. Your telling me a missile goes almost 800K in the wrong direction over a neighboring country and they don't pull the plug before it gets there?


Agreed, and if that was my country and the Russians just launched a missile across my air space I wouldn't let them get away with a "Our bad!"



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
hamptonroads.com...


Fireball not Russian rocket debris, space center says
The “Big Bang” on Sunday night now appears to have been caused by a meteor, not a leftover bit of Russian rocket.

The Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California issued a statement Tuesday morning saying it tracks more than 19,000 manmade objects in space.

“The ‘bright light’ that was reported on the East Coast on Sunday, 29 March at 9:45 p.m. EST was not a result of any trackable manmade object on reentry,” it said.

A spokesman for the center said Tuesday morning: “If it was a meteorite, we don’t track that kind of thing.”

The bright fireball, which was followed one or two minutes later by an enormous booming sound, was seen by many people between Maryland and North Carolina. Geoff Chester of the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., said on Monday he was nearly positive that it was caused by the booster of a Russian rocket falling back to Earth.

That no longer seems to be the case.


I post the above article March where Russian rocket booster caused sonic boom and fire ball when returning to earth Then NASA decided it was a meteor?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Hagbard_Celine
 

The missile did not enter any airspace but Russian.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
HAARP, IONOSPHERE,
This stuff very much parallels what Montauk and Brookhaven experiments were whatever they were.

Something tells me somehow this is also a C.E.R.N. project as well if you will notice that the collider is 1000-1400 miles south of Norway
public.web.cern.ch...
46° 14′ 3″ N, 6° 3′ 19″ E
46.234167, 6.055278

LHC beam commissioning continues, aiming towards higher intensities at 450 GeV.
Wed 09 Dec

Last night the LHC accelerated both beams to 1.18 TeV with 2 bunches per beam for the first time.
Wed 09 Dec

But is that just within the collider or is it that crazy QUANTUM PHYSICS stuff?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
fascinating:
My post is at 11:11



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Still working off the OP ideas. The sight seen and recorded if coming from Russia wouldn't only be seen by Norway it would have been see and recorded by other nations as well. The idea that an ICBM in Russian airspace was only seen by one nation doesn't make any sense at all.



new topics

top topics



 
286
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join