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: 20
286
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by songthrush
 

It was a missile.

But dispersing chemical or biological agents outside of the atmosphere wouldn't make much sense.




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus

Why would Norway take the heat for the Russians unless they were working on this in tandem?

Perhaps the Bulova launch was just a distraction.

Sounding rockets are highly mobile and could have been the source of what we see with a high frequency wave directed at it.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I have not read all the posts since my last.

So I am not sure if these questions have been raised.


But if russia, had a failed rocket launch what was it it that made it fail, and how can they explain the event horizon over Norway?

Yawn I am no master in science especially purpulsion, I am more into the ways of the world, yet I am concerned on how the spiral was perfect.. When an artist was asked back in the renaissance to make something perfect he drew a PERFECT circle. This perfect spiral was made via a purpolsion device as uncanny as chaos..

The problem that will remain, is the lack of facts...

Facts.. We have explainations without explaination..



Until I see facts.. Well you know what I think..

Yet hey life is great and its almost Xmas.. This again is not that important...

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Bicent76]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by songthrush
 

It was a missile.

But dispersing chemical or biological agents outside of the atmosphere wouldn't make much sense.


No it wouldn't make much sense... because wouldn't the sun just boil the chemicals and or the UV radiation kill all the biological agents before anything happened? I believe so.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Hmmm, there are several flaws in this theory, tauristercus.



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 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.


If it had happened at a very low altitude, it would not have been visible over the vast Norwegian areas that it was. Reports of sightings came in from Trøndelag, Nordland, Troms and Finnmark counties, in essence the entire northern half of Norway. For example, there are places in Sweden closer to Tromsø than some of the other Norwegian sites where it was observed. The explanation for why it was not observed in Sweden or Finland can't be low altitude.

Without really checking into this, my guess would be... weather?? Easternly winds tend to produce more clouds in the east (Sweden/Finland) and as those clouds drop their precipitation, the skies are clear in Norway. The opposite effect happens on westernly winds, when Norway gets grey weather. I haven't checked how the weather was in northern parts of Sweden and Finland on that day, but it might be an explanation.

Another possible explanation is that, as Sweden and Finland are farther east and this happened at 08:00 in the morning, Norwegian time (Sweden is also at CET while Finland is one timezone to the east), the sun might have been closer to the horizon in these areas and the phenomenon might not have been as visible.

In Norway, conditions were perfect. Clear skies, the sun well below the horizon, while the phenomenon happened high enough to be illuminated by the sun, producing a bright against a dark sky. Further east, the sky would not have been that dark.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by rfoshaug]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

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 kms.

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.


It was visible over a very large geographical area in Norway itself, which indicates that it actually DID happen at high altitude. Also, the fact that the spiral effect could spread out undisturbed indicates that the phenomenon happened outside our atmosphere, which reaches up to about 100 km altitude.

The missile did not have to veer of course on the first two stages to be visible, because of the high altitude.



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 ?


The Bulava never did enter the air space of any of these countries. The point you bring up about not raising a political #-storm indicates exactly this. If a Russian ballistic missile with nuclear-carrying capability had entered Norwegian (NATO) airspace, there would have been political hell to pay! And this also explains why the missile was allowed to continue. 1st and 2nd stage were normal. It was not deviating. Then the 3rd stage started to spin. Why wasn't it detonated then? Either because it didn't pose any risk to populated areas or other nations' airspace and controllers wished to gather as much data as possible, or maybe the destruct signal didn't reach the spinning rocket's antenna (similar in the way the Shuttle rolls to heads up attitude to allow communications via satellite during launch).

[edit on 17-12-2009 by rfoshaug]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

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 height.

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!


What is so incredible with a missile creating a 40 km high plume?? Airliners operate at 10-12 km. Concordes flew at 20km. Shouldn't a ballistic missile be able to pass through 40 km during first or second stage?

I'm not sure how you arrive at a width of 10 kilometers, as we obviously don't see the ENTIRE plume all the way down to the surface where it was launched (look at your own illustration - the earth's curvature means we only see the top few kilometers). If the plume extends to 50 kilometers altitude (i'd say probably more), we don't see all those 50 kilometers from Tromsø, only the top of it.

On the other hand, a 10 km plume width is not that incredible either. The part of the plume we see in the photos are in the upper atmosphere. Winds have smudged them out, and the low atmospheric presssure means that the plume spreads much much more when leaving the nozzle than it would at lower altitudes.



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.


I do not agree, but let's have a look at the explanation you provide.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by rfoshaug]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   

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 sense ?

The images from Tromso show the "exhaust plume" clearly as extending skywards from behind a range of hills. The width and clearly visible details of the plume give all appearances of the originating cause being reasonably close by ... and not originating 800 kms away. other images also show the spiral being linked to the "exhaust plume" by way of a blue glowing region.


How do you know if the "clearly visible detail" is small and close by or larger features that are far away?

The blue glow is strange indeed. It seems obvious that the Bulava expels matter in two directions - one along the path of flight (blue) and one perpendicular to this (white). The white one shows the rotation of the vehicle better, but also the blue one does spiral. Why does the Bulava expel matter in two directions and not just one nozzle? Either a malfunction with leaking propellant (it was a failed launch after all) or a stuck maneuvering thruster. According to the Bulava data sheet in your post (thanks for providing all the evidence against your claims by the way), the 3rd stage uses liquid propellant. Maybe the blue trail is exaust from the nozzle and the white is unignited propellant leaking out the side (and turning into frozen particles) of a spin stabilized missile? Maybe this is also why it wasn't terminated - because it was flying controlled as designed, but leaking propellant, causing an early engine shutdown?


Ok, lets return to that so-called "exhaust plume" visible on the horizon and rework a few simple calculations.

If we make the reasonable assumption (based on visible structure and details of the exhaust) that in fact, the origin of the exhaust is approximately at a distance commensurate with the horizon (or perhaps just over), then the horizon calculations give us a distance from Tromso to the exhaust plume location of approximately 5 - 15 kms.


When the numbers you now plug into your calculations are wrong, the result is wrong. If it had been at a distance from Tromsø of only 15 kilometers, people in Alta, Lødingen, airliners arriving at Bodø etc. would not have seen it.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Therefore, the origin of the exhaust and blue beam effect apparently is somewhere between the low hills and the easterly horizon.

Now, keeping the above images and the direction of sunrise, in mind ...

This image shows the view from Tronso Havn on the morning of 9 December at approx. 7:50 am. It is oriented to match the direction of sunrise as in the previous 2 images.

Note the 2 points indicated as (A) and (B).


The next image is the same as the image above but in daylight and at higher altitude. It shows Tronso and Tronso Havn.

Location (A) is on the waters edge as in the 2 actual photosshown just above.

This image shows what the mysterious location (B) represents ... no other than the (in)famous EISCAT system located at Ramfjordmoen (near Tromso) which functions as an ionospheric heater facility... similar to HAARP.


I do not know where points A and B came from in the first place. You show two images of the spiral. Then a computer generated image with points A and B. Don't really get it, sorry.


So what we're seeing in the following photo is NOT an atmospheric effect created by a malfunctioning Russian ballistic missile but rather an atmospheric effect that I believe to originate with EISCAT.

In other words, Russia was NOT responsible for the spiral effect ... the responsible party was actually NORWAY !!!


Why would Russia take the blame (and serious amounts of humiliation at the cost of the already plagued Bulava project) if it was a Norwegian radar that did it??? Why, oh why? Is this very likely?


So in summary, I hope that i have put forward a reasonable case to show that the prevalent Russian failed missile scenario could NOT possibly have generated the observed spiral effect. I have shown that the alleged exhaust plume attributed to the missile launch could NOT possibly be seen 800 kms away in Tromso, Norway. I have shown that the spiral effect was in all actuality a very low altitude atmospheric phenomenon and attributing it to a malfunctioning missile
crossing Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian airspace is extremely implausible.


You are right, it is extremely implausible that it would enter Norwegian, Finnish, or Swedish airspace. Because it didn't. It was much much higher up than you claim.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   

I have shown that the exhaust plume rather than being located 800kms distant, was most likely less than 20 kms from the majority of the reported
sighting.

I have shown that an alternative, and more likely, candidate is in fact the EISCAT ionospheric facility located approximately 15kms from the photos taken at Tromso Havn and fits in extremely well with the visual evidence. <

This would also explain the uncharacteristic silence from the Norwegian government regarding the encroachment of their sovereign territory and airspace by a malfunctioning Russian missile.

Except for one detail, everything seems to fall into place reasonably well as an explanation of how the events of 9 December transpired.

The one remaining detail that is unclear is why the Russian government would accept blame and take responsibility for the spiral effect that they couldn't possibly have caused ... but irrespective, I'm sure that there IS a reason !!


Good that you do acknowledge this fault in your theory. :-) However, it is only one of many. It is good that people question the official explanations, one shouldn't accept something just because your government says it is so. But one should not refuse to accept something just because your government says it is so either.

In this case, I believe the missile theory is the most likely one.

I sadly didn't get to see the phenomenon myself as I was getting the swine flu vaccine that morning (go ahead with new conspiracy theories on that one and how I'm now an always loyal zombie to my government because of it!). But the moment I saw the first videos of the event, I had no doubt that it was in fact a man-made space launch vehicle that created it.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by rfoshaug
 


Hello, did you sign up specifically to talk about this subject?

A lot of people did, apparently.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Question.

I think we concluded that the spiral was 5-10 km in diameter.

How can a spinning 12 meter rocket create a 5-10 km spiral?

Because of the expansion of gasses/fuel some said.

So this stuff expands to 5-10 km in a very short period.

But the outer rings are visible from the start and even till the "black hole" is fading out.

Some said the black hole effect was created from the last dissapating leakage, making an outward flying ring.

Why are the outer rings visible during the whole event, while the black hole ring dissappears in 2-3 seconds, if they are made of the same "leaking" stuff.

I hope that made sense, cause it doesn't make sense.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 



Originally posted by Point of No Return
Question.

I think we concluded that the spiral was 5-10 km in diameter.

How can a spinning 12 meter rocket create a 5-10 km spiral?



Point of No Return, answer this.

Pretend you are 12 meters tall, and you are floating in space, and you have a baseball in your hand. Now pretend that you throw the baseball away from you at roughly the same speed that particles come out of a rocket. Do you think the ball would travel 5 km away from you in a short period of time?

That is basically what happen, but the particles are much smaller than a baseball. The particles from the missile were ejected 5 km away, in a circle.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
Because of the expansion of gasses/fuel some said.

So this stuff expands to 5-10 km in a very short period.


The "stuff" TRAVELED 5-10 km radially. Expand is not the correct word unless you are talking about the entire whole of spiral.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
But the outer rings are visible from the start and even till the "black hole" is fading out.


The outer rings are the original particles. The "black hole" didn't "fade out", the particles just TRAVELED from the center outwards. The edge of the "black hole" is the last particles that were ejected outward, and they are traveling outward with nothing behind them. Hence why it is empty sky and black.


Originally posted by Point of No Return
Some said the black hole effect was created from the last dissapating leakage, making an outward flying ring.


Yes the "stuff" is traveling outward, and there is nothing behind them. It's a clear sky behind them...


Originally posted by Point of No Return
Why are the outer rings visible during the whole event, while the black hole ring dissappears in 2-3 seconds, if they are made of the same "leaking" stuff.


The outer rings of the spiral is the "stuff" that leaked first. The outer edge of the "black hole" is the "stuff" that leaked last. They are all traveling outward from the center. It's like a train... the edge of the black hole is the back of the train that is traveling away from the center.

I don't know how else to word that. It doesn't get more simple.

By the way, the missile is 12 meters when all 3 stages are together. However, stage 1 and 2 are lost during flight making stage 3 much smaller than 12 meters.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 





The outer rings are the original particles. The "black hole" didn't "fade out", the particles just TRAVELED from the center outwards. The edge of the "black hole" is the last particles that were ejected outward, and they are traveling outward with nothing behind them. Hence why it is empty sky and black.


That still doesn't explain why the particles of the outer rings were visible the whole time, while the particles of the last outward travelling ring were only visible for 2 seconds.

Also, it wouldn't have looked like a connected ring expanding, it should've looked like a circle was being drawn in the sky.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Watch this. It explains everything.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Oh please, not again. It's just speculation, a simulation made to mimic the event.

And it didn't answer my last questions.



[edit on 17-12-2009 by Point of No Return]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I write this with hopes, most important of these is that YOU, our brothers and sisters in life throughout this universe are listening.
We have lost our way as stewards of this planet and are in peril of destroying ourselves without a unifying direction. Knowledge that we, the creatures of this planet, that which we call Earth, are not alone in the cosmos but are one of countless trillions would in my opinion help us unite as a planet of advanced life and very possibly save us from ourselves so to speak.
What makes me believe that this “call for help” is so important is that I believe that we are beyond helping ourselves without unified guidance from those that have already overcome such an immense problem.
Human society over the span of our existence has been slowly, almost undetectably altered. It has been degraded by itself, bit by bit until we find ourselves in great peril of extinction.
I can only hope that the other species of this beautiful universe can still see the beauty in us and will come to our aid in our time of ultimate need.
If for some unknown reason YOU cannot come to our aid, I beg YOU, at least let us know that there is life out there somewhere to continue on with whatever the creator of the cosmos has created life to do.
We are not represented by our respective governments as they seem to attract the worst in our species so do not come to us through them if at all possible.
We have strayed off THE PATH. Help us return.

I hope that all of my fellow believers will do as I do in your own words just in case THEY are listening as I believe so that they know that we are not as hopeless as our respective governments portray us to be. We may be mankind's last hope.

Godspeed,
Richard Dean Purcell

These are the coordinates to my home. Know that my home will always be a place of refuge for all of my brothers and sisters in life throughout the universe even from those of my own kind that wish you ill will. Know also that I will defend you as one of my own to the death if need be. This I swear.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


Your last question, which is based on pure abject speculation that flies in the face of physics?

Brilliant. Your speculation is perfectly OK, but the speculation of other people, including scientists and experts, is somehow not.

The arrogance is strong in this one!



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


That still doesn't explain why the particles of the outer rings were visible the whole time, while the particles of the last outward travelling ring were only visible for 2 seconds.


What are you talking about? The last outward travelling rings don't disappear in 2 seconds they just move outward more. It is the outer rings that disappear first, not the inner.

You don't even have a solid grasp of what happened in the videos....


Originally posted by Point of No Return
Also, it wouldn't have looked like a connected ring expanding, it should've looked like a circle was being drawn in the sky.


No it wouldn't. The missile wasn't spinning fast enough to make a complete circle before the particles flew away. That is why it made a spiral. By the time the missile made one revolution the particles had already flown away, so the ends of the circle didn't connect together. Plus it isn't 2D it's 3D like a spring or corkscrew so the ends don't connect together on two dimensions.

The simulation the other member posted explains everything I am saying only with images.... I think you should stop ignoring it... it's all based on physics. It's not just an animation made to look like it, it is a simulation.

It answers every single one of your questions. However some of your questions are about incorrect statements so they can't be answered because they are not true. The last outward travelling ring was NOT only visible for 2 seconds, it was visible longer. It just traveled outward until it spread thin and we couldn't see it.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Thank you. It's good to know there are rational folks on this board in between the woo-woo fanatics.



new topics

top topics



 
286
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join