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

page: 3
286
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


didn't they say there was a 2nd almost identical event near russia?




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Hello. First post here! I agree with your assessment that the Russians did not cause the light spiral. I think it is important to note that Russian Defence Ministry at first DID NOT link the Blue Light Spiral to the missile test according to Russia Today.

link

The main reasons for the Russians to "except blame" for the incident is because 1. they were doing something they weren't supposed to or 2. they have their own HAARP weapon and would like to study the effects and success of the Norwegians'. I don't think they want to make a scene untill they know more about what happened themselves.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
You dont even find it a little odd this would happen right before the president was to accept a prize for peace basically right under were it happened. Have you ever seen anything like this before? and if your answer is no then add the president factor into it and you get, come on work with me here. Its like playing poker with my sisters kids or something.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by nirvana4u
 


Did not link means that he did not link the two events because he maybe didn't know that the missile created the spiral?


+4 more 
posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
There are many errors in your calculations and images. Your assumptions are very wrong.

It was just a failed launch, and it has happened before. Oddly enough, people thought the last spirals were a wormhole too...
History truly repeats itself.


Originally posted by tauristercus
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 kms distant.
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.

...

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.


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.

The "spiral" was only really visible in Norway because of their position and perspective of the back end of the missile (it was a unique perspective). However other places could see the missile launch, they didn't see it as a "spiral" because they saw it from the side. It's like a corkscrew, from the back end a corkscrew looks like a circle, but from the side it looks like an up and down wave.

So to other places there was no "spiral", just another missile launch trail. The spiral was unique to only places parallel with the back end of the missile.



Originally posted by tauristercus
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.


I am not sure how accurate that statement of 500 kms in 2nd stage is, but lets work with that... I will use that later. *


Originally posted by tauristercus
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 ...


You only arrived at this idea above because you immediately assumed there was a deviation after failing to include Earths rotation into your calculations. The missile didn't fail until Stage 3. So your assumptions caused your errors.


Originally posted by tauristercus
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.


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


Originally posted by tauristercus
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 !!


* If you remember earlier you said Stage 2 reaches a height of 500 kms.... now you state that the plume would have to be only 40 kms to be visible in those pictures. So I don't really see any problem with that?

The white plume trail below the blue cloud is all 1st and 2nd stages. So you can assume that the top of the plume is near 500 kms. That makes it perfectly high enough to be visible from Norway.


Originally posted by tauristercus
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 !!!!


Plumes expand. Not only because of the pressure of the exhaust, but because it heats the surrounding air, and it creates turbulence... The plume from a missile could expand to many times the size of the missile.

Just look at the shuttle, it's plume expands to many time more the size of the shuttle itself.

None of your calculations mean anything. If anything it supports the missile visible from Norway theory.

Also, the shuttle launch can be visible from most of the East Coast. That includes North Carolina. You should read up on that.


Originally posted by tauristercus
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.


Very wrong. Your initial assumption lead you astray, and the rest of your calculations followed your incorrect direction.

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



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by tauristercus
 


didn't they say there was a 2nd almost identical event near russia?


Actually you are quite correct and I did check that "other event" video out yesterday. It struck me that both phenomena seemed to have lots in common even though not identical.

And you've just given me a minor project to check out tomorrow ... did the 2nd event in Russia occur near one of their facilities equivalent to EISCAP/HAARP ? Would be extremely suggestive if it did !



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Outstanding work indeed.....

Extremely plausible explination if ever I have read one on here about any given subject...


S&F



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I do believe it was a rocket, but I don't believe that it was launched in the white sea by the russians.

It is clearly a rocket when you see the exhaust plume, but obviously it wasn't launched from where the official story says it was


Perhaps the rocket did work? perhaps the spiral feature is stage 3? Also, perhaps it is used in conjunction with EISCAT? For what, I have no idea.

It is possible the rockets spread something which increases EISCAT's effectiveness? (or some other uses together).

Anyway, in summary, I agree it was a rocket. The rest of the official story smells fishy, though.




Originally posted by ALLis0NE
If you remember earlier you said Stage 2 reaches a height of 500 kms.... now you state that the plume would have to be only 40 kms to be visible in those pictures. So I don't really see any problem with that?

The white plume trail below the blue cloud is all 1st and 2nd stages. So you can assume that the top of the plume is near 500 kms. That makes it perfectly high enough to be visible from Norway.


I'm not the OP but I will reply to you anyway.

You do realise the exhaust plume is only stage one of the rocket, right? The exhaust plume would not extend to 500 KMs. The blue in the photo is stage two. The spiral is stage 3.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
First of all great analysis! S&F

OK I agree that it didnt originate from Russia and it started in Russia, but I have the feeling that we shouldn't focus on a solitairy government. It is not Russia or Norway alone that is responsible. As far as I know Haarp is located round the pole on different continents and has nothing to do with the man made-up borders, and so, if you ask my, with the governments of the people. I hate to use this term, but could it be an experiment of the NWO?

I have to leave for a couple of hours but when I get the chance to read I will.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Great thread!

Just goes to show that the ATS resident "experts" are:

A- Not as smart as they portray themselves to be.

B-Spreading disinfo on purpose.

Great job!


It actually displays that people continue to make a conspiracy out of a non-conspiracy, because it was a rocket, and well known examples of likewise phenomena have in fact been presented in another video, as well as through a computer run simulation.

There is no "BEAM" to begin with, because no energy pulse follows the pattern of a contrail (A tight corkscrew around its own trajectory). "BEAMS" produce either a lighted trail, or a pulse of "Fire" which travels along an invisible guidance laser (These are called "Pulse Weapons").

I give credit to the OP regardless, because he gave an EXTREMELY nice and noteworthy presentation. However, this event was an SLBM, and everything about it follows the characteristics of such.


For your viewing and reading pleasure, allow me to show you some exhibits:

Exhibit A: The same phenomenon occurred in China in 1988, and it clearly shows beforehand an ICBM failing immediately after a Stage Separation:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Exhibit B: Various Rocket/Missile "Anomalies" (Stage Separations, Fuel Dumps, Contrails, and even an Upper Atmospheric Barium Magnetosphere Experiment Release):
www.abovetopsecret.com...


What most people fail to realize is that Rockets are inherently tricky to operate, and they in fact require an extreme amount of effort in order to control. All it takes is one Flame-out, or one Individual Rocket (Main Propulsion, Thruster, Exhaust Venting, etc.) not firing within a fraction of a second of its pre-determined sequence, and you will witness a TOTAL and complete failure.

Exhibit C: This would also not be the first time that such a missile went erratically off-course:


This new-generation missile system, approved at the highest level, veered off course one minute after liftoff on September 7, 2006 and fell into the White Sea. A special governmental commission concluded that the cause of the failure was a malfunctioning control system. Then, on 25 October 2006, another R-30 missile deviated from a preset trajectory and self-destructed. On 24 December 2006, the Bulava missile once again demonstrated its erratic behavior, dropping into arctic waters shortly after launch.


In other words, this SLBM has a tendency to do just about everything BUT follow its pre-determined course and subsequent target.


Exhibit D: On top of all of that, here is a NOTAM Bulletin which was published prior to this event:



ZCZC FA79
031230 UTC DEC 09
COASTAL WARNING ARKHANGELSK 94
SOUTHERN PART WHITE SEA
1.ROCKET LAUNCHING 2300 07 DEC TO 0600 08 DEC
09 DC 0200 TO 0900 10 DEC 0100 TO 0900
NAVIGATION PROHIBITED IN AREA
65-12.6N 036-37.0E 65-37.2N 036-26.0E
66-12.3N 037-19.0E 66-04.0N 037-47.0E
66-03.0N 038-38.0E 66-06.5N 038-55.0E
65-11.0N 037-28.0E 65-12.1N 036-49.5E
THEN COASTAL LINE 65-12.2N 036-47.6E
2. CANCEL THIS MESSAGE 101000 DEC=
NNNN




Exhibit E: Here is a video of a known Topol launch (AN older, land-based brethren to the Bulava), and notice it begin to spiral in the exact same pattern (After a failure):

ufa.kp.ru...

[edit on 12-14-2009 by TheAgentNineteen]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Your are BRILLIANT!!! I knew your mathematical skills, critical mind, and your keen liking of all things weird and mysterious, would produce great threads here on ATS...I don't have much to add but wanted to thank you for this thread.

Very excellent work.

[edit on 14/12/09 by CHA0S]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


You might have a really valid point opposite of the OP but you aren't really expressing your opinions effectively.

I'm no expert on the subject, but even with the Earth's rotation, all of the Scandinavian countries would have seen the spiral due to the distance from the launch.

Only places that would have seen a wave pattern would be countries directly south and north of the trajectory.

I'm not saying it was a wormhole missile, but there is something we're not being told. Your reply is lacking the visual evidence that the OP has.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus




I also wanted to add, do NOT trust those images above. They were both taken with the same camera, and they used a slower shutter speed. They are brighter than normal, and show more light than is actually there because they were exposed to more light.

This picture was taken by the same person:

You can see on the bottom right that they had a longer exposure time (slow shutter speed) which caused the lights to get really bright and blurry. This makes the rest of the images look really exaggerated. The entire event was exaggerated by that photographer.

This is what it really looked like without the slow shutter speed:


The above is a screen shot from a video camera of the event.

As you can see the blue part is not nearly as bright because it wasn't exposed as long as the other images. Also, the spiral has a shorter life. The spiral was not as big as made to look by the other photographer.

The above image matches more closely to the OTHER spiral effects that happened in Russia and China.

Video:

(click to open player in new window)


Compare that video to this one in Russian in 2006:


At the beginning of the above video you see a common missile. This is the same thing filmed right before the spiral in 2009. That is because they are both missiles.

Then you see a short spiral. The only difference between the 2009 and 2006 spiral is that the 2009 spiral has 2 trails, and the 2006 has 1. This causes the 2009 one to look bigger and more spectacular. However, they are still both failed missile launches.

Here is the China one:


As you can see, at the end of the above video, all of them have similar appearances. Different angles of the China spiral shows a corkscrew path... All of the spirals were created by a missile following a corkscrew path, but the centrifugal forces caused the white trails to fling outward, and appear to expand.

All of the spirals, China, Russia 2006, and Norway 2009, all have similar aspects.... missile tests were scheduled on the same days. All of them were confirmed missiles that failed.

What you should be worried about is WHY are multiple people pushing the idea that it is a worehole? They have never seen a worehole, yet they think it is one.

They also push that it is a UFO... that is the real disinfo. It's easy to say that any information related to abnormal things in the sky could be disinfo, so anyone saying it is a missile is a disinfo. agent. But this is one of those cases where it is truly obvious that it is a missile, yet people are pushing that it is not. It's obvious disinfo. in this case, and it is very telling.

To link this to HAARP like technology is a stretch beyond stretches... HAARP is really a mundane tech.

It's just a failed missile which flew in a corkscrew path while flinging out a plume which expanded to create a neat spiral. Ive seen fireworks that do this on the 4th Of July.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
S&F

I initially thought this was to do with a HAARP site located in the area,but after reading about the missile believed it to be that,interesting maybe it is something interesting!



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyjohen
You might have a really valid point opposite of the OP but you aren't really expressing your opinions effectively.

I'm no expert on the subject, but even with the Earth's rotation, all of the Scandinavian countries would have seen the spiral due to the distance from the launch.

Only places that would have seen a wave pattern would be countries directly south and north of the trajectory.

I'm not saying it was a wormhole missile, but there is something we're not being told. Your reply is lacking the visual evidence that the OP has.


You are also making the same assumptions the OP did. Saying that only Norway saw the spiral is an assumption.... Saying that no other Scandinavian countries seen it is an assumption.

I suggest the OP and yourself read more about the Coriolis effect, in order to understand it visually. Then look at the OP's original flight path for the missile and see how the Coriolis effect would alter the actual path of the missile.

I don't have time to make neat images right now... but Wikipedia has some good images and information. Just google the Coriolis effect, and you will see more.

Here is another link:
geography.about.com...


The Coriolis effect (also called the Coriolis force) is defined as the apparent deflection of objects (such as airplanes, wind, missiles, and ocean currents) moving in a straight path relative to the earth's surface.


Here is a good picture showing intended path versus actual path of an object:


I believe the OP forgot to calculate for the Coriolis Effect making all of his assumptions incorrect.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
I agree with ALLinONE's points,because it was not seen from sweden or norway does not mean it couldn't have been seen.would be interesting to see what the new results show with earth rotation taken into account



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Thanks ALLisONE


Like I say, personally I remain on the fence, with a leg and three quarters over in the missile camp, so far the avilable evidence hangs well in favour of this explanation and even the russians admitting to it, so i'm inclined to favour this.
But the other quarter of leg is on the other side, purely because I want to leave myself open to other well thought out explanations offered up, and if i'm honest i'd love it not to be a missile
but like i've said before i'm not gonna lie to myself, just because I want it to be something way out there, does'nt mean it is.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Great! S&F!


You have put with all the "tesseras" of the mosaic and what it comes outside is that it is not a failed test of a russian missile!

"SOMETHING ELSE"...... BUT NOT A ROCKET!


@
Phage and his/her groupies whit their "haywire rocket" theory: You must be far away also from fireworks the next christmas!!



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I realy wish people would quote reasons why a photograph is lighter, darker, more blurred with just a hint of knowledge. Your explanation of the photographs is wrong. Full stop, wrong.

I have explained this in the other threads yet posters continue to use the photograph information to shore up their own views...so yet again I will explain, in laymans terms how the photographs were taken.

1. The exposure on both photograph 1 and 2 is almost identical, the reason the sky is blurred is due to the fact that photograph 1 was focussed to infinity wheres photograph 2 was not, had a larger depth of field due to not only getting closer to the subject but also zooming in.

2, The point raised about more and lighter detail in photographs has more than the one explanation that only fits the debunkers theory. I will explain........

I want to take a photograp that contains high contrast white and low contrast black, what do I do.?

I can meter for the light or dark are and use exposure compensation to enhance the opposite area to bring out details while not increasing the contrast on the metered area.

3. What are the causes of blurred photographs? photographer movement, subject movement, fast shutter speed with low Iso and more importantly the chosen F Stop to get the chosen depth of field.

4. The frame and video from the video footage is the footage that is wrong not the still photographs. Video cameras can not cope with exposure compensation highs or lows. How many times have you seen a piece of film go from a light to dark area and completely change its optimum exposure settings resulting in a second of iether black or white footage.

As I mentioned earlier I still have my doubts about missile or not, but have no doubts and the qualifications and experience to be sure about anything to do with the photographs.

Respects

[edit on 14-12-2009 by captiva]

[edit on 14-12-2009 by captiva]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by captiva
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I realy wish people would quote reasons why a photograph is lighter, darker, more blurred with just a hint of knowledge. Your explanation of the photographs is wrong. Full stop, wrong.


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. So you picked the wrong person to try to debunk.

The only person that is wrong here is YOU.


Originally posted by captiva
1. The exposure on both photograph 1 and 2 is almost identical, the reason the sky is blurred is due to the fact that photograph 1 was focussed to infinity wheres photograph 2 was not, had a larger depth of field due to not only getting closer to the subject but also zooming in.


I mentioned NOTHING about the blur of the image. Actually I only mentioned the slower shutter speed which captured more light, making the entire object brighter than it actually is.

The blue "glow" was NOT that bright. The slower shutter speed made it that bright because of the films longer exposure to it. You can see much more white of the spiral because of the longer exposure. The edge of spiral was NOT that bright in reality. It was made brighter and bigger because of the longer exposure time.

If it wasn't already obvious that the shutter was slow based on the extremely bright ground. I will prove it like this...

See this image?


The image on the left shows ONE tail on the spiral. The image from the video on the right shows TWO tails on the spiral. The reason the image on the left has ONE is because it was such a long exposure (slow shutter) that it blended the other spiral into it making it appear as one. The reason the image on the left shows TWO is because that is how it REALLY looked with a short shutter speed that video cameras have.

So YOU have been DEBUNKED. The image on the left has a slower shutter speed making the blue brighter, and the white spiral larger, and a single ring, instead of two rings.



Now that we know the large spiral image has a longer exposure time, we can compare it to the other image.... I can see both the circled lights have about the same brightness and halo size that they are both taken with the same slow shutter speed.



In the above image, you would have to be a complete noob to photography to not see that the exposure time was long (slow shutter speed). You can even compare it to other known pictures with slow shutter speeds. You notice the color similarities? This is because slow shutter speeds increase "color temperature" of all lights. This make most lights look similar... very bright.

You can even see the camera moved while the picture was taken by noticing the trails...

You have been debunked.... You can NOT trust the main images being passed around on the net because they are NOT showing reality, they are showing long exposures of the event. Everything is brighter in the image because the film was exposed to the light longer....



[edit on 14-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]





top topics
 
286
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join