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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.
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 !!
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 !!!!
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.
Originally posted by reject
reply to post by tauristercus
didn't they say there was a 2nd almost identical event near russia?
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.
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!
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.
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
Originally posted by tauristercus
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5187973d198e.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cae13db441b9.jpg[/atsimg]
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.
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.
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.
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.