It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

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

page: 5
286
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:15 AM
I apologize, as I don't know if this issue has been covered already, but why did the Russians first deny responsibility then reclaim it?

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:21 AM
Also according to wikipedia on the coriolis effect:

When considering atmospheric or oceanic dynamics, the vertical velocity is small and the vertical component of the Coriolis acceleration is small compared to gravity. For such cases, only the horizontal (East and North) components matter. The restriction of the above to the horizontal plane is (setting vu=0): \boldsymbol[ v] = \begin[pmatrix] v_e \\ v_n\end[pmatrix]\ , \boldsymbol[ a]_c = \begin[pmatrix] v_n \\ -v_e\end[pmatrix]\ f\ , where f = 2 \omega \sin \varphi \, is called the Coriolis parameter. By setting vn = 0, it can be seen immediately that (for positive \varphi and \omega\,) a movement due east results in an acceleration due south. Similarly, setting ve = 0, it is seen that a movement due north results in an acceleration due east. In general, observed horizontally, looking along the direction of the movement causing the acceleration, the acceleration always is turned 90° to the right and of the same size regardless of the horizontal orientation. That is...

The Russian test was aimed east over Russia, so if it had shot it properly it would be nowhere near Norway. Infact it would have had to missfired to the south or directly west(as the effect causes the object to veer right) to place it near Norway. However this would arc it over all of scandinavia. Why only was it reported in Norways Northland(and in a very localized area at that)? Those norge', they must have eagle eyes.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:24 AM

Originally posted by astronomine
I apologize, as I don't know if this issue has been covered already, but why did the Russians first deny responsibility then reclaim it?

The russians said they fired a missile, not that there missile is the thing we see in that vid over norway.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:27 AM

Originally posted by astronomine
I apologize, as I don't know if this issue has been covered already, but why did the Russians first deny responsibility then reclaim it?

Ahh but Russia hasn't claimed it.
The first report coming in were from a Norwegian (military?) source, which said that the sky show was "most likely" from a Russian missile test.
The next report was from the Russian embassy in Norway, which denied responsibility.
The next report was Russia saying that yes, they had a failed missile launch in the white sea at around the same time.
At no point has Russia claimed responsibility for the spiral (as much as the press would have you believe).

The press would have you believe that since the missile test was announced to be at around the same time, then the spiral is related to the test.

The rub is that the exact same correlation can be applied to the EISCAT facility.

[edit on 14/12/09 by GobbledokTChipeater]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:30 AM

I admit I made an error saying the top of the second stage was at the top of the white plume. I confused that with the START of stage two. However I believe stage one is higher than 40 kms.. but I will double check my source later, I am busy now. Also... the launch was east of Norway, Earth rotates East. The would put Norway almost directly behind the missile if it was launched to the destination the OP originaly pointed to. I will answer other questions later when I get back.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:33 AM

Good work. There are so many holes in the explanation of this thing that its not hard to pick it apart.. One thing's certain: we're never going to get to the bottom of it by believing the bullsh*t missile failure story which we have been "sold"..

But I'm sure Phage will be along any moment now to tell your wrong because:

A) Your angles aren't oblique enough
B) Your otherwise just wrong because hes always right
*link to CNN article which is vague at best*

And his post will be starred 1200 times

..

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:42 AM
star and flagged. Great work,its all ways nice to see some one take the time to go the extra mile. Super job on doing the math and calculations,we need more members like you.

Oh by the way the fire coming out the ass end of a rocket doesn't stop after 1st stage or stop at all before reaching its intended height. So to the debunkers who say its a missle were the hell is the flame from said missle.

[edit on 12/14/2009 by dirtydog]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:49 AM
Here is a pick of a launch taken less than 200miles from Edward AFB

No way you can see this from 500 miles away...infact, I can't find any photos of a launch from that distance.

AllIsOne,
According to your own link to wikipedia on the coriolis effect, a shot due east would veer south, the earth would not "overtake it" as you are now suggesting...do you read your own links?

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:58 AM
The way I see it, we have 2 choices here IF it was in fact a failed Russian missile responsible for the spiral effect ...

1. We're told that the 1st & 2nd stages performed nominally (each burned for approx. 60 seconds) but it was the performance of the 3rd stage that malfunctioned.
If the 1st & 2nd stages performed as expected, then the missile would be expected to have achieved approx. 2/3rds of it's apogee of 1000 kms which would put it around 500 - 600 kms altitude and possibly a few hundred klicks further east of the White Sea launch area ... in other words, a few hundred klicks FURTHER AWAY from Norway.
If it then failed at 3rd stage ignition, then it would have either been terminated or come down somewhere in Russia.
So, nowhere near Norway.

2. If the 1st & 2nd stages performed nominally but for some reason there was at that point a guidance failure, then it could possibly have headed in the direction of Norway.
The question here is once more, why was it allowed to continue a 1st & 2nd stage burn to completion whilst headed in the WRONG WAY ?

But lets for the sake of argument assume that for whatever reason, it was allowed to continue.

Now, we can ask ourselves, when the spiral effect appeared over Norway (presumably due to the missile malfunction), at what altitude (height) could we assume the spiral to have been created at ? This altitude (height) would presumably be the maximum altitude the faulty missile achieved over Norwegian territory.

Thankfully, there's a very simple mathematical technique that we can apply to give us a quick and nasty estimate of the missile/spiral altitude. We can estimate this altitude indirectly by attempting to make a reasonable guess as to the width/diameter of the spiral.

Here's a cartoon that hopefully will make this procedure a little clearer for those ATS'ers not of a mathematical persuasion

What this cartoon is basically saying is that if we can estimate the angle between one side of the spiral and the other side AND if we can estimate the altitude (distance) from the observer to the spiral THEN we can roughly estimate the width/diameter of the spiral.

If we obtain widths/diameters that are obviously ridiculous to have achieved, then we can assume that the altitude we assumed is incorrect.

So in the following table, I've started off with a base assumption that the missile did in fact reach an altitude of 500kms ... I also assumed that the visual size of the spiral (as seen by an observer on the ground) was approximately the size of a double moon which gives us a working angle of 1 degree (a normal full moon has an angular value of approx 0.5 degrees).
I believe these base assumptions to be reasonable ones to use to get a "feel" for how high the spiral MAY have been in the sky when it appeared over Norway.

I've started the table of at an altitude of 500 kms ... and then worked my way down to an altitude of 1 km. At each change of altitude, I've recalculated the approximate width (in kilometres) of the spiral.

Ok, lets take a look at the table results and see what we get ...

From the above table, we can see that if the missile failed at an altitude of 500kms, then the PHYSICAL diameter of the spiral to be seen the way it was, had to be in excess of 700 kms ... obviously a spinning missile ejecting fuel (or whatever) is NOT possibly going to create a spiral thats 700+ kms wide !!!!! ... so scratch 500 kms as a possible altitude.

Ok, lets drop down to 400 kms altitude ... still no good as the spiral diameter is still massive at 600+ kms width !

In fact, every altitude all the way down to 5 kms results in a spiral with a physical diameter that couldn't possibly be created in the few minutes that it was being observed from the ground.

The ONLY altitude that gives ANY kind of realistic size is an altitude thats less than 5 kms !!!

But this would mean that the defective Russian missile was flying through Norwegian airspace almost at ground level ... and NOBODY noticed ???????

So how much more debunking do I need to do regarding the "missile excuse" ? As far as I'm concerned, the "missile excuse" is total BS and the spiral effect was mostly likely to have been created by a ground based installation/facility located within Norwegian terrirory, as I mentioned in my opening post.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:00 AM

Originally posted by dirtydog
Oh by the way the fire coming out the ass end of a rocket doesn't stop after 1st stage or stop at all before reaching its intended height. So to the debunkers who say its a missle were the hell is the flame from said missle.

[edit on 12/14/2009 by dirtydog]

I'm not actually a debunker (who you address the question to) but I'll answer anyway.

The flame from said missile is what is giving the spiral it's light

However just because I believe that it was a missile, doesn't mean I believe the rest of the story. And just because I believe it was a missile, doesn't mean I have to rule out any other theories, like EISCAT, etc.

However the rest of your post I agree with.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:02 AM

But I'm sure Phage will be along any moment now to tell your wrong because:

A) Your angles aren't oblique enough
B) Your otherwise just wrong because hes always right
*link to CNN article which is vague at best*

And his post will be starred 1200 times

Hahahahaha ... so true ... especially part (B)

One day, I too hope to aspire to such Godhood !!

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:06 AM

Originally posted by astronomine
I apologize, as I don't know if this issue has been covered already, but why did the Russians first deny responsibility then reclaim it?

Show me the official denial, please.

Btw why are you arguing over those photos? The photographer himself stated that the first picture was taken with a long shutter speed and on a tripod. Every fool can see that those photos don't show the real image of the event.

[edit on 14/12/2009 by DGFenrir]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:11 AM
This is great! First bit of opinion that I've seen with some actual math behind it! And for me, that makes it much more real.

AllisOne your points are good, but you really haven't backed them up with much hard evidence, merely just conjecture and previously established assumptions. Come back to us when you've got some testable theories!

GREAT post OP! S&F... someone needs to get this out to other sources of media!

[edit on 14-12-2009 by dwiggen]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:18 AM

Ok, but we are being told the photos/camera had large exposure, so would we not see the flame as well as the smoke? I'm not a rocket specialist but I have seen lots of rockets blast off and you can see the flames and the smoke trail when you can no longer see the rocket.

In fact if it was not for the flame you would not see the rocket at all. Will we ever really know the truth, I don't think so but I have been wrong before.Opps did I say that out loud

[edit on 12/14/2009 by dirtydog]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:18 AM
wow! Where did you get the information on the trajectory that Russia uses in it's tests? Are you on a Russian sub right now?

The original post starts with the assumption that they know the flight paths and ballistics patterns of Russian testing using nuclear subs.

I think that's a bit of a stretch from the get go.

Also, I don't see a compass on the video that tells you what direction is being faced exactly.

also, there is the assumption that the sub is launching from where the poster says it's launching.

It is highly unlikely that the OP has access to any of the information he is using to support his idea in short.

Why are people desperately clinging to this story is the greater question.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:22 AM
I posted this last week that the PYRAMID in Russia was a distraction devic to pull people away from the NORWAY incident, also those who DISRESPECTED THE usage of pyramid INTLLIGENCE gained MAJOR NEGATIVE KARMA. This struc. engineer where I work seen the spiral & was very interested and seemed uneasy. The engineer came in the next day after the media began to cover it and said the news finally said it was a Russian rocket test that went bad. The crazy thing is this engineer said that they were HAPPY that it was a rocket test EVEN IF IT WASNT. They said they were happy either way that somebody owned up to it EVEN IF IT DIDNT LOOK LIKE 1. This just proves that SOME people dont or are not ready for THE NEXT PHASE, and many of us are.

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:23 AM

Im not suggesting what you are saying. I was making suggestions based on the OPs google earth image of the direction of the missile. He shows the intended target is mostly north of northeast... not directly east like you claim. So dont put words in my mouth. Like i said earth rotates east, and the OPs google earth image doesnt account for it. i am not sure of the exact direction the missile was shot but if it was shot directly east the earths rotation wouldnt effect it however it would still put norway in the perfect position to view the back end of the missile to view the spiral. The OP claims the missile is shot more north but went off course 90 degrees to the west.

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

[edit on 14-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:26 AM

a normal full moon has an angular value of approx 0.5 degrees

Normal Moon distance: 390000km
Moon diameter: 3474km
Why not simply divide these numbers by 1000?
That would make Moon's distance: 390km
Moon diameter: 3,474km
Now multiply that by 2 or 3 and you should get the spirals diameter.
Am I correct?
What do you think?

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:27 AM

In regards to a possible explanation pertaining to the perfection of the spiral (in the images taken from the long shutter speed), the time it took to get the picture was too short and at the opportune time for the trail to disperse.

Looking at the actual videos and the ones of the old Russian failed missile, they struck me as being the closest match, even down to the expanding "black hole".

Makes you wonder if we saw pictures of the old one with a similar shutter speed, under the same circumstances, would we see the same thing?

Regardless, thanks for the thread! Wish I could have seen it myself.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by astronomine]

[edit on 14-12-2009 by astronomine]

[edit on 14-12-2009 by astronomine]

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:34 AM

Originally posted by djusdjus
also, there is the assumption that the sub is launching from where the poster says it's launching.

No, Russia's official statement (as reported by the press), states that their missile tests were being launched from a submarine in the white sea...

Where have you been?!

new topics

286