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
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
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
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